§ 2. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can say if the colonel commanding at Lucknow is the same officer who was adjudged responsible for the overcrowding of the troop train from Karachi to Peshawar which resulted in the death of many soldiers; whether he will explain why this officer has been transferred from Simla to Lucknow at a higher rate of pay, in view of the undertaking that the Indian Government might be relied upon not to employ this officer again in a responsible position; and will he say what posts have been given to the other officers implicated in the occurrence referred to?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINOn removal from his appointment as Deputy Quartermaster-General in consequence of his share in the responsibility for the incident referred to Brigadier-General Roe reverted to his permanent rank as colonel and to the Military Works Services, for which as a Royal Engineer he is specially fitted. He has now been appointed Commanding Royal Engineer at Lucknow, not Colonel-Commanding at Lucknow, as stated in the hon. Member's question. The duties of this post are those of an engineer and consist in the building of barracks, etc., and his responsibility is of an entirely different character from that attaching to his previous staff appointment at Army Headquarters. He has lost the rank of Brigadier-General and the prestige and better prospects of his staff appointment at Army Headquarters, which are considerably greater than those accompanying the position of Commanding Royal Engineer. His pay is very considerably less than that which he drew as Acting-Quartermaster-General. I may add that there is a shortage of Engineer officers in India, and a great demand for them in Mesopotamia. It was, therefore, in the public interest that Colonel Roe's services should be utilised in this capacity, and it 1791 was for this reason that the appointment was made. I believe that neither of the other two officers who were removed from their posts at the same time as Colonel Roe is now employed.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEDid not the right hon. Gentleman inform the House that we might rest assured that the Government of India would not again place this gentleman in a position of responsibility. Does he mean to infer from his answers that this gentleman is not now in a position of responsibility?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo. My hon. Friend does not quite correctly give the sense of the answer which I gave on a recent occasion. I said that he might rely on the Government of India not placing these men in a position for which they had shown themselves unfit, and in which repetition of the same faults might lead to similar disaster. Colonel Roe is now employed in a totally different position for which I have no reason to doubt his fitness. We are short of officers who are capable of doing the work, and as I say he is appointed for reasons of public policy, and not out of compassion for him. I think that the punishment which has been administered has been sufficient for the grave error of judgment which he committed.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEWill the right hon. Gentleman refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT and see if my interpretation of his answer is not correct? Will he also endeavour to make inquiries and see in what position the other officers are placed?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI will invite my hon. Friend to refer to the answer which perhaps I have more present in my mind than he has.