The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 20, 1855

difficulty about the word " unmerited" was explained away,
and that the letter was to go. My lords, I heard no-more of
this letter, and fancied it had gone to England by the next
post., but it did not appear to have gone till two posts after.
I now come to the letter of observation, bat before ladvert
to it I may be permitted to say—and I believe I can say it
with truth—that there never has been anything approach-
ing to a quarrel betweeeu myself and Lord Raglan, but
that all our communications since have been as friendly as
they were previously, and fully as friendly as with any
other divisional officer. My lords, on the 13th of February
I received my recall, and I now come to the letter of obser-
vation, and I will enter into an undertaking with your
lordships that I will refute every sentence and every word
in that letter of observation. I will read it to your lord-
ships, and I will tear it to rags :
"My Lord Duke,—l regret to be under the necessity of
forwarding to your Grace the copy of a letter which has
been addressed to me by Lieutenant-General the Earl of
Liman. When I received it I placed it in the hands of
Brigadier-General Airey, the quartermaster-general, and re-
quested him to suggest to his lordship to withdraw the com-
munication, considering it would not lead to his advantage
in the slightest degree."
Now, my lords, I have given your lordships every word
which passed between Brigadier-General Airey and my-
self. and I put it to your lordships whether he asked me to
withdraw the communication ? No doubt he wished me to
do so. and tried to induce me to do so, but that he did not
put that question to me I boldly and solemnly assert. His
lordship continues

" But, Lord Lucan having declined to take the step I re-
commended, I have but one course to pursue, that of laying
the letter before your Grace, and submitting to you such ob-
servations upon it as I am bound in justice to myself to put
you in possession of. Lieutenant-General the Earl of Lucan
complains that in my despatch to your Grace of the 28th of
October I stated that from misconception of the instruction
to advance the lieutenant-general considered ho was bound
to attack at all hazards. His lordship conceives this state-
ment to be a grave charge, and an imputation reflecting seri-
ously on his professional character, and he deems it incumbent
upon him to state those facts which he cannot doubt must
clear him of what ho respectfully submits is altogether un-
merited. I have referred to my despatch, and far from being
to recall one word of it, I am prepared to declare that
not only did the lieutenant-general misconceive the written
instructions that were sent to him, but tint there was no-
thing in that instruction which called upon him to attack at
all hazards."

My lords, I never said there was, and if your lordships wil
refer to my letter of the 30th of November you will no
see one word of the sort ; on the contrary, I always
talked of movement. It is perfectly true that Captain
Nolan told me there was to be an attack, but I
never said there was to be an attack. I never used
the word " attack," but this word " attack," which was
used by Lord Raglan, he endeavours to fasten upon me.
Lord Raglan proceeds :—" There was nothing in that in-
struction which called upon him to attack at all hazards,
or to undertake the operation which led to such a brilliant
display of gallantry on the part of the light brigade, and,
unhappily, at the same time, occasioned such lamentable
casualties in every regiment composing it. In his lordship's
letter he is wholly silent with respect to a previous order
which had been sent him." Unquestionably I was, and I
was equally silent with respect to orders 1 and 2 ; I had
received altogether three orders ; and why, in the name of
Heaven, should I be expected to allude to an attempt to
dovetail three separate orders ? But I defy any person
reading the two orders in question to fin' the least connec-
tion between them. At all events, General Airey never
once attempted to do so, although his signature was at-
tached to them all. This previous order was in the fol-
lowing,. words :—" The cavalry to advance and take advan-
tage of any opportunity to recover the heights." Very
well. You have the map before you. The cavalry were
to advance, and the order goes on to say, " They will be
supported by infantry, which has been ordered to advance
in two fronts." Now, the infantry never were so ordered.
The Duke of Cambridge never received any order to ad-
vance, nor did Sir George Cathcart ; because my aide-de-
camp went to Sir George to ask him, and ho said he could
not, because he had had no instructions to do so. (Hear.)
Under these circumstances, I did all I could do. I put
myself in the position which Lord Raglan's aide-de-camp
told me to take up, and I was waiting there for the co-
operation of this infantry which was to support mo—which
infantry. for want of orders, were stationary, and had their
arms piled. Now, from 35 to 40 minutes had elags3dbetween
the arrival of the two orders, Lord Raglan being on the
hill all this time; and if the former movement which I was
ordered to snake had been mismanaged his lordship was
surely close enough to see it, and could have given directions
accordingly. I am not to suppose that Lord Raglan was not
looking on between the delivery of the first and the second
of these orders, and, therefore, if ho found that the first had
not been properly carried out, ho had nothing to do but to
send an aide-de-camp and call my attention to it, and say
" You have not executed this movement exactly as I wished
it to be executed." But nothing of the sort ;he sends an
order that the cavalry are to advance to the front, and
" take advantage of any opportunity to recover the
heights." Now, what did taking advantage of any oppor-
tunity mean ? Was Ito create the opportunity myself, or
was it to be created for me by the infantry ? As to re-
covering the heights, the fact was there was not a single
Russian on the heights. In the morning redoubts 1,2, 3,
and 4, upon the evacuation of the Turks, became occupied
by the Russians ; but after the heavy dragoon charge the
enemy evacuated No. 4, and there was not a single Russian
until you came to No. 3 fort. Now, I ask any military
man here present, what the cavalry were to do in order to
"recover the heights," when the whole of the enemy upon
those heights were in redoubt No. 3, the strongest of the
whole, or beyond it ? Did Lord Raglan intend the cavalry
to attack that redoubt ? Was it not more reasonable that
the infantry should attack, and that the cavalry should
wait for the opportunity of cutting off the retreat of the
Russians, when the infantry had succeeded in their attack?
(Hear, hear.) I ask, will the order admit of any other
construction? Had I given an other directions than those
which I actually gave, should I eket have been justly charge-
able with imprudence? There were no heights to recover,
but there were three forts, Nos. 1,2, and 3, to recover,
and I know when the infantry were ordered down to our
position it was intended to recover them. It was the wish
of Sir George Cathoart to attack them, but it was thought
that, as they could not be held, they were not worth the
loss of life which would certainly attend any attempt to
recover them. I have now shown, I think, that there is
not a single sentence thus far which I have not shivered.
But Lord Raglan goes on to say :—" So little had he
sought to do as he had been directed that he had no
men in advance of his main body." Now the fact is
that Lord Cardigan's brigade was so much in advance
that I received a communication from his lordship
through his aide de-camp, objecting to stand where he
was, because he was so much in advance that he ex-
pected the batteries on the left to open upon him. I
think, therefore, that I have disposed of that statement,
for it would have been very imprudent to place my men
more in advance than they actually were.—" He made no
attempt to regain the heights" (No ; first of all, because
there were no heights to regain, and, secondly, because I
was waiting for the co-operation of the infantry); "and
was so little informed of the position of the enemy that he
asked Captain Nolan where and what he was to attack, as
neither enemy nor guns were in sight." Now, if your
lordships will only read my letter, you will understand in
what tone anti in what manner I put that question to
Captain Nolan. I was extpressing to him the absurdity and
uselessness of the order, and when he persisted in telling
me to attack, I said, " Attack, Sir ! attack what ? and
where ? Where is your enemy ? " I knew very well
whore the Russians were, not having lost sight of them
since 6 o'clock in the morning. "What guns are those we
aro to recover ?" I asked. " There," said Captain Nolan,
and he pointed exactly to where the Russian battery was.
Your lordships should observe this. I have stated theim-
preesion which prevailed that the Russians were taking
away our guns from forts 1,2, and 3, and the spot pointed
to by Captain Nolan was the only road by which they
could bo taken away. Now, those guns were never moved.
The whole thing was a misapprehension, or, to use a snore
popular word, a misconception. The letter proceeds—
" This is the lieutenant-general's own admission. The re-
sult of his inattention to the first order was, that it never
occurred to him that the second was connected with, and
a s epetition of the first. He viewed it as a positive order to
attack at all hazards." (The word " attack," be it observed,
was not made use of in General Airey's note.) Now, my
lords, I altogether dispute the inference here drawn
as to the use of the word " attack." [Lord PAN-
MURE here made an observation that was inaudible in
the gallery.] My lords, I thought I had shown just now
that the orders of an aide-de-camp are to be received
as the orders of the general himself; and did I not
thamt
uytema.
aete
immediately
iorntal
tCdyße,el,:y,i; Cap
If tain
tNolanhi s
was
aordered
so,
then m
wasto
surelyattack
orderedenemt yo
aand
will ialtvloagui,vc,
eepyrracepuviertnil
lotyr:tlthos hetmihpasf
ifa.ornomontth:_errrti
argument.l
n"foalwloawy
the guns.' Now, I confidently ask any military man what
that means if it does not mean immediate attack? (Hoar,
hear.) Were we, in the face of such an order, to stand
with our hands in our pockets ? (Laughter.) Were we
not clearly called on to pursue till wo reached the enemy ?
Will the noble lord opposite say what I was to pursue ?
Lord PANMURE, when ho interrupted the noble earl,
had simply pointed out to him that the word "attack" was
used in his own letter. He had made no comment
whatever.

The Earl of LUCAN—What I ehject to is the phrase
here used, " attack at all hazards." But, to proceed, I was
told that hi carryieg out this operation " a troop of horse
artillery may accompany." Your lordships will observe
that the word " may" was used. I considered so much of
the. order as discretionary, and, I may say, I never exer-
cised more discretion in my life. Just fancy a troop of
horse artillery proceeding through this field, which was a
ploughed field, at a gallop, to face three of the Russian
guns opposite. Why, there is not a noble lord here who
will not think as I did, that if I had taken these guns into
that valley the horses would have fallen, and the guns
would have been lost without ever coming into action, or
with any probability of doing so. (Hear, hear.) • I, how-
ever, exercised the discretion which I thought was reposed
in me, and saved your guns. (Hear, hear.) Then the
letter proceeded—" He was informed that the French ca-
valry was on the loft, and he did not invite their co-
operation." This is a most extraordinary charge. Why,
in the first place, we had that co-operation without
seeking it, and, iu the next place, they were out of
sight on the other side of the ridge of the Inkerman
valley, and much nearer to Lord Raglan and General
Canrubert than to me. I could not tell whether there
were 300 or 3,000 French cavalry, and I could
not guess whither they were governed by subalterns
or by a general. Moreover, I was told the attack was to
be immediate, and I could net have reached the cavalry
in less than a quarter of an hour. (Hear.) Bat, my lords,
we had the co-operation of the French cavalry, and of the
greatest use that co-operation was. There wore only three
squadrons of French dragoons, and they took the battery
in the flank and reverse, silenced the battery, and saved
my brigade of heavy cavalry by so doing. (Hear, hoar )
It is next said—" He had the whole of the cavalry at his
disposal ; lie mentions having brought up only two regi-
ments iu support." Now, in my letter of the 30th of No-
vember, I then montione:l two regiments, but Lord Rag-
lan must have seen that I had every heavy dragoon under
my command in his proper place at that moment—that the
whole five regiments of heavy dragoons were in lino at in-
tervals of 300 paces, which is the proper distance, and
were the last men in the field. (Hoar, hoar.) It is after-
wards said—" Ho omits all other precautions from want
of duo consideration," &c. Now, I cannot help thinking
that I took every precaution that could be expected of me,
and I should like to know what precaution I omitted to
employ ? It is immediately added that I showed " a want
of sue consideration." As to this charge, it must be evi-
dent, from what I have said, that I did not jump into
this business bnt after a great deal of consideration.
(Hear.) Then it is stated that I acted on the supposition
thatll
were.o dh half-paste
like
ekson:ei n y
oi
my
ky‘tnvhleooerwre,
synv,ohor not
yn
wheniinni
tgs
ach
wash at
hdsnueupfi nbpa
beenoc ese
erodisifn
tatthhshaeett they really
fileiddidf enemy,rnool
know something of their force ? (Cheers.) My lords, I

said I would answer every charge in that letter from Lord
Raglan ; I said I would tear it to rags and tatters ; and
I ask if there is a single word iu it that I have not fully
answered? (Hear, hear.) I shall now allude to a
letter from the Commander-in-Chief. When 1 am
obliged, in my own defence, to refer to any communi-
cation of my Commander-in-Chief, I shall remember
to whom I am referring, and it shall bo my endea-
vour to show him that respect to which he is entitled, and
which I have accorded to the commander-in-chief ever
since I became connected with the service. But, my lords,
I must ask the Minister of War whether, when ho gave an
extract from the letter io which I allude he was aware that
he was not giving the exact copy of the letter sent to me,
but that, whether accidentally or purposely, there has
been an additional paragraph added to it. I wish to know
whether that was done purposely or accidentally ?
Lord PANMURE--I was not aware of any difference.
The Earl of LUCAN—The letter states :—" It is to be
regretted that the lieutenant-general, acting upon a mis-
conception of a written order, did not show that order to
Lord Cardigan." Of course, my lords, if the commander-
in-chief tells me it is the duty of a lieutenant-general to
show his orders to his two major-generals, unquestionably
that will be my guide for the future, but certainly I never
conceived it to be the duty of a general to do so. There was
no more reason why I should show that letter to Lord
Cardigan than to General Scarlett, because it was not in-
tended to be an attack of a brigade but of the whole divi
sion, for which reason I placed myself in the rear of one
brigade and in advance of the other. I cannot understand
how it could possibly be ray duty to discuss the order with
my major-general, unless it were supposed I had a wish to
throw on him a responsibility which ought solely to attach
to myself. (Hear, hear.) And that, influenced by the
authoritative tone and disrespectful manner of the aide-
de-camp, he did not decide upon his own judgment."
With the greatest respect for the noble viscount, I ask
why he supposes I allowed myself to be influenced in
any way, except by a sense of duty, to carry out the
orders conveyed to me? Ido not know where the noble
lord has been so informed, but I ask the noble lord to tell
me how I showed myself to be influenced by the tone of
the aide-de-camp ? I altogether deny that I was influenced
by anything said or done by that aide-de-camp. I was
influenced by a sense of ditty, which imposed upon me
the necessity of carrying out what I considered an
imperative order, and therefore I say, to impute that I
allowed my feelings or temper to be actuated in any way
was not doing me full justice. (Hear.) "Supported by
the concurrence of his major-general that the charge ought
not to be made —I deny that it was necessary to ask the
concurrence of anybody, or that a divisional general should
consult with a brigade general. I think a divisional gene-
ral is, unfit to be at the head of his division if he does not
consider himself fully qualified and fully able to carry out
tho instructions ho receives from his commander-in-chief.
(Hear.) I never did conceive it to be the duty of a divi-
sional general to consult with a brigade general, and I
should very reluctantly adopt such a course. (Hear.) I
have certainly heard many strange things said since my re-
turn in the way of private crit cism. I have heard it said,
"You should have had moral courage enough to disobey

your general." I say to you, my 'fords, I had not the
moral courage to show myself insubordinate, and to con-
eider my opinion as superior to and overruling that of the
commander-in-chiefs (Hear.) Then I have been told it is
asked, why I did not head the light cavalry charge? Be-
cause, had I taken the light cavalry charge I could not
have commanded the cavalry division. (Hear.) It seems
to be imagined that I was unexposed in the affair. All I
can say is, that I was under No. 3 fort, with four staff
officerstand out of five of us only one escaped untouched.
My own aide-de-camp was killed. I was wounded myself.
Another officer had his forage cap shot off close to his
head. Another had a ball in his horse; and I think that
for four out of a party of five to be struck is sharp prac-
tice. (Hear.) One reason of my recall is stated to be that
I placed myself towards my general in a position which
made it most advisable that I should be recalled. I could
•ily have placed myself in that position by my letter of
the 30th of November. I have no doubt that appeared
to the noble duke to be a very uncourteous and insubor-
dinate letter, but I can assure the noble duke I never
heard that letter so characterised by any other person.
Perhaps the noble duke did not always think it is so very
violent and immoderate. Perhaps, at ono time, ho thought
it calm and temperate. If he did, I believe he only enter-
tained what is, at the present moment, the universal
opinion. (Hear, hear.) lam ostensibly recalled on account
of that letter, but, with regard to any quarrel, I never had a
word of difference with Lord Raglan. Lord Raglan never
found fault with a single act of mine, or said that I could
do anything better. Long subsequently to the letter he very
kindly received recommendations from me and appointed
officers to my staff on my nomination. I have not only
communicated with Lord Raglan since upon the subject of
the command of the division, but on matters totally
foreign to that command—respecting transport, ambulance,
and other corps—and I therefore think, when the noble
duke found it necessary to withdraw me from my com-
mand in consequence of bad feeling between me and Lord
Raglan, the noble lord acted under a mieconceptioc.
(Hear, bear.) I can tell your lordships a fact which will
appear rather extraordinary. This recall, which, as your
lordships are aware, came very unexpectedly on me, came
as unexpectedly on Lord Raglan. My Lord Raglan, I
am told, said he could not in any way account for it,
that Ise never asked for it, that he did not understand
what le meant that he knew nothing about it. My autho-
rity is GeneralSEstcourt, who told me, when I was putting
my foot on board ship to come to England, that Lord
Raglan could not guess, that he had not the least notion
what occasioned the recall—that he was as en tirely ignorant
of the cause of the recall as I was myself. I will tell your
lordships how I obtained this command. When I heard
of troops being embarked on active service I wrote to
the Commander-in-chief asking for employment. Not
believing much cavalry would be sent, I asked the corn•
wander-in-chief to be good enough to appoint me to a
brigade of infantry, stating that, having already served in
the infantry, having served a campaign in Bulgaria, and
being accustomed to foreign armies and foreign oftlers, I
thought iny services might be useful. The noble lord, in
the kindest manner possible, and I believe of his own accord,
for which I have always felt I owe him a personal obligation,
wrote to say the Government had determined on sending a
division of cavalry, and to offer me that appointment. I
very soon embarked, and I arrived in the East previously
to the arrival of the division. Unlike many of my brother
officers, I was blessed with continued good health. The
consequence was, from the time that the division landed
till the noble duke so summarily recalled me I was never
absent one hour—one moment—from my duties. I believe
I am not overstating it when I say there was no divisional
general in the army who exerted himself more than I did.
I believe I can say that not only was I constantly at my
post and doing my duty, but that I was not altogether an
unsuccessful general. During the time I was at the head
of the cavalry division the flanks or rear of our army were
'never annoyed by Cossacks or the enemy's cavalry, and I
had the good fortune to command and carry out all the
details of the heavy dragoon charge at Baird:lava. (Hear.)
Therefore I do not think I was altogether an unsuccessful
general. (Hear.) I may be allowed to state that I acted in
concert with Sir C. Campbell for four months, and what
did he say at the time I came away? He said, "I shall
always remember this, that when we had in the army
croakers, grumblers, and dissatisfied men, you have always
laughed at every difficulty"—(hear)—and that observation,
coining from Sir C. Campbell, was very flattering to me.
I knew that the Adjutant General of the army said, not to
me, bat to others, "If they recall that officer they will re-
call a man who, while other officers are skulking and flinch-
ing from their duty, is always at his post." I am told that
with regard to the battle of Balaklava I need not have
obeyed that order—that I ought to have had moral
courage not to have done so. But what is the opinion of
all the military men—of all the best authorities in the
field there? That the order was imperative, and that I
had no choice ; and there was not a commanding officer of
the ten regiments of my divisiou but said that the order
was of a character that I dare not disobey. It is said
you might have unquestionably taken another course ;
but you could not have shown yourself in that army—you
would have been hold responsible for the guns which it
was erroneously imagined were being carried away. The
censure would have been thrown on you,—you would have
destroyed yourself. That is the opinion of every senior
officer—the opinion of every officer whose opinion was
worth taking in that army. lam talking of li eing officers,
but I will now give you the opinion of an officer who, un-
fortunately for the army and tho country, is now no more,
—I mean Sir G. Cathcart. I will give his opinion with
regard to that cavalry charge, and with regard to my con-
duct. (Hear, hear.) This is a letter which 7Sir G. Oath-
' cast could not have anticipated I should have seen ; it
came under my notice by the merest accident. This opi-
nion is contained in a latter written by Sir G. Cathcart to
Lady Georgina
Cathcart. This letter was on his poison
when he fell, and when taken from his body it was found
that a bullet had passed through it. The letter was written
on the 2d of November, three days before the battle of
Inkerman and eight after the Balaklava charge, and the
following is the extract which refers to it :

" I have another opportunity of writing to you. You will
read about the affair a Balakiava in which the Light Cavalry
Brigade suffered so severely. It was a most gallant, but un-
fortunate affair. Neither Lord Lucan nor Lord Cardigan
was to blame, but, on the contrary, for they obeyed orders.
• . . I was sent for with my division to set matters
to rights, and did so as soon as wo could arrive, but we had
six miles to march."

Without wishing pour faire valoir, I may say that I did
my duty, and I suddenly fled myself recalled. I am not
told that I am recalled by the prerogative, but I am given
to understand thatel am recalled in diegrace. for I defy
yew lordships to put your fingers on a sentence in the letter
contaioing a word of comfort. You might have endea-
voured to have softened the recall, but there was not ono
word of consolation to be found. Before I left this country.
her Majesty did me the honour, in consequence of my ap-
pointment, to invite me to Buckingham Palace. On their
return from the army there has been no officer of any
rank who has not received from her Majesty that gracious
invitation ; but she has not—and I conceive could not do
otherwi,e--thought me a proper person to receive that
honour. I am positively in such a position that I have not
been able to avail myself of even the satisfaction of waiting
on her Majesty at a levee. I have troubled your lordships
at some length, but I believe I could not have compressed
what I had to say. To the Government I say—you have
wronged—grievously wronged—as zealous a soldier as her
Majesty has in her army. (Hear, hear.) I say to you, if
you have acted in error, give my statement your attention,
and if you become convinced that you have committed a
gross injustice, I ask no more than this,—tha'.; you will
reconsider your decision, and give me a court-martial and
a fair trial.
The Earl of CARDIGAN—I regret that I feel myself
called upon to address your lordships upon this eccasion,
because I came down with the firm determination and wish
not to mix myself up in this question or to take a part in
the proceedings. (Hear.) My lords, I only rise to correct a
statement made with respect to myself. When the noble
earl, in his address, said I sent my aide-de-camp to state
that the force of the enemy were so numerous in front of
the Light B. igade that I felt it difficult to hold my ground
—(cries of "no")—yes ; those were his very words. I sent
no such message whatever. In the message I sent, I said,
observing a movement was going to be made, that the hills
ou both sides of the valley, leading down the valley at right
angles with it, ea which was the Russ'an battery, with
the cavalry behind it, were occupied by Russian riflemen
and artillery. I sent this message; and when the lieute-
nant-general came in front and ordered me to attack the
battery in the valley, behind which was placed the large
force of Russian cavalry—which had been perfectly per-
ceptible to myself and the whole of the Light Brigade for
at least 20 minutes—my reply was, " Certainly, sir, but
before I go I must be allowed to point out that the hills in
both valleys are covered with Russian artillery and rifle-
men." The answer I received was, "They are Lord Rag-
positive orders." I immediately obeyed orders ; and
so true was the report I had made with regard to the Rus-
sian batteries and riflemen that we had not advanced
20 yards before Captain Nolan, who was galloping in
front at about the distance of 100 yards from the Light
Brigade, and in no way leading the charge, was killed by a
shell from one of those flank batteries which I had pointed
out. I have nothing further to-say. I only wished to re-
move any nsiseonception as to my having said that the

Light Brigade was not safe in the position in which they
were placed. (Hear, hear. )
Lord PAN.AURE—I am sure your lordships will agree
with me in thinking that a more painful discussion than
the present has never been brought before this house, and
that a gallant officer, whose courage, be it remarked, has
never been accused, was never placed in such a position as
that in which we have witnessed the noble and gallant
earl. The noble and gallant earl has gone into detail as to
his services, and has given the history of certain great and
aallant actions in which he was engaged with great mi-
nuteness, which may have been extremely interesting ;
but, at the same time your lordships will perceive this is a
subject into which it is impossible for me to follow him ;
it is a subject upon which I cannot presume to have an
opinion. I must sayl am somewhat surprised at the course
which the noble earl has taken, not only in making state-
ments which it is impossible for me to contradict or even
in any way to modify, but also in making statements im-
pugning the discretionary powers of hie Commander-in-
Chief and the orders and counter-orders given by him
upon the eventful day in question. No one can regret
more deeply than I do the existence of what has been
called the misconception "of an order by any officer.
The disastrous effects which attended that misconception
were lamented throughout England; but I cannot say
that I altogether regret the occurrence of a cavalry
charge which will never be effaced from the history of
British arms—(hear, hear)—or that I look upon it as
entirely ineffective, because it has carried into the heart of
the enemy a terror of the British cavalry that I am quite
convinced will be of good service to the army, for the very
appearance of those squadrons in some future well-fought
field may perhaps put to flight the squadrons of Russia even
without the necessity of a collision. (Hear.) I had anti-
cipated that the noble and gallant earl—for gallant I admit
him to he in every sense of the word—(hear, hear)—would
have dwelt upon that part of his case upon which he has on
former occasions laid so much stress—namely, his demand
for inquiry at the hands of a court-martial. But the noble
and gallant earl has simply referred to that point in the
latter part of his speech ; he has contented himself with a
vindication of his military conduct, and with laying before
your lordships what he terms the injustice of the report to
which he has referred, but he has altogether omitted to
touch upon any of the doubts which I am sure must have
arisen in his mind as to the legality of his claim to a court-
martial and the expediency and propriety of granting such
an inquiry. With reference to the recall of the noble and '
gallant earl, I have simply to referto the statement in your
lordships' hands. He states that it mightbeen more cour-
teously worded, so as not to have hurt his feelings as a
soldier ; but I think it sufficiently sets forth that it is in no
way connected with any doubt as to the gallantry of his
conduct in the field. Differences had arisen between the
noble and gallant earl and the Commander-in-Chief with
regard to the term used by theCommander-in-Chief in the
despatch wherein he attributes the unfortunate result of
the charge to a misconception of his orders by the noble
and gallant earl, and it was quite evident to her Majesty's
Government that the confidence which ought to exist be-
tween the Commander-in-Chief and an either commanding
a division in his army had to a certain extent been shaken.
It therefore appeared to the Government and to my noble
friend the Commander of the army, that it was for the
benefit of the public service and for the advantage of the
army that one or other of those officers should be so
called, and, with all deference to the officer commanding
the cavalry, I think he was the person to whom the recall
ought to have been directed. The noble and gallant earl
says that he is entitled to an inquiry into his conduct upon
this eventful occasion. Now, if this had been a question
confined to the noble and gallant earl, there might have
been less difficulty in coming to a decision upon it ; but
in this, as in all other military matters, a precedent set
in the case of the noble and gallant earl must be followed
throughout the army—what is law for him must also be
hew for the meanest private ; and the question wises whe-
ther there are grounds in the complaint of the noble earl
which would justify him in calling for inquiry, any more
than a man in the ranks who has been censured by his
superior officer, who has claimed a right to have that cen-
sure reversed by a military court. There is no law which
can guide this case, except that law by which all armies
are governed--either the Mutiny Act, or the Articles of
War, or the custom of war. I have looked with care into
the Mutiny Ao6 and the Articles of War—l have reviewed
under the meet competent advice all the customs of war in
cases similar to the present, and I cannot find in, the one
or in the other any ground whatever for granting the in-
quiry before a military court which the noble and gallant
earl has demanded. There are cases stated in the Mutiny
Act in which a soldier has an option of being tried by a
court-martial or of submitting to certain punishments,
such as forfeiture of pay or imprisonment; but they are
specifically recorded in the net and in the Articles of War
for the information - the soldier, and among none of them
can the case of the noble and gallant earl be ranked. But
it may bo said that the peculiar circumstances of this case
ought to make it on exception to the general rule. I cannot
see any ground for their so doing. And here let me draw a
distinction with respect to a word which has been frequently
used by the noble and gallant earl. He says that cer-
tain charges have been brought against him by Lordßaglan.
Now, no charge, in the technical sense of the word,
bad been brought against him, and I will presently show
your lordships that,in the technical moaningof thephrase,no
charge could be brought against him by Lord Raglan. His
conduct has been described by Lord Raglan as a miscone
ception of orders, which led to unfortunate results. Has not
such conduct as that been attributed to officers and general
officers in former days over and over again During the
Peninsular campaign did the Duke of Wellington never
say that, owing to the misconception of one order, the
non-fulfilment of another order by officers, certain great
operations bad miscarried, and did the Duke of Welling-
ton ever dream of bringing those officers to a court-
martial, or have they ever been brought to a court-martial
in consequence of such observations having been made ?
If you are to recognise the right of every officer to be tried
• by a court-martial who may make the claim on the ground
of his feelings having been injured by remarks made by
his superior officer, there would soon bo an end at once to
all discipline in the arm, to all the power of the Com-
: mandendn-Chief, and to all-ycontrol over the troops. But
suppose wo were to recognise the right of the noble and
gallant earl to an inquiry, by whom are the charges
against himself to be framed ? Aro they to be framed by
Lord Raglan himself? (Hear, from the Earl of Lucan.)
The noble lord, who expresses his assent, knows little or
nothing of military law. (The Earl of Lucan again
cheered.) If the noble earl assents to that proposition he
knows little or nothing of military law, or he would be
perfectly aware that the first maxim of military law is
that any officer or soldier who shall have been guilty of any
crimes for which ho may be brought to a court-martial, if
he shall have been employed upon any day before the
court-martial takes place, such employment absolves him
the crime he has committed. (Hear.) The person who
would have had to frame the charges against him has con-
doned his offence, and cannot therefore make those
charges. While I admit that the noble and gallant earl
is competent to perform gallant and glorious actions in
the field, I will not yield to him in the technicalities
of military law, and I think ho will find that I am
putting a proper interpretation upon them. (Hear.) If
then, my lords, Lord Raglan cannot frame these things,
is the Judge-Advocate-General to frame them ? If I
am right, I believe that tho person who would have
had to frame them would have said, at the very outset,
"These charges will never hold water. The crime or act
has been condoned by the general officer in command of the
army." (Hear, hear.) It is impossible, in such a case,
that the sentence of any court-martial could be confirmed,
or that the carrying out of aay such sentence could be re-
commended. Upon these grounds, therefore, even if it
were expedient, it would be impossible to grant a court-
martial in this case. But I rest the whole facts of the ease
with regard to a court-martial upon the question of disci-
pline. I resisted it on the question of discipline from the
very beginning, for I believe that to grant a military in-
quiry in this case would be to strike at the root of the
whole discipline of the army. (Hear.) Now, my lords,
let us look at what happened last year. A military com-
mission sat upon the promotion of officers in the army.
What can be so great an offence iu the eyes of en officer as
to see himself passed over in a promotion ? That military
commission, however, recommended that promotions for
merit should be made by selection, and that officers of
noted and general merit should be promoted out of their
turns, and over the heads of other officers who wore their
seniors. This, too, was to be done without any other rea-
son being given than the merit of the iudivi lual officers
promoted. Now, if all the officers over whose heads other
officers were promoted for merit were to complain of being
passed ever, end were to claim an inquiry into their merit,
I apprehend that it would be impossible to carry out the
recommendations of the commissions. Without imputing
to the noble earl anything whatever that could injure hie
reputation as a soldier, either in point of courage in per-
son, or of conduct in the field, or upon any other matter
except on these points of misunderstanding which have
arisen between the noble earl and Lord Raglan, I
think the Government can, without casting any re-
flection upon the noble earl, refute the inquiry for
which he asks. lam afraid I can hold out no expectation
of our reconsidering the determination to which we have
arrived, and I am afraid I can give him no answer to the
ex parte statement which he has made of the events
which have attended the campaign in which he has been
engaged. I only hope and trust, after the appeal which
the noble and gallant earl has nutcle—after the opportu-
nity which your lordships have kindly given him of stat-
ing, in his own vindication, all the acts of his public ca-
reer during the last four months—that hero the matter
will rest, and I do hope that when this ex parte statement
goes forth to the Crimea it will not add to the anxiety of
the gallant general to whom we are all so deeply indebted
for the exertions ho is making for his country in the field
of battle, nor render the position lie occupies still more
painful ran it must have been from all that has passed
in this country during the last few months. (Hear, and
cheers.)

Viscount HARDINGE hoped that as the noble and
gallant earl had referred to him in thecourseof his speech,
their lordships would allow him to say a few words in ex-
planation. He regretted, with the Minister of War, that
the statements made by the noble and gallant earl had
been so one-sided and ex parte, and that the noble and
gallant earl had thought it necessary to detail so much of
what had passed between himself and Lord Raglan. It
was perfectly impossible that any- person should he able
to answer such statements on the instant ; but ho had the
highest confidence in the honour and integrity of Lord
Raglan, and, without imputing to the noble and gallant
earl that he had rids-stated anything that had passed be-
tween himself and his Commander-in-Chief or Col. Airey,
he had no hesitation in saying that nobody could read the
firm and explicit words of Lord Raglan, in his despatch of '
the 16th of December, without perceiving that the noble
and gallant earl was wrong in supposing that he was or-
dered to attack at all hazards. Lord Raglan said :—" I
have referred to my despatch, and, far from beir"i willing
to alter one word of it, I am prepared to declare that not
only did the lieutenant-general misconceive the written
instruction that was sent him, but that there was
nothing in that instruction which called on him to at-
tack at all hazards, or to undertake the operation
which led to such a brilliant display of gallantry on
the part of the light brigade, and unhappily, at the
same time, occasioned such lamentable casualties
in every regiment composing it." Tho despatch proceeded
in the same strain, showing that Lord Raglan had no doubt
in his own mind on the subject, and it then stated that the
noble and gallant earl " was so little informed of the posi-
tion of the army that he asked Captain Nolan where and
what he was to attack, as neither enemy nor guns were in
sight.' This, your grace will observe, is the lieutenant-
general's own admission." Tho noble and gallant earl had
stated in explanation that be obeyed the orders of Captain
Nolan, but it was his duty to have obeyed the written
order of Lord Raglan, and to have paid no attention to
what Captain Nolan said. (1-lea.r,!hear.) There could be
no doubt, from the following passage, that Lord Raglan
considered his order discretionary, and not imperative:—
" I undoubtedly had no intention that ho should make
such an attack; there was nothing in the instruction to
require it, and therefore I conceive I was fully jwitified iu

stating to your-grace what was the exact truth—that the I
charge arose from the misconception of an order for tho I
advance, which Lod Lac in considered obliged. him to at-
tack at all hazards." Their lordships would observe that
the despatch from which ho quoted was written by Lord
Raglan some time after ho had received the letter of the
noble and gallant earl. Was it likely that a man of the
strict honour and veracity of Lord Raglan would have
stated in such strong and unmistakeable terms that he
never meant his order to be imperative if the fact were
not so ? Ho believed the noble lord had, to use his own
emphatic words, stated " the exact truth," and that he
never did intend the at tack should be made at allhazards.
`Moreover, he would undertake to say with the greatest
confidence, although he had not read the private corres-
pondence of Lord Raglan, that upon no occasion had his
lordship reflected in the slightest degree on the conduct of
the noble and gallant earl. For his own part, ho thought
the noble and gallant earl ought to have shown the written
order to the Earl of Cardigan, and taken his opinion
upon it. The Earl of Cardigan had told him since
his arrival in England that if ho had seen the
order he would not have considered it an order to
attack at all hazards, brat he should have thought him-
self justified in exercising his discretion. Ho believed the
noble and gallant earl had no right to demand a court-
; martial. His recall was a measure of prudence, and he was
not entitled to make it the subject of a military inquiry.
The Duke of RICHMOND expressed his earnest regret
' that this subject had been brought before their lordships.
He thought the noble and gallant earl ought not to have
added the weight of his high character to the attacks which
had been made so unjustly upon the conduct and capacity
of Lord Raglan. (Hear.) The noble earl had appealed to
him to say whether an officer was not bound to obey the
orders of his superior in command. There could be no
doubt he was so bound to obey ; but he would tell the
noble earl what Major-General Robert Crawford, who
commanded the light division, did in the Peninsula. An
aide-de-:amp took an order from the Duke of Wellington
,to General Crawford, and then he did pretty much what
Capt. Nolan did in the Crimea—he gave his advice as to
hew, when, and where the attack was to be made. The
reply of Crawford was, " When General Crawford seeks
Colonel A—'s opinion, he will give it, but not till
then." (Hear, hear.) ThA was the way in which he
would have treated Capt. Nolan. (Hear, hear.) As ho
understood it, the noble earl meant to say that he had re-
ceived both a verbal and a written order from Captain
Nolan. [The Earl of Lucan—Hear, hear.] Then what, iu
Heaven's name, was the good of sending a written order ?
(Hear, hear.) He should not have himself regarded the
order to " advance in pursuit" as one to attack the enemy
at all hazards. (Hear.)

The Earl of DERBY hoped that, after this painful
perhaps, under the circumstances, unavoidable—explana-
tion, their lordships would be spared any further dis-
cussions on this subject. He was not prepared to say
that there wore not legal and technical, as well as sub-
stantial, difficulties arising out of the exigencies of the
public service, which might have rendered it impossible,
or at all events inexpedient, to grant the court-martial
or court of inquiry for which the noble and gallant earl
had asked. But if it was impossible to afford him the
opportunity of defending himself against charges, and
accusations, and imputations upon his professional
character, which seriously affected him in the opinion
of the army and of the public, and perhaps also of his
Sovereign, it was most unfortunate that the second letter
of Lord Raglan, which contained these serious charges and
imputations, was ever placed in his hands by the noble
lord the Secretary of War, as indicating the reasons for
which he was recalled. He did not think the noble earl
would have had any ground for demanding a court-martial
to inquire whether there had or had not been on his part
a " misconception" of the orders given to him ; but when
he was charged by the General Commanding-in-Chief with
having committed the grime of disobeying a positive order,
and that charge was stated officially by the Minister of the
Crown as the reason why he was brought back to this coun-
try, to a certain degree under a cloud, then he said that
the position of the noble earl was oue of great hardship,
and one in which every noble lord must deeply sympathise
with him. Nor could he blame his noble friend that, after
having urged, entreated, and besought the Government to
give him an opportunity to have his conduct investigatsd
before the fittest—a military—tribunal, he should avail
himself of his right to a seat in that house to make the
plain, straightforward, and manly statement they had
heard from hire that night. He was not going to enter
into the merits of the question at issue between Lord Rag-
lan and the noble earl; but he must say that he thought the
latter had been placed in a most unfortunate dilemma, from
one of the horns of which it was hardly possible for him to
()serape by the exercise of any amount of judgment. He was
accused by the noble lord the Commander-in-Chief (Lord
Hardinge) with not having exercised, with regard to the
order to advance the cavalry, that discretion which was to
be expected from him as the lieutenant-general in com-
mand. But, on the other hand, his bad exercise of this dis-
cretion with respect to the former order, that the cavalry
should occupy theheights, was in Lord Raglan's letter made
the ground of a charge against him of positive disobedience
of orders. (Hear.) Well, on receiving the second order, in
oonsequence of not having obeyed the first, the noble earl
conceived he had no discretion, and executed it; and then
he was told that he should have exercised a discretion, and
disobeyed the order. He (the Earl of Derby) would ask
, their lordships what would have been said if, on the second
. order having been sent, in consequence of his non-compli-
ance with the first, the noble earl had again abstained
from obeying the order, and acted on his own discretion ?
. (Hear.) There might, indeed, he some one man in ten theu-
, i eand who would venture to incur the responsibility of such
a double disobedience of orders, acting on his own discre-
tion;
to te noble earl that he conceived himself bound by such
positive orders, even though he deemed them injudicious.
Then the noble earl was accused of not having assumed
the proper responsibility attaching to rank ofi ieutenant-
' general,while, on the other hand, the Commander-in-chief
: had blamed him for not having consulted the Earl of Car-
digan, because they were nearly of the same rank, both
being major-generals—forgetting that the noble earl had
the rank of lieutenant-general, and that the Earl of Cardi-
gan and General Scarlett were only major-generals com-
manding brigades under him, and were consequently of in-
ferior rank to himself. After expressing au earnest hope
that the noble and gallant earl would not again feel it
necessary to bring this subject before that house, his lord-
ship said that his gallant friend need be under no appre-
hensions that, whatever opinions people might form as to
the responsibility attaching to him with respect to that
brilliant but unfortunate charge of light cavalry, the coun-
try were likely to forget the important services which he
and the officers under his command had rendered, nor
that, on the very same day, ho had the merit of having
ordered another almost equally brilliant and more success-
ful charge, under the command of his old and valued
friend, General Scarlett, which covered with glory the
troops who were engaged in it, and must reflect credit on
the general who had the good fortune and the skill to direct
-that important movement. Hisnobleand gallant friend would
also have the satisfaction of reflecting that it was no fault of
his if there had not been the fullest investigation of every part
of his militaryconduct, and with that knowledge he (the Earl
of Derby) trusted that he would thenceforth permit the
subject to drop in that house, and would rely on the justice,
the feeling, and the honour of his countrymen. (Cheers.)
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he was not about to
enter into any discussion of the questions between the noble
and gallant earl and Lord Raglan, because it was impossible
for any one so imperfectly informed as all their lordships
necessarily were with respect to the facts, to do this with-
out injustice to the latter noble lord. He thought, how-
ever, that the noble earl who spoke last had done injustice
to Lord Raglan on one point, since he did not understand
his lordship to make any complaint of his first order for
the cavalry to advance not having been obeyed by the noble
earl. He simply gave the fact as a reason why the second
order was sent. Nor should he enter into the question of
the propriety of granting the noble earl a court-martial.
He was, however, confidant that his noble friend the Se-
cretary of War and the Commander-in-Chief had fully con-
sidered that subject, and had arrived at a conclusion on the
fullest and most sufficient data. He could not, indeed,
help regretting that it was not thought advisable for the
sake of the army that such a court-martial should bo held,
as it would undoubtedly go forth to the public that a gene-
ral who might have a seat in that house had over other
officers advantages which it was most unfortunate he should
possess. The noble earl who spoke last complained that
his noble friend the Secretary of War should have given
the noble and gallant earl the letter of Lord Raglan,which
contained, he thought, accusations against him. But the
noble earl forgot that the noble lord did not give the noble
and gallant earl the letter until he had come forward in
his place in Parliament, road a letter of his own to Lord
Raglan, and made an ex parte statement on this subject.
Then his noble friend did feel that it was only just to au
absent man to give the noble and gallant earl Lord Raglan's
letter, in order that he mi,ghtprodnee it if he thought fit, and
thus put the house and the public in possession of the whole
facts of the case. He thought his noble friend had acted with
prfect fairness and propriety in taking this course, and
that he had done no more than was requisite in justice
to the noble lordat the head of the army in the Crimea in
subsequently laying his lordship's letter on the table of the
house. The noble and gallant earl having appealed to him
on one or two points, ho could -Utisnro Vim that Lord Rag-
lan's private letters home were all couched in the kiudest
spirit possible towards him, and that his lordship had made
no complaints other than those which were contained in
the papers before the house. The noble earl also asked if
ho (the Duke of Newcastle) had not at one time said that
the letter which be wrote to Lord Raglan was not calm
and temperate in itself ? He had said so, nor had he ever
altered that opinion ; but he had at the same time ex-
proceed an opinion that if that letter over came before the
public, it must be most detrimental to the public service
and thei discipline of the army. lb (the noble duke) had
only to say in conclusion that he had never performed any
act of his official life with greater pain than when, in obe-
dience to a sense of his public duty, he felt compelled t
recall the noble aid gallant earl. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of HARDWICKE differed entirely from his
noble friend as to the inconvenience of discussions of this
kind. He thought it was a great advantage to the House
of Peers that officers of the army or navy who were mem-
bers of it should be able to come before them and to de-
fend themselves against charges which would cloud their
honour and lower them in the opinion of the country. A
similar course had already been pursued in the other house
on behalf of a gallant admiral whose con dint had been im-
pugned, and whose case was brought under consideration
by an hou. and learned member.
The Marquis of BREA.DALBANE thought the noble
earl took quite a mistaken view of the privileges cf their
lordships' house, which were only given them for a useful
purpose. When a peer became an officer in the army or
navy he was as much amenable to military law as the
meanest private in that service, and to take advantage of
his privilege to bring before that house questions which
ought only to be submitted to the militaryor naval autho-
rities, was not, he thought, a use of those privileges which
would tend to the public advantage.
The Earl of LUCAN, in reply, said the noble duke (the
Duke of Newcastle) had charged him with betraying some
private letters.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE begged to contradict hit
noble and gallant friend. All he said was that as his noble
rend gallant friend had asked him whether he did not ex-
press a certain opinion with reference to his letter to Lord
Raglan, he (the Duke of Newcastle) would ask the noble
earl whether ho had not also, at the same time, expressed
another opinion?
The Earl of LUCAN was quite ready to produce the oar-
respondence which had taken place between him and the
noble duke. He certainly made no private communication
to the noble duke, although the noble duke did, no doubt,
send bins a private letter. What passed was simply this.
A gentleman waited on the noble duke on behalf of him
(the Earl of Lucian) to ask him to produce to the house his
letter of the 39th November. On that occasion the noble
duke gave his reasons why that letter should not be pro-
duced, and said, " Lord Lucan, 1 conceive, should not
publish that letter until he is attacked Wore the public.
When he is, I think it is your duty to publish that letter."
The Duke of NEWCASTLE must again beg to contra-
dict the noble earl. The witness of what passed between