The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-01 00:00:00

Mr. ROEBUCK—Hear, hear. (Cheers.)
Mr. PEEL would undertake to say that the impression
of the commissioners themselves was that they were not to
inquire into the conduct of any particular officers ; and
this the hon. and learned member would see, if he turned
to those parts of the report containing the copy of the
letter addressed by them to Lord Raglan and of their
communications to the Quartermaster-General's depart-
ment. Again, it seemed to be the impression that
the commissioners who went out to the Crimea carried
on their inquiry in an open manner. But that was
not the case. It was essentially a closed court. No other
person was present before them when they were taking
evidence than the witness actually ender examination,
and no one witness knew anything of what was said by
any other; but surely had the commissioners gone out to
inquire into the misconduct of the officers in the Quarter-
master-General's and Commissariat departments, they
would have had those offieere before them from time to
time, and have taken evidence as to their conduct. (Hear.)
The couclading proposition of the resolution, that the
commission was appointed to inquire into the conduct of
certain officers, was not then correct. Then the hon. and
learned member said that the Government, having received
the report of the commission, issued another commission
to report upon that report. As he understood the hon.
and learned member, he contended that the Government
ought to have appointed a court-martial, and summoned
the office: s nculpated by the report to appear before them,
and the reason he gave was, that the board of general
officers was composed entirely of milita men. Ho said
that, "in the tribunal over which I piled last year, I
took care to intermingle civilians with military men."
Mr. ROEBUCK—I said nothing of the led. (Order.)
Mr. F. PEEL—The hon. and learned gentleman cer-
tainly said, " I object to this board of general officers, be-
cause it is composed of military men."
Mr. ROEBUCK—Military men of one opinion. (Hear.)
Mr. PEEL—Just so ; and the hon. and learned member
added that it was composed of men advanced in years.
But had the hon. and learned gentleman Inade inquiry he
would have found that he was in error in supposing that
these officers were s) advanced in years as he intimated.
But the principal objection of the hon. and learned member
was, that the board was to sit in England to review the
proceedings of a commission that made their inquiry upon
the spot. The objection that the inquiry was to be con-
ducted iu England did not weigh with the hon. and learned
member when he appointed his oWn committee, and re-
fused to adopt the suggestion of his noble friend (Lord
Palmerston) that a commission should proceed to the Cri-
mes to inquire into the conduct of those who were respon-
sible theta for supplying the troops with stores and pro-
visions, while the committee sat here to inquire into the
management of the authorities at home. The speech of
the honourable and learned member would lead to the sup-
position that he had failed to masks himself acquainted
with the contents of the repel. He (air. Peel)
had made himself acquainted with the contents of that
document, and could not deny that the officers against
whom charges were therein imputed had a right to demand
further inquiry and investig Aden into the wetter. The
first point to inquire into was whether the report was in
all respects founded upon evidence. It was plain that the e
were passages in the report inculpatiugeertein officers who
served in the Crimea, but he refused to give his adhesion
to those statements, unless he found that they had nothing
to advance in their defence. One of the gravest charges
against Col. Gordon was that he had neglected to issue
greatcoats and blankets at the proper time, and the troops
suffered severely in consequence. That was a serious charge
against the quartermaster-general's department, seeing the t
they had the articles in store. Acci-,ating to the commis-
sioners one of the reasons:lle:4mi by Coll. Cordon why hr dot
nut issue the coats was that there was a regnleton in :h.,
army under which grew ceats could only be serve,) out to the
men once in three years. It was hardly poviible to accept a
statement so improbable without examining the evideucs.
But when they turned to the evidence they looked in vain
for any passage in which Colonel Gordon assigned that as a
reason. The commissioners then said that the Government
ought to have sent out special iustractions for dispensing
with that regulation, or, if they did not, an application
ought to have been made by the Quartermaster-General's
department to the acting Commander-in-Chief for a dispen-
sation, and if neither of these courses were available, they
ought to have taken the authority upon themselves. Bat
in no part of the evidence did it appear that Colonel
Gordon said that he was prevented from issuing the great
coats by the existence of the warrant confining the issue
to one great coat in three years to each man, or the diffi-
culty of obtaining a dispensation from that, warrant.
There was another reason why the Government could not
adopt the report as conclusive, and why it was ne,sisary
to appoint a tribunal to receive evidence. It was stated
by the commissioners that the troops remained seven or
eight weeks after their landing rat Eupatoria and march-
ing upon the Alma before they had their knapsacks re-
turned to them, and that they suffered severely in conse-
quence from the want of ordinary necessaries ; and that
Col. Gordon, when he was asked " How do you account
for that delay ?" answered that, shortly after the battle of
the Alma, a circular was addressed to all the general offi-
cers commanding divisions inviting them to say whether
they wished the men to have their knapsacks returned to
them, and that they all declined to receive them. They
added that when they (the commissioners) returned to Eng-
land they inquired of the generals of division who hap-
pened to be in this country as to the truth of this state-
ment, and that the reply of one was that no such offer ever
was made, of another teat he had no recollection of it, and
a third they had not been able to see. This was a state-
ment which directly impugned the veracity of Col. Gor-
don, and without inquiry who could say which party was
right? What Col. Gordon now said was, that when he
gave that answer to the commissioners he had in his hand
the letters of three of the generals commending divisions
distinctly 'declining to receive the knapsacks, and that
another had explained to him verbally why he did not
N,yish to receive them, and that there was au entry in the
official memorandum book of the Quartermaster-General's
department confirming this statement. Then as to the
case of General Airey—would it have been fair to have
condemned him upon this report, unsuppoi tad by evidence?
(Hoar.) The charge against the Quartermaster-General's
department was, that having plenty of stores on hand they
neglected to issue them. Well, Gen. Airey was at the head
of that department, and was the responsible party. But
when the report was looked into, it did not appear that
Gen. Airy was ever called before the commissioners or exa-
mined by thesis at all. It was true that the commissioners
prepared certain written questions, and that Gen. Airily
gave written answers to them ; but with regard to the non-
issuing of the stores at the proper time, which was the
only point on which the Quartermaster-General's depart-
ment was condemned in the report, it did not
appear that any explanation was asked or given. lie
thought these circumstances afforded ample grounds for
the appointment of the board of general officers, to afford
an opportunity to the officers whose conduct was impugned
to give their own explanation of the facts. The right hon.
baronet (Sir J. Pakington) was dissatisfied with the Go-
vernment for not comuauuicating the remelt to the force
Guards before laying it upon the table of the house ; but
that coarse would have occasioned delay, and in all proba-
bility there would have been a motion in the house, which
ceuld scarcely have been resisted, for the immediate
production of the document. No inconvenience could
possibly have resulted from the report nut having been
sent to the Horse Guards in the first instance ; it was re-
ceived by the War Department only a day or two after
the house net, was immediately laid upon the table,
and the Horse Guards were iu possesion of it at as early
period almost as it would have been had it been sent to
the Horse Guards in the first instance. As the honour-
able and learned member's resolution distinctly chat g
the Government with misconduct in having appointed
officers who were inculpated by the commissioners' report,
hem felt bound to enter into some explanation upon that
point. The hon. and learned member said that the officers
whose conduct was most inculpated were Lord Lucan,
Lord Cardigan, General Airey, and Col. Gordon. Now
he would take the case of Lord Cardigan first. The ap-
pointment which had been given to that officer was In-
spector-General of Cavalry. But when was he appointed ?
Shortly after the brilliant charge which Lord Cardigan
had headed at Belaklava, when all the country
was resounding with the praises of that noble lord's
gallantry—long before the commission w. s appointed, and
even before the Government by which that commission had
been appointed was in existence. How that appointment
could be made a charge of misconduct on the part of the
Government he could not understand. Then with regard
to Lord Lucan, who had been appointed to the command of
a cavalry regiment. Considering that he was one of the
seven general officers who commanded a disision in the
Crimea, and as every other general officer who had com-
manded a division had been appointed to the command of
a regiment, he could not conceive that there was anything
wrong in that appointment, especially as it also was made
before the commission had reported, and when it was not
known that any accusation would be made against him in
that document. Then there was the case of Col. Gordon,
who had been appointed Deputy Quartermaster-General
at the Horse Guards. In Dec., 185 a Lord Raglan recom-
mended Col. Gordon to be Queen's Aide-de-Campoand De-
puty Quartermaster-General of his army. That recom-
mendation was not attended to by Lord Harding; and
in May, 1855, Lord Raglan again recommended that he
should be made a Queen's Aide-de-Camp, and promoted to
the rank of full oolonel, he having been previously lieu-
tenant-colonel. But Colonel Gordon was not made a

Qneen's Aide-de-Camp, and he succeeded to the rank of
colonel, not by the influence of Lord Raglan's recommen-
dation, but by seniority. Then, with regard to his being
appointed Deputy Quartermaster-General. When Lord
Raglan died, Colonel Gordon came heme. Ha was about
to return to the Crimea, when at that moment the office
of Deputy Quartermaster-General at the Horse Guards be-
came vacant ; and it was considered that as Lord Raglan,
who had had personal experience of his abilities, had recom-
mended him to fill a corresponding office in the Crimea—
a more fit person could not be appointed. (Hear, hear.) In
this case likewise, then, he contended, there had been no
misconduct on the part of the Government, the appoint-
ment having been made ere the commission had reported.
(Hear, hear.) The argument of the right hon. baronet (Sir
J. Pakington) was, that they wore wrong in appointing
persons upon • whose conduct an inquiry was in point of
fact pending ; but, if that principle were carried out, the
Government would have been debarred from availing
themselves of the services of any officer who had been en-
gaged in any one of the departments to which the inquiry
of the commissioners extended ; and Colonel Wellesley,
who, as officer in the Quartermaster-General's department,
was to a certain extent responsible for the issue of stores,
could not have been appointed First Deputy Quarter.
master-General of the Turkish Contingent, and afterwards
to the command of the Land Transport Corps ; for both of
which appointments he had proved himself eminently
qualified. He next came to the case of General Airey.
General Airey was Quartermaster-General of the Army,
first under Lord Raglan, and afterwards under General
Simpson ; and when the office of Quartermaster-General
became vacant by the retirement of General Freeth,
who had filled it for forty-two years, Lord Hardingo
naturally availed himself of the se.vices of an offieer
who had served two years is the Crimea in the very
department which was then vacant, aril it must have been
a great advantage to Lord Panmure and Lord Hardinge,
while the war was going on, to have it their disposal the
experience of an officer who had bees in such a position.
The estimate of the character and Knows of Genera