The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-06 00:00:00

THE SUN; LONDON., TUESDAY EVENING MAY 6. 1856.

THE MILITAIIY BOARD OF INQUIRY.
(This Day.)

ALARMING ILLNESS OF COL. TULLOCH.
The Board re-assembled at the usual hour.
The Judge-Advocate-General inquired of Dr. Balfour,
Col. Tulloch's medical adviser, if he could inform the
Court whether Col. Tullocla would be able to attend to-
day ?

Dr. Balfour said that after leaving the Court yesterday
Cal. Tulloch bad been obliged to have further medical
advice, and be produced a certificate from Sir James
C'arke and Dr. Martin stating that Col. Tulloch was suf-
fering so severely from illness, brought on by severe
mental and bodily exertion and anxiety, that his attend-
ance before the Board was altogether impossible.
Toe Board, having consulted for a few minutes, asked
General Airey what ho proposed to do
General Airey said that, whilst he expressed his sin-
cere regret at the indisposition of Col. Tulloch, he must
say that his absence placed him (General Airey) is a
position of great difficulty, because, after the adjourn-
ment of the Court yesterday, he compared the MS.
minutes of Col. Gordon's evidence with that in the
printed report, and had di,covered some serious omis-
sions, and he should hardly like to go into such a ques-
tion unless Col. Tulloch himself were present.
Gen. Peel said that the absence of Col. Tulloch ought
not to prevent the progress of the inquiry, since the Go-
vernment, in the appointing this Commission, did not
anticipate the presence of the Commissioners before the
Board.

Gen. Airey submitted that if Col. Tulloch could not
attend, Sir J. M'Neil, the other Commissioner, might be
able to do SO 'I
The Judge Advocate-General said that he understood
Dr. Balfour to say, that he yesterday informed Sir J.
M'Neil of the state of Col. Tulloch's health, so that
that gentleman could have been present if he had
pleased.
A fter some further conversation Gen. Airey consented

to pr,c-3ed.
The Board again conferred for a short time, when
The Judge-Advocate-General addressed Gen. Airey,
saying that the Board had come to the conclusion, that
if he (General Airey) intended to continue the course he
pursued yesterday of impugning the conduct of the Com-
missioners in the preparation of their report that it
would be improper to proceed without him.
General Airey disclaimed all intention of impugning

personally the conduct of the Commissioners, but at the
same time said it would be impossible for him to con-
duct his case in any other way.
The Judge-Advocate-General said that the Board
thought his course of proceeding yesterday somewhat
personal.

General Airey disclaimed any personal feeling of hos-
tility against the Commissioners ; but it was impossible
for him to conduct his case without impugning the cor-
rectness of the evidence as published.

Alter some further conversation on the subject, Gen.
Airey called

Major Keane, of the Royal Engineers—He went to
the Crimea to construct huts for the army, and under-
stood he was to have a certain number of Sappers to go
out with him. That arrangement was not carried out,
and he was unable to say why a Delays in con-
structing the huts arose from various causes—
the difficulty of landing materials, the want of
wharfage ground, and, after that, the want of
transport of the materials to the camp. He though
the statement in the Commissioners' report with refer-
ence to the difficulties attending the want of materials,
and of providing shelter for the troops as well as the
state of the men, not an exaggerated one. He thought
canvass shelter could not have been constructed ade-
quately for the wants of the army in the Crimea. Can-
vass from a night's dew often shrunk so as to draw the
tent pegs, add to have constructed canvass shelter for
the horses elaborate framework would have been re-
quired. Canvass had been spsken of for its facility of
transport, stnd to u.;ei it an extra quantity of scantling
and spars would have been required, the difficulty of
transport of which would more than have counter-
balanced the lightness of the canvass. In having to
allow for the shrinking of canvass its stability was
greatly endangered in stormy weather. Canvass shelter
would not have answered in the Crimea. He ex-
plained the difficulties he had to encounter in getting
men to assist in constructing shelter. The crews of the
ships in harbour were fully employed in attending to
their own duties.

By the Judge-Advocate-General—He was ordered by
the Adjutant-General to proceed to the Crimea, and Col.
Mapson informed him he was to have a number of sap-
pers, who were carpenters, to go with him. They did
not go, and he experienced great difficulties in the
Crimea from the want of them. The horses could not
have been sheltered by the erection of side walls from
the want of stones,.

General Airey then read a report from the Assistant-
engineer stationed at B daklava to show that no analogy
existed between providing temporary shelter for the
baggage animals of the sappers and miners there, and
that kr the cavalry.

Admiral Sir D. Dundee was next called, and examined
by General Airey—He said that the fleet under his
command in the Black' Sea was fully employed during
that period. The fleet was divided into three divisions.
He was before Sebastopol, Adiniral Lyons at Bala-
klava, and the other division at Eupatoria. He landed
2,400 seamen and 2,000 marines to assist the army.
Every ship landed all the spare canvass and material
she could spare. The spare set of sails on board each
ship could certainly not have been sent ashore. Con-
sistently with the safety of the fleet, every man and all
the spare canvass that could be spared were sent on
chore during that portion of the winter of 1854 that he
was in command of the fleet. Every man in the fleet
readily and cheerfully did his utmost to assist the army.
The gallant admiral was examined by the Judge-Ad-
vocate-General on the points Sir E. Lyons was examined
by Colonel Tunnel, viz., the quantity of spare canvas
on board different size Government vessels, and the
difficulty of getting carpenters from Constantinople, to
which he gave similar answers as Sir Edmund Lyons.
Mr. Boyd, storekeeper at Balaklava, was examined
by General Airey. He hail command of the quarter-
master-general's stores, and issued them under the direc-
tion of Mr. Archer, assistant-commissary-general. He
described the state of the harbour from the over-crowd-
ing of vessels, and the stores lying about on the wharfs
from the want of storehouses in which to deposit them.
The bales and packages were frequently broken open in
the morning, having been plundered during the night
of their contents by the Maltese. Stores were
issued as speedily as possible, and no objection was
made to their issue from any irregularities in the
orders. He often issued stores without orders. The
quartermasters of regiments were daily at his stores, and
saw what was there, and anything they required they
had. During the winter when he had a supply of great
coats, sheepskins, rugs, blankets, and other warm cloth-
ing, the men had a full supply. They preferred sheep-
skins to the great coats, and would not have rugs or
itt n .
onsffiyppc theotr
eareit till stores juMilne,blankets. The witness was examined into the details of
his me de of issuing the stores to the army, and with
regard to the issue of the boots and shoes. He said the
men were allowed to fit themselves. The general effect
and impression of his evidence was that the army was
at all times abundantly supplied with necessaries and
had every comfort. In fact, they had only to ask and
have.
dgaelatdiavvoacaotne-tGheenie2rathl—Direce.,taonokd
continued charge •f
E
CoßmymiSssiir W.owen—He was not examined by the
oners.
R
atJ Balaclava
following. There was often want of
transport
te o
to convey the sti.res to the camp.
Captain
of the Admiralty, in charge of the
Transport Service attended, and was examined by the
given to the captains of the trans•
have been injudicious on the part of
Judge Advocate-General as to the transport contracts,
andan ports.personts eu ilt
suit o would
f t instructionso
l sails,a v etaken from tha transports their se•
send taut instructions were issued to them
to supply the army with all the sails and canvass they
could spare. The terms of the contract did not require
the transports to supply spare canvass to the army. The
charter party required that a curtain number of sails
should be on board each transport, and a Government
offi
Col. Chapman, of the Royal Engi.neers, was examined
by General Airey, relative to the evidence given by him
before the Crimean Commissioners, in providing tempo-
ctehr inspected the vessels previeses to their sailing to
see the
were on board.
rary shelter for the baggage mules at Balaklava, and
art walls over which to stretch the canvas. Such
said, in providing that shelter, they had the advantage
foafcdil"it.ies did not exist on the plateau. lie was of opi-
nion sailcloth would not have answered for shelter-
inn the the cavalry on the plateau without strong frame-
work on which to nail it. His evidence appeared
to be correct in substance in the printed report, but
he compared it with a copy he made of it before signing
it. He obtained his supplies regu!.arly, but he thought
he did not get his issue of blanketem till the 10th Jan.
Gen. Air,y, in the course of a co,sversation relative to
the transports not delivering their cargoes on the wt arf
at Balaklava, said he believed it arose from a defect in
the contracts. In the usual contracts for a vessel to
take a cargo to any given place, no provision was suede
for landing, because plenty of labourers could be pro-
cured to do so, but in this instance it appeared not to
have occurred to the persons who made the contracts
that the cargoes were to be delivered where labourers
were scarce.
e-General, said he could not proceed further
General Airey, in reply to an inquiry from the Judge-
Advocate-General,
or Sir J. l'N 1 as ho wished to examine one of them
his evidence without the attendance of Col. Tulloch
a 1. ei ,
attendancedofe
CAtoTcuate-General said it was not likely
' with
hre he called more
llevihdence. He should prefer the
The Ju g -
Sir W. Rowan said he did not think the Board could
of the
' compel the attendance of either Commissioners.
1
\
it was arranged that the Court should
Co.. Tulloch could attend again for at least a week. -
Ultimately
, cats with the Commissioners. They would then decide
what course they would pursue.
adjourn till Thursday, to enable the Board to comt..ani-
% The Court then adjourned till Thursday.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YEsTERDAy).

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

There WrtS an unusual atteniance of ladies i❑ the gal
leries, and the space between the -throne and the wool
sack wa3 also very much ern vded by the sons of peers.

INDIA.

The Earl of ALBEMARLE gave notice of his inten-
tion to move, of er the recess, for certain return: in
reference to the salaries and pensions issued to the civil
servants in the presidencies of Bombay and Madras.
He also called attention to a report upon the practice of
torture in connection with the Loom Tax in the Madras
presidency.

not clearly understand them, inasmuch as they were never
clearly stated by her Majesty's Ministers—he denied that
they were fully accomplished by this treaty. He should
therefore advise their lordships to substitute an amend-
ment, and instead of "joy and satisfaction," he would omit
that paragraph, and say— " We have learned that your
Majesty has been enabled to re-establish peace on condi-
tions which have appeared to your Majesty and your allies
adequately to effect the great objects of the war." Whether
he should press that amendment to a division or not must
depend on what should be the feelings he might per-
ceive to exist in the hou e in the course of the de-
bate. He had no wish to take a course hostile to
her Majesty's Government, but a strong wish to re-
cord his own decided opinion. They were not met to
discuss a question which depended upon the votes of
the house, but they were invited by the Government
to consider a treaty which they could not alter, but which
her Majesty, by her own undoubted prerogative, had
signed, with her foreign allies. Now, it was necessary for
him to remind the house what were the objects of this
war. He. would quote upon that subject the authority of
her Majesty's Ministers. On the 24th February, 1854, the
Foreign Secretary said, "It might be very desirable and
very just to take from Russia, and to restore to the coun-
tries from which they were taken, various territories which
Russia had taken from other countries ; it might be very
just and desirable to make Russia pay for the cost of the
war ; but it is impossible we shert!d take any resolution for
any of these objects without knowing with what skill and
success the war will bo conducted, or what will be the posi-
tion and circumstances of the Emperor of Russia at its
conclusion." That was an evident truism ; but what he
(the Earl of Mslmeabury) hail to remark upon it was, that,
in accordance with the observations of the Foreign
Secretary, this treaty hail been framed in consequence
of events of the war which, to say the least of them,
were very unfavourable to the allies and to ourselves. The
noble earl (the Foreign Secretary) at the same time said
that it was intended "to check the aggressive power of
Russia, and to take solid guarantees that Europe should
not again be deprived of the great blessings of peace." He
(the Earl of Malmesbury) would prove that such guaran-
tees were not given by the document now presented to the
house. On the 31st March, 1.354, the Foreign Secretary
said, " I trust that, at the conclusion of this contest, we
shall find Austria and Prussia by our side in the establish-
ment of peace on a solid and secure foundation, but that
peace will neither be solid nor secure unless the territorial
extension and immoderate influence of Russia are repressed
for ever." It would be for him (the Earl of Malmesbury)
to show that this had not been done. Lord J. Russell, on
the 12th December, 1854, said, " I believe no peace will be
safe for Turkey or honourable to this country which left
Sebastopol in the same menacing position in which it bas of
late years been." (Cheers. He understood that cheer, but
he would show that, if not literally, Sebastopol had politi-
cally been left in the same poeitiou as before the war.
Lord Palmerston said on the 19th Dec., 1854, "It would
not be for the interest or honour of this country to end
this great war with small and ineffectual results; we ought
to have a result adequate to the sacrifices we had made."
Now he (the noble earl) would consider what this treaty
was and how far those results had been obtained. The first

_wo articles, the preamble, were followed by two very im-
portant articles. In the first line of them was mentioned
"the citadel of Kars." He (the Earl of 51altnesbury) bed
been taunted in another place by the Prime Minister with
having shrunk from bringing forward that subject, because
he was afraid of being defeated on it. But it was for the
convenience of their lordships, and the propriety of de-
bate, he had been obliged to withdraw his notice of Friday
last, since the treaty was to be discussed this evening.
He did not wish to avoid the debate, for he thought
it the duty of the Opposition, when they thought Go-
vernment were in the wrong, to point it out, without
reference to the numbers of a division. (Cheers.) Now the
third article of this treaty said that the Emperor of Rus-
sia agreed " to restore to the Sultan the town and citadel
of Kars and other parts of the Ottoman empire of which
the Russian troops are in possession." Ou the other hand,
her Majesty and the allies agreed to restore the towns and
ports of Sebastopol, B alaklava, Eupatoria, Kertch, Yeni-
kale, Kinbourn, and others. Could any one, with common
understanding, say that Kars was an equivalent for all
these ? Sebastopol, the scene of all our disasters and of all
our glories, of our hopes and disappointments, our misfor
tunes and victories, the goal for which wo had contended
for nearly two years, was to be exchanged for Kars !
Would anybody say then that the loss of Kars had not in-
fluenced these negotiations? The very juxtaposition of these
two articles proved that it had done so; and it appeared '
that the noble lord now on the woolsack, the second
plenipotentiary ( Lord Cowley) had protested against their
juxtaposition, but that his protest was repressed ; and so
it remained, to show that tho belligerent powers
made an exchange. Tho treaty said that Russia was to
have "no maritime military arsenals" on the Black Sea—
hut there was no definition or explanation of that term.
It was to be inferred that there were to be no docks where
men-of-war could be built and armed. Bat the treaty
would not prevent Russia from keeping up the northern
forts of Sebastopol in all their impregnable strength—from
girding the neighbouring hills with ramparts, and raising
the Malakhoff again. so that it never could ne wrested flow
Russia any snore. (Hear.) lie assumed that those fortresses
might be rebuilt ; else, let the noble earl the Foreign Se-
cretary say they might not. Sebastopol was not all we gave
in exchange for Kars, but also Belaklava, Kamiesh, which
the French had fortified, Kertch, Eupatoria, and other
places, which the allies had strengthened giatiifor Russia.
Aud what became of those forts along the Circassian coast
which the Russians had been obliged to abandon, giving
liberty at length to the noble Circassian race ? The Prime
Minister had stated that Russia was to resume them, and
might rebuild or garrison them. In plain English, then,
we had deserted the Circassians. (Hear.) We had left
them to a dreadful and certain fate, after having sought
their assistance and to a great extent benefitted by it.
(" Hear, hear," from Lord Panmure ) Notwithstanding
that cheer of the noble lord the Secretary for War—who
surely was not the best authority about hostilities in Asia
Minor—(a laugh) —the allies had benefited by the assistance
of the Circassians ; for in 1854, when the Russian general
had gained two victories over the Turks, and was entering
Anatolia, it was the inroad made by Schamyl in the direc-
tion of Tiflis that obliged bine to retreat. No wonder our
Ministers had deserted the Circassians if they had already
forgotten what that bravo people (lid for us. (Cheers )
But if the Circassians had not been able or willing
to assist us, as we wished, what was the cause of their
backwardness ? How could we be excused for abandon-
ing their interest in the treaty after having excited them
to aid us in the war ? Lord Palmeiston said, on the
26th June, 1855, that "there were no relations existing
between her Majesty's Government and the Circassian

chiefs, except those arising out of their co-operation in the
attack on Anapa." No, but Schamyl had saved our allies,
the Turks, from an invasion. (Cheers.) It appeared, too,
from the answer given by Lord Palmerston to Mr. Baillie's
question, that Col. Lloyd had been employed, at a salary of
2,0001. a year, to go into Circassia, to open communications
with that people, and ascertain on what terms and to what
extent their assistance could be obtained. Was not that
asking them to join us as our allies ? And yet, b:!cause we
had forgotten the advantage they gave us, and because the
assistance they could render us did not come up to what we
had expected, very much in consequence of the blunders of
our own administration, their interests were now to be
abandoned. The noble earl, the Foreign Secretary, was de-
feated when he attempted to protest against the restoration
of those forts. The noble earl would stand in history here-
after in the category of those politicians who had deserted
the cause of a country's liberty, when they had
an opportunity of defending Ho knew the generous
spirit of the noble earl, and could not believe but that it
had been his wish and desire to save the Circassian people
from perdition ; but he must have been overruled by cir-
cumstances which perhaps he would not dare to tell. Well,
great stress would be laid on the neutralisation of the Black
Sea. He confessed that, as he said when the -Vienna con-
ferences were going on, he thought the most desirable man-
ner of settling the question was the neutralisation of the
Black Sea, and making it a purely commercial sea. (Cheers.)
But were we quite safe in the agreement we had made
about this ? Was there no arriere-pensje in these negoti-
ations? He was not entirely satisfied with the answers
given to the noble earl in the conferences. It was clear
that Turkey and Russia were respectively to maintain only
six ships of war, of a certain size, in the Black Sea. The
Russian plenipotentiaries then claimed groat credit for
making what they called a concession. But it was not a
concession made on their side alone. The Turks, who had
a right to navigate that sea, made an equal concession,
and therefore Russia could not claim any praise for that.
The noble earl's suspicions appeared to have been roused on
a subject of vast importance, and he asked whether the
transports which Russia might build, and retain ad libitum,
were to be armed ? He did not wonder at the jealousy of his
noble friend, but he should like to know bow that matter
was settled, for Count Orloff answered that the transports
in the Black Sea would be furnished with armaments suit-
able to the occasion. Lord Clarendon, said the protocol,
VMS not satisfied with that answer, and requested an ad-
journment of the question, which adjournment must have
been sine die, for the matter did not appear to have been
alluded to again in the protocols. Ho should like to know
from his noble friend how the matter ended, for if
those transports which Russia was to be allowed
to have ad libitum., were to lie in Sebastopol, and be
furnished with suitable armaments, which might mean
one gun or fifty, accordingla as the ships were of 100 or
1,000 tons, they might isle from Sebastopol and lattice
a descent on any part of the Turkish coast. He (Lord
Malmesbury) could not say that the objects of the war
were accompli hed if Sebastopol was to be made as strong
as ever, and a fleet of transports was to be maintained byi
Russia sufficiently armed to defend any troops they might
carry. ,It was impossible for him to say that the objects
of the treaty were accomplished, unless this question was
settled. Then there was another question with regard to
which the Russian plenipotentiaries seem to have been ex-
ceedingly expert. His noble friend asked a question with
regard to Nicolaieff, and it was answered that Nicolaieff
not being in the Black Sea, but a long way up a Russian
river, its maritime and military arsenals might be retained,
but still as a great favour to his noble friend, Count Or-
loff promised that no larger ships than those agreed on
should be built there, and stated that he was ready to
send two line-of-battle ships which were there down
through the Bosphorus to the Baltic. His noble friend
asked that that promise should be entered on the pro-
tocol. Was it so entered? As far as it went it was satis-
factory, for no doubt Count Orloff was a man of honour
and meant what he said, and he said what his master
meant. But it was no insult even to an Emperor when the
fate of nations was at stake, to ask that the treaty should
contain a solid guarantee for the performance of the pro-
mise. He did not want to rake up old grievances, and as
we wore now at peace with Russia, he did not wish to say
a word calculated to mako any Russian think that he did
not rejoice at our being at peace with that country ; for he
did rejoice. But there had been public events which
ought to have acted as warnings to the noble earl
to have obtained something more solid than a promise
from Count Orloff, who was but mortal and whose mas-
ter was only mortal also. He would quote from the work
of Sir John M`Neill, on the Progress of Russia in the
East, what occurred in 1814.—(The noble earl then read
an extract from the work in question, which pointed out
the proceedings of the Russian general in the war with
Persia, in which be agreed to certain terms with
regard' to the restoration to Persia of territory
which had been taken in the course of the war, and
which was made the basis of a treaty, to which the British
minister at Teheran, confiding in the good faith of Russia,
assented. Nevertheless, Lord Cathcart, then ambassador at
St. Petersburg, pressed in vain on the Emperor to fulfil the
pledge given in the treaty, but was unable to obtain the re-
storationd
faith
o f c Goof
note
oe frol
oo f
ft ofor gtrhoeuEratol .1)
eroer, dbi cut
tniof tt
hdooTu
bb
ot
tthh
pe
agsos oe
away from this earthly scene, there was net a line in the
treaty to prevent the building of any ships at Nicolaieff, or
to prevent them being brought down into the Black Sea. If,
therefore, the object of the war was completely to prevent
Russia from attempts in future of thatnature which we went
to war to prevent, it should have been declared that Nice-
laieff should no longer be an arsenal, and the fortress of Se-
bastopol entirely rased and kept down. There was one part
of the treaty which was most important, but to which he
was almost afraid to draw their lordships' attention, for it
would be difficult to explain his meaning unless they had
maps, Oneof the cessions made by Russia was that of partof