The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-18 00:00:00

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT. fruity was afterwards experienced in continuing the
./ apply from the difficulty of lauding hay at Balaklava,
tl iere being but 25 yards of wharfage in the harbour at

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The Lord CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack i
at five o'clock.
The Earl ST. GERMANS presented a petition im
favour of the bill for an amendment of the marriage law..
The Bishop of ST. ASAPH presented a petition,
against the abolition of Church rates.
I Lord DYNEVO R presented two petitions agains' t 1
the abolition of Church-rates, and also one against th,
removal of Lampeter College to Brecon.
The Earl of DERBY presented petitions against the',
abolition of Church-rates and the legalisation of the mar-
riage with a deceased wife's sister.
PROTECTION OF THE- HOUSE FROM FIRE..
Lord STANLEY, adverting to a question put bo
him the other evening by Lord Rede,dale respecting
the new arrangements for the protection of the hous e
from fire, said that be had put himself in commnni
cation with the Chief Commissioner of Wcrks, who
informed him that, in consultation with Sir R. Mayne,
it was thought more desirable to give the custody o f
the house into the hands of a fixed Indy of police
rather than the mixed body now in charge of the
house. The present force placed within the building con-
sisted of one inspector, two sergeants, and 18 policemen.
' The most ample means was taken for the protection of
the house. The arrangemeet was precisely similar to
those adopted in the dockyard at Chatham.
Lord REDESDALE said he did not think the new
arrangement as good as the old one. He hoped it would
be reconsidered.
The Duke of SOMERSET hoped the body in charge
of the building would have complete control over the
water-pipes.
TROOPS FOR NORTH AMERICA.
In answer to the Earl of ELGIN,
Lord PANMURE said it was quite true that a large
body of troops was about to be sent out to the Canada:,
but it was most unfounded to suppose that it was for
the purpose of aggression. It was merely to replace the
force that had been withdrawn from North America to
the scene of the late warlike operations. The
Government had also ordered out large muni-
tions of war to North America, which were simply to
make up for the large quantity which had been with-
drawn from that quarter during the war.
THE EDUCATION BILL.

The Bishop of OXFORD asked the noble earl the
President of the Council what course it was intended
to adopt with reguect to the Education Bill.?
Earl GRANVILLE said it was not intended to pro-
ceed with the measure after what had occurred in another
place.
Their lordships then adjourned.

iat time.

Mr. Filder baying concluded his statement,
Lord Lucan addressed the board in reply, on the evi-
dence that bad been adduced, and commenced by ob-
serving that he had no wish to say anything disrespectful
of Mr. Filder or his department, but ha must say that
he was rather surprised at Mr. Filder producing to the
Board the foraging returns, because, as every military
man knew, they were worthless, being always filled up
before the commissariat department obtained the forage.
His lordship said that these returns were not cor-
rect, and again went over the statement be
made on a former occasion with reference to the forage
supplies. It certainly now appeared that Lord Raglan
sanctioned the reduced issue, although he had in a con-
versation with him (Lord Lucan) said the reduced issue
was made without his order or sanction. He had always
given Mr. Filder credit for his endeavours to provide
rations for the cavalry. If anybody was to blame for
the deficient supply in the Crimea, arising from the diffi-
culty of landing, it was the naval department, and not
the Commissariat.

Mr. Filder, in consquence of Lord Lucan's statement,
called

Mr. Cruickshank, Assistant•Cummis=ary-General.
He said, in answer to a question from Mr. Fielder as to
the practice of filling up the ration returns, that the
front of the written returns showed the strength of each
regiment, and the back showed what was required and
what delivered. If there was a deficiency it was noted,
and only the quantity issued was charged to the ac-
count of the regiment.
By Lord Lucan—He was unable to furnish the Com-
missioners with the deficiency of the forage for a period
ending the beginning of January from having transmit.
ted the returns to the proper quarter, in accordance
with the rules of the service.
Lord Liman said, if it were necessary to prove the
inaccuracy of these returns, he could do so by calling
Lord De Roos.
The Judge-Advocate General—lt was not his regula•
tion, but that of the Treasury, that back rations should
not be issued when there was a full supply of rations.
Lord Lucan asked the course his case would now
take—whether he would be allowed to call evidence,
and reply to any statement Colonel Tulloch might make
Colonel Tulloch asked that Lord Lucan should be
called on to finish his case before he (Colonel Tulloch)
replied. Lori Lucan bad attacked his figures, and be
ought to have the reply.
The Board then retired to consider the point. On

their return,
The Judge-Advocate-General said the Board intended
to call on Col. Tullocb, after Lord Lucan had finished
his else, to address them, and then for Lord Lucan to
reply on the whole of the evidence that had been pro-
duced.

Lord Lucan then called Colonel Tulloch, and pro-
ceeded to examine him. He said that he commenced
his inquiries in the Crimea on the 16th of March, and
the last witnesses were examined on the 30th May. They
'eft on the 6th June on account of the cholera. No wit-
oesses were examined at Constantinople, but one or two
yen, at Scutari, but their evidence was not included in
the report, because the instrucions of the Commissioners
a'ere confined to the Crimea. Sir J. M`Neil made many
inquiries at Con.talitinople, but no personal evi-
hence taken. He (witnes-) left the Crimea on ac-
count of illness. He did not return to the Crimea
eecause Sir J. 111'Neil continued ill, and because they
considered that their inquiry was complete, with the
xception of a few questions they wished to put to
General Airey, and which they considered they might
properly do in writing. Sir J. M'Neil communicated
t,) Lord Panmure that he did not intend to return to
.:e3 Crimea, as he had made arrangements to meet his
i'amily either at Trieste or Vienna. He (witness) left
Constantinople about 13th or 14th June, and arrived
in England about three weeks after Sir J. M•Neil
did not arrive in England for a month after that. He
saw the Minister at War within a week after his arrival
n England. He reported hi; arrival to him the day he
anded. Sir R. Airey was telegraphed to reply to the
questions that had been submitted to him by the Corn-
eissioners about five weeks after his (no!. Tulloch's)
Arrival in England.
Lord Lucan—.Between the period of your r lurn to
London from the Crimea to the time you presented your
second report in January, did you communicate on the
,übject of that report officially or privately with any
officer or officers who belonged or did belong to the
Army in the East ?
Colonel Tulloch—l made no official communication to
.ny officer. I might have done so privately, and, I be-
ieve, it was to Dr. Hall. Witness had many communi-
awns with Col. Gordon, after his (.vitne.s's) return
:ewe, to make clear one or two points in his evidence.
i:he Commissioners considered they had no power to
ike evidence or open a new inquiry in E-igland. Col.
;ordon was only called on to explain doubtful points in
evidence. The inquiry was closed in the Crimea.
rhe queries sent to General Airey were forwarded to
eitn from Constantinople. If the Government ha 1
..aought the Commissioners did wrong in caring on Col.
:lerdon for an exp'aeation, they would have taken it one
if the report as they had done other matters, but not
,:arts of the evi leiice. He had ne power t) call
us other persons ie England for similar ex-
planations to those of Col. Gordon, if entitled to it,
tlvel the Government considered it necessary, no doubt
hey would have given the, C nninissioners orders tte-
iordine,ly. It was not by the desire of the Government
eiat the evidence of General Airey was received, and
Jo!. Gordon's explanations asked for after the Commis-
denere returnel to Constantinople and aiglatel. In
he Crimea no general officer connected with the cavalry
.vas examined, because they had all !eft. Cu!. Hodge,
eloo was senior officer in the cavalry in the Crimea, was
jest examined, an l then the brigadier-generals and
Cher officers. The Commissioners di.l not consider it ne-
esssary to transmit queries to the absent generals the
anus as they did to General Airey, that they required
.oy inf irinatioe from Lord Leman. He was guided ie
is conduct in this inquiry by Sir J. M-Neil's great ex-
wrience. Lord Raglan was not informed that the Coin-
Aissioners wished only to examine the commissariat
!Beers, or the officer of any particular department, and
13 the Government had expressed satisfaction at the
r3our:e pursued by the Commissioners that was not a
tuestion for the consideration of the Board, and 1

vas a course of examination that ought not
be persisted in. They bad received no written
Lpprobation from the Government of the report, but he
vi received a letter from L;rd Panmtire expressing his
approval of it.

Lord Lucan asked the blard if he could have a sight
,f that Letter ?

Tbeiulge-Mvocate-General said that W a matter
'discre.tiqa for C Tuiloch's considerAtion.

Lord Loma, to witneqs—Can you produce that letter ?

Colonel Tulloch—l cm produce it, bet whether I
will do it is another matter. Sir John M`Neirs letter
from Lord Panmure was in stronger terms of approba-
tion.

The Judge-AdvoCate-General—Have you in the coarse
of this proceeding produced the letter to the Board I
Col. Talloch—No, I have not. He produced a let.
ler he had received frnin the War-effic:e dated 7th April,
185 G, in reply to an application for: Certain documents.
&c., in which it was stated that, " whilst her Majesty's
Government wished to leave the inquiry in the hands of
the Thard of General offic?,r4, they were prepared t-)
support the Commissioners' report in all respects should
their conduct be impugned." He trusted after that
it would not be necessary for him to produce any
private letters of approbation.
By Len' Lucan—He denied that the report impugned
the conduct of Lord Lucan in the Crimea, anti that was
why the Commissioners had no desire to examine his
lordship. No general officer had a tight to assume that
the paragraph alleging want of promptitude and inge-
nuity applied to him. It was not the Commissioners'
duty to point out Who was to blame, that being a
subject for subsequent inquiry by the Government. The
report was as complete as it could be made in the Cri-
mea. Ii the Commissioners could have examined officers
who bad returned to England, it might have assumed a
different complexion. He deplined to state whether he
or Sir J. INl‘Neil drew up the first report—they each
drafted a report and. compared
say when the second it ; it was impossible to
report was drafted. He did not
think tid report was submitted to the Minister
t
;A .S. The reports were laid before
the ther in sec
the Minister-at-War in two or moreparts
one closely following the other, and at the ti
when the Minister-at-War was confined from mille-
ness to his residence. Sir J. IVl'l,Teil submitted the
two first points of the report on the first occasion
to the Minister-of-War. Parts of the report the Com-
missioners submitted to the Minister-of-War had been
taken out, and this report was the report of the Minis-
ter-at-War, and which he had submitted to Parliament.
He (C ,lonel Tnlloch) declined to state what had been
omitted.

By General Peel—Portions of my report to the Secre-
tAry-of-War, containing information brought from the
Crimea, were not approved of by him,
Lord Lucan eaid that tomorrow he should press Col,
Tulloch further on this point.
111. Judge Advocatc-General aukel C,l,