The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-15 00:00:00

ARMY BEFORE SEBASTOPOL GOM-

MITTEE--(THIS DAY.)

EXAMINATION OF LORD ABERDEEN AND
CONCLUSION OF THE COMMITTEE.

The committee re-assembled at the usual hour, and
proceeded to examine Lord Aberdeen.
Mr. Layard—Be kind enough to state to the committee
when the Government first made preparations on a con-
viction that war with Russia was imminent.—l should
think about three months before the actual declaration
of war preparations were made in contemplation of that
event. It had been more or less apprehended by the
Cabinet for some time, but, of course, there v. as a
difference of opinion in the Cabinet as to the probability
of its occurrence. Preparations were made in January,
three months previous to the declaration of war in the
March following. On the 9th February a large force
was sent to Malta, with a view to being forwarded to
Turkey in case of a declaration of war being made.
Then, previous to January the Government was under
the impression that hostilities would not be proceeded
with ?—On that subject there was a difference of opinion.
Perhaps I was more sanguine than any other member
of the Government, in the hopes of preserving peace.
During the previous year, had steps been taken to ob-
tain information as to the state of the country or the
enemy's forces, when hostilities were likely to take place

—Yee. Endeavours were made to procure necessary infor-
mation, but there were great difficulties in obtaining
correct information as to the state of the Russian forces
and various matters it was desirable to obtain. The
most correct information the Government received was
in this country, and not from the East.
Then before January no actual preparations were
made in the Commissariat, or other departments, in an-

ticipation of the war ?—I think not in actual contempla-
tion of the war.
After the declaration of war were all the matters
connected with the war and the army sent to the East
submitted to the Cabinet f—All matters of importance
were, but not the details, which were attended to by
the heads of the departments.
Were Cabinet Councils continually summoned until
the breaking up of Parliament ?—Yes.
It has been stated to the committee that, from nearly
that time till late in the autumn, no Cabinet Council
was held ?—From the prorogation of Parliament in the
middle of August to the middle of October no Cabinet
Councils were held.
At that time were all the membersa of the Cabinet
present in London ?—No. At the prorogation of Par-
liament the various members of the Cabinet dispersed
themselves in different 'directions. The Duke of New-
castle remained constantly in London. I remained until
the end of September, and not having left London for a
year before, I went home for a week, and was one week
in attendance on ber Majesty. Mr. Sidney Herbert
was almost constantly in London.
And during that period the expedition sailed from
Varna to the Crimea, the landing of the troops took
place, the battle of Alma was fought, and the siege
commenced f—The order for the expedition was for-
warded at the end of June.

Did your Lordship not think it necessary during
the period above referred to, to submit any questions
connected with the expedition to the Cabinet ?—I think
the precise nature of the meetings of the Cabinet are not
understood. I apprehend it is no part of the duty of the
Government to hold these meetings at any stated
time, but only according to the necessity of
the public service. It is true, that during
the meeting of Parliament I had the Cabinet summoned
for every Saturday, but that was for the progress of
legislation in Parliament and for the current business of
the week, and did not render difficult the meetin:: of
the Cabinet on other services when required. Any
Minister can summon a Cabinet when he pleases, and for
any object, either of that connected with his own depart.
ment or anything else, and it has been uual for such
intention to be mentioned to the first lord, who accord.
ingly summons the Cabinet.
Is it your lordship's opinion tbat in cases of official
emergency the Cabinet should be summoned ?—Cer-
tainly ; and if there had been occasion for its ineetinr,
arrangements were made before separating at the end of
the session fur its summoning and assembling within 48

hours.
Are you not of opinion it was of more importance to
have a Cabinet in case of public events occurring of great
importance during the time of Parliament not sitting
than when it was ?—That would depend on whether
the event was of importance to require it. We
then had but the same subject to discuss and the same
determination to arrive at.
When the army landed in the Crimea, I believe the
Government was under the impression that Sebastopol
would almost immediately fall by a coup de main, ?
That was the general opinion.
It was during the above period you ascertained the
army could not take it I—Yes.
Was not that of sufficient importance to cause the
summoning of a Cabinet I—l do not know that the hold-
ing of a Cabinet would have caused any other instruc-
tions being sent to the generals. The Minister for War
was in London, and if he found himself in any difficulty,
and wished the decision of the Cabinet on any question,
he could have summoned one.
Did not the fact you have stated, that Sebastopol eras
found much stronger than was anticipated, and the army
would have to establish a regular siege, completely alter
the complexion of the expedition ?—No.
Supposing the Goverrstneut had anticipated that Se-
bastopol would not have fallen, and there would have
been a long siege, would the Government still have
thought the expedition was not commenced too late in
the year ?—As I have already, stated, instructions
directing the expedition were forwarded at the end of
June, and there was no reason to have supposed it would
have been carried into execution earlier than it vr,,s.
At the time when the expedition sailed there was suffi-
cient time—
The beginning of September ?—They did not think it
too late for the expedition to be undertaken. The gene-
rals had discretion not to undertake it at an unseasonable

tune.
To what did the Government attribute their belief that
Sebastopol would have been taken ear!ier ?—To a great
many causes.
On account of any want of preparations on our part ?
—Certainly not. I believe, however, there was some in-
sufficiency of boats—some delay on that account. That
was not the principal cause of the delay.
By Lord Seymour—Were any proposals made by Lord
John Russel! to the Government for the consolidation
of the office at an early period of last year ?—No ; I had
conversations with him on the subject, but I thought it
was also Lord John Russell's opinion that it was not
then a fit time to carry any alterations into effect,
on the grounds that there would be a risk of under-
taking them in a time of war, of its leading to inconve-
nience in the management of the offices, and produce
effects injurious to the public service.
His lordship then adverted to the correspondence be-
tween him and Lord John Russell about the end of
November, recommending the consolidation of the offices,
at the end of which Lord John Russell stated that he had
come to the conclusion it was not desirable t) carry it
into effect.
By Lord Seymour—Lord John Russell, I believe, Ob-
jected to the retention of the office of Secretary for War
by the Duke of Newcastle ?—Yes, he did. The first in-
timation I had that Lord John Russell differed from the
Cabinet, and which much surprised me, was when he
wrote me after Mr. Roebuck had given notice of his

motion.
In answer to other questions from various members of
the committee, his lordship said that, previous to the
corresspondence above alluded to, Lord John Russell
iffered no objections to the Government. The propo-
sitions made by Lord John Russell were not submitted
to the Cabinet. The correspondence ends with a declara-
tion, on the part of Lord J. Russell, that he should sub-
mit the subject to the consideration of the Cabinet, as I
did not concur with him, but he never did it ; he changed
his mind, and never mentioned it.
By Lord Seymour --Then, both with regard to the
Duke of Newcastle and the consolidation of the offices,
you were under the impression that Lord J. Russell had
altered his original opinion ?—Yes. As to the consoli-
dation of the offices, all the members of the Government
thought it desirable, but it was a question of time when
it should take place.
By Mr. Layard—Did her Majesty's Government ob-
tain as much information as it was possible under the
circumstances of the enemy's strength at the time
of undertaking the expedition to the Crimea ?
They obtained different information, leading them to
different conclusions, and were unable to ascertain what
amount of credit to give to it. On the whole, the most
correct information they obtained was from a gen-
tleman in this country whO had recently been
in the Crimea. It turned out to be partly correct as to
the amount of the forces of the enemy and the state of
the country.
In your lordship's opinion as much information was
obtained as was necessary to authorise the expedition to
the Crimea ?—lt was sent to the military authorities.
The information stated the enemy's force to be about
70,000 men in the Crimea, about 30,000 or 40,000 being
in Sebastopol.
Was the condition of the army in the Crimea after
August brought to the notice of the Cabinet ?—Yes ;
very late. I believe they were aware of a '()Teat deal of the
distress existing before they received official information
from the public papers and private sources.
Should not the Cabinet have been furnished with that
information ?—Certainly.
To whom do you attribute the neglect of not furnish-
ing the Cabinet with that early information ?—To the
parties on the spot, whose duty it was to complain of
anything amiss.
About what period were you officially informed of the
state of things in the Eas ?—lt was very gradual. At
first not receiving information it was more or less dis-
credited, but it became confirmed by degrees. I was
in ignorance of the real state of the army longer than
ought have been.
His lordship, in continuation, said, that having ap-
pointed the various heads of departments, he considered
himself responsible for the manner in' which they dis-
charged their duties. When he took office, he found Lord
Raglan Master General of the Ordnance, and on his beiio'
appointed to the command of the army in the East, it
was thought the removal of the office of Lieutenant-
General would prevent any inconvenience arising to the
service. The duties of the office were, of course.
much greater in times of war than in peace. It
had been in contemplation before the breaking out of the
war to abolish the office of Master-General of the Ord-
nance. Lord John Russell made no specific complaint
with reference to the different departments to war.