Skip to main content

South Kensington Museum

Volume 217: debated on Tuesday 5 August 1873

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.


asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any, and if any, what arrangements have been made to prevent the recurrence of defalcations such as occurred at South Kensington Museum two years ago?

in reply, said, that his noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) and himself, after hearing of the defalcations alluded to in the Question, lost no time in taking steps to render them impossible for the future. It would be difficult to describe those steps in detail; but the result of them was that all extra receipts were paid into the Bank of England every day, and no money was drawn out of the Bank of England for the payment of wages, except on the signature of two persons, and then it was paid at once.

Criminal Law—The Weaverham Cock-Fighting Case—Question

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the statement is correct which appeared in the Times of 29th July, that Colonel Peel of Hove, Brighton, gave a false name and address to the police when arrested at the "International Cockfight;" and, whether that officer is in any way at present under the control of the military authorities; and, if so, whether any steps have been, or are about to be taken by those authorities, touching his conduct in this affair?

Sir, the officer in question is on half-pay, and therefore not subject to the Mutiny Act. The only power which can be exercised over an officer so circumstanced is, that in a very extreme case Her Majesty can be advised to dispense with his services. In the present instance attention having been drawn to the statement in question, an inquiry has been made respecting it.

The Royal Commission On Officers Of Her Majesty's Army—Abolition Of Purchase—Question

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Commissioners about to be appointed to inquire into the grievances of the Officers of the Army will have power to examine witnesses?