§ Mr. HUNTasked whether the Under-Secretary for War is aware that Captain Bryce Wilson served in the Army for nineteen years with continuously favourable reports, but that in September or October, 1906, an unfavourable confidential report was sent in by Lieutenant-Colonel Graham, D.S.O., and was not shown to Captain Bryce Wilson till 17th December, 1906, and was then undated and sent by a junior officer; whether this is against the Regulations; and whether, in view of the fact that this report by Lieutenant-Colonel Graham stated that Captain Bryce Wilson 1896 had not a good influence in the regiment, and that Major-General Scobell stated that for the sake of the 5th Lancers he hoped that Captain Bryce Wilson would never rejoin, and his patronymic was Flash Wilson, which described him aptly, and as no reasons were given, Captain Bryce Wilson was entitled, under Section 42 of the Army Act, to an inquiry; and, if so, why was it refused before he was turned out of his regiment and placed on half-pay?
§ Colonel SEELYThe reasons for the action taken in the case of Captain Bryce Wilson were fully explained by the Secretary of State for War in the Debate on Army Estimates on 27th June, 1910. To the statement then made I have nothing to add.
§ Mr. HUNTDoes not the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well the fact that the reasons given were personal reasons for getting Captain Wilson out of the regiment?
§ Colonel SEELYI think the Secretary of State's answer is adequate, and I cannot accept any reflection on the gallant officer, Colonel Graham.
§ Colonel SEELYI do not think it is wise at question time to go into a complicated case. I cannot accept the inference of the hon. Gentleman and I do not think it is at all fair.
§ Mr. HUNTAre we to understand that officers can be got rid of on the mere personal wish of one man?
§ Colonel SEELYNo, Sir; certainly not.