§ 34. Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if General Sangster, D.S.O., commanding the Burma Division, sent an appeal, during May, 1925, to the Adjutant-General, at Simla, regarding the case of Lieutenant W. H. Chadwick; if this was placed before the Secretary of State; and, if so, what action, if any, was ordered to be taken?
§ Earl WINTERTONMr. Chadwick's appeal of May, 1925, was withheld under the rules by the Government of India because it adduced no facts that had not been contained in a previous memorial which the Secretary of State in Council had considered and rejected. I may add that the whole case has been very carefully examined, and that my Noble Friend is satisfied that there is no reason to reverse or modify the decision of the Government of India. I can send the hon. Member a copy of the memorial rules if he desires.
§ 35. Mr. MACLEANasked whether Lieutenant W. H. Chadwick asked his commanding officer at Bhamo, Upper Burma, in April, 1920, to endorse his papers with a view to securing a permanent commission in the Supply and Transport Corps; that his commanding officer endorsed his papers stating that he was a keen, intelligent, and business like officer recommended for the Supply and Transport Corps; that a week later Chadwick was handed a letter containing the statement that this officer was lacking in zeal and efficiency; whether he is aware that the major who wrote this sent in an appeal on 1st May, 1920, to the 13 general officer commanding asking permission to withdraw his statement regarding Chadwick's zeal and efficiency; and whether, in view of the conflicting statements, he will have an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of this officer?
§ Earl WINTERTONAs I stated in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on 5th February, Mr. Chadwick was not dismissed. He was a temporary officer who applied for a permanent commission. All the relevant facts, including the two reports mentioned in the question, were fully investigated by the General Officer Commanding Burma District and higher military authorities and the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Rawlinson, after giving the application his personal consideration, was unable to recommend that a permanent commission should be granted to Mr. Chadwick. There is nothing to inquire into, and my Noble Friend does not intend to take any action.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs it not the case that before this officer was discharged from the Army, he had signed on request papers for a further year's occupation with the regiment he was then with?
§ Earl WINTERTONNo; that is not really the point at issue between Lieutenant Chadwick and the military authorities. The point that is at issue is whether or not Lieutenant Chadwick is entitled to obtain a permanent commission, and it is quite clear from the Regulations that he is not. He was informed that he could not be given a permanent commission, and it is on that point that he petitioned the Secretary of State and has been writing letters, I think, to the newspapers.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs it not the case that that is not the point at issue between ex-Lieutenant Chadwick and the India Office? Is it not a fact that the point at issue is that he has been dismissed on the ground that he is lacking in zeal and efficiency, although a week before that a report was signed stating that he was a zealous and efficient officer capable of, and suitable for, a permanent commission?
§ Earl WINTERTONNo; I can assure the hon. Member, as I have already stated, that Lieutenant Chadwick was 14 not dismissed. He applied for a permanent commission, and the military authorities, in the exercise of their discretion, did not think fit to grant it. My Noble Friend is not prepared to interfere.