§ Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the case of Lieut.-Colonel A. Pressy, of the 10th Jats; whether this officer was forced to resign out of the Army because he said 1661 there were only two microscopic cases of sedition in his regiment, and thereon differed from the opinion of the Criminal Investigation Department officials; whether any sedition has been proved against the regiment; and, if not, will he see that Colonel Pressy is reinstated in his command?
§ Mr. MONTAGULieut.-Colonel Pressy was offered by the Commander-in-Chief the option of taking leave immediately with a view to retiring voluntarily on completion of twenty-nine years' service, or of having the question of his compulsory retirement submitted for the orders of the Secretary of State. He chose the former alternative. Disciplinary action against Colonel Pressy and other officers was rendered necessary by the condition of the regiment, and was not taken, I can assure my hon. Friend, without the most careful consideration of all the circumstances of a case which the Secretary of State does not propose to reopen.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay I ask whether this colonel sacrificed £150 per year out of his pension by having to accept this compulsory retirement, and whether under the circumstances of the case the Government will consider his evidence in contra-distinction to the evidence of the head of the Criminal Investigation Department?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIt was open to the officer concerned to be dealt with by the Commander-in-Chief or to have his case submitted to the Secretary of State. He chose the former alternative and retired voluntarily. Under those circumstances no farther action can he taken.
§ Mr. O'GRADYHas the hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the particular breaches of discipline which were preferred in the charge?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI do not think it would be in the public interest to discuss the discipline of this regiment. I cannot say anything further than the answer in regard to this question of discipline further than that the unsatisfactory condition of the regiment was the matter which led us to take action.
§ Mr. O'GRADYAm Ito take it that the colonel himself was not cashiered or squeezed out of the regiment because he happened to report the two cases mentioned in the question, and that there was no sedition in the regiment?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe action which it was necessary to take against the colonel 1662 of the regiment was due to the unsatisfactory position of the regiment.
§ Mr. O'GRADYBut there was no sedition.