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

Mr. F. PEEL—WeII, the officer who presided over that
department in lit 4 was the same who presided over it now.
(Ironical chaers from Mr. Roebuck and. Mr. Layard.) That
cheer, he supposed, meant that that officer ought not now
to be at the head of the department, but let the returns of
the state of the army speak for the fact. There were now
7 deaths in 7 days out of 70,000 men, and look at that
in comparison with last year, when, with a force one
third or one half in number, the number of deaths were
105 a week. Take any other department of the army
in the Crimea, and it would be found that men were ap•
pointed to fill them who were the fittest for their posts.
With these remarks he would leave the question in the
hands of the house, and he had no donght from what the
right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) had said
that the house would shrink from taking any course which
would prevent the officers implicated from making their
explanations to the board of general officers who had been
appointed, and that it would be admitted that some credit
was due to the Government, who had done their utmost
to bring together an army se strong in numbers, so imbued
with martial spirit, and so eager to measure their strength
with the enemy, that although every one must desire that
peace would be the result of the conference now sitting,
and that every practicable means should be pursued to ob-
tain it, yet if war was the only alternative that remained,
and it was adopted by this country, there could be no
doubt as to its results.

Mr. BENTINCK characterised the motion of Mr. Roe-
buck as ill-timed and inopportune, and taunted him with
having been the only member who, during this session,
had endeavoured to disturb the course which the house had
been inclined to adopt at this juncture. The course taken
by the hon. gentleman, and the opinion he had expressed
with regard to the objects for %which England had en-
tered on the present war, were such as not to justify him
(Mr. Bentinck) iu having any confidence in the motion
which he had now brought forward.
Mr. LAYARD hoped to be allowed to address a few
words to the house in consequence of a motion in connectic n
with this subject which ho had put on the paper. Without
any disparagement to the motion of his hon. and learned
friend, he must say that he thought his (Ar. Layard's) own
motion preferable to the hos. and learned gentleman's. It
was a question whether this commission ought to be the
subject of discussion, and he would limit himself to that
part of the subject. The right hon. gentleman opposite

(Sii• J. Pakington) said that the house ought nob to enter
into this question, and he agreed with him so far as the
conduct of the officers which was impugned in the report
was concerned. After what had been done by the Govern-
ment, he thought it unadvisable to take such a course, and
he had listened with surprise to the unwise and indiscreet
speech of the Under-Secretary for war. He would not go
over the whole subject of the state of the army in the Cri-
mea, which was known to every man, but he would remind
the house that, when the motion of the hen, and learned
gentleman last year was carried, and was followed by the
fall of the Government, the noble lord now the First Mi-
nister made a very remarkable speech, and endeavoured to
take the inquiry out of the hands of the house, tieing the
words of a kin; of former times, and stating that he would
bo their leader, and see that inquiry was made into the al-
leged culpab'lity and the guilty punished. Notwithstand-
ing that speech the committee was appointed, and tho in-
quiry went on. Besides this, the noble lord chose two most
unexceptionable gentlemen to make an inquiry on the
spot, which the committee could not de definitively. He
had sent Sir J. M'Neill and Col. Tulloch to the spot to
inquire into the condition of the army and to report to the
house and the country. The appointments were unexcep-
tionable. Sir J. M`Neill began life as a surgeon is the
army, and was therefore highly qualified in that respect
for the task he undertook • besides which he had repre-
sented the country with ability in Persia, and knew some-
thing of the resources of the East ; and latterly he had held
asemi-official appointment in Scotland, and was habituated
to dealing with evidence. Col. Tulloch also was an officer
of high character and experience. The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Peel) had said that he (ifr. Layard) had criticised
those appointments, because he had said that their report
would be a sham. He was right, however, in saying that
it would be a sham, that is, that the Government never
would adopt it. The hon. gentleman had himself said
that the Government had overthrown the report, for he
complained that General Airey had not been heard before
the commissioners, because Sir John M`Neill had, on ac-
count of ill health, left the Crimea before he had an op-
portunity of dein.. so. He (Mr. Layard) had had some
conversation with Sir J. M'Neill at the time that he was
appointed, and that gentleman told him that his health was
very delicate, and that he undertook the task with reluc-
tance, but that it had been pressed on him by the Govern-
ment, and he felt it to be his duty to consent to act. Had
not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) justified his (Mr. Lay-
aed's) prognostications with regard to the way n which the
Government would deal with the report ? He would not
go into the report on that occasion, but it was a fact that
the gentlemen appointed went to the Crimea to report on
the state of things; they were to act like a judge in sum-
ming up a ease ; they were to state all the facts, and give
no opinion of their own ; they were to produce the evi-
dence given before them, and leave it to the house and the
country to pass a judgment upon it ; and surely they were
as able to do that as any board of general officers. The
Government had adopted the report and communicated it
to the house; they had accepted it and endorsed it with
their sanction, and he had heard the hon. gentleman's mode
of dealing with it with surprise. There were two points on
which he would remark. The hon. gentleman had charged
Sir J. Dl`Ncill and Col. Tulloch with want of veracity, and
he referred to a part of Col. Gordon's evidence, and stated
that Sir J. M`Neill and Col. Tulloch had said that Colonel
Gordon stated that the men's knapsacks had not been given
to them because the generals of aivision had refused to re-
fund them, whereas, according to Sir J. M'Neill, three
generals had denied that to him. In this instance the re-
port only stated these things as facts, and it did not say
which was in the right. The hon. gentleman said that Col.
Gordon's letters showed that he was right, but he ought
not to have ()barged Sir J. M`Neill and Col. Tulloch with
want of veracity.
Mr. PEEL had never impugned the veracity of the com-
missioners, but all he said was that Col. Gordon had made
an assertion on one side, and the commissioners on the
other, and the Government would not undertake to say
which was right.
Mr. LAYARD—The next point was with regard to the
greatcoats. The )son. gentleman said that Sir J. M'Neill
and Colonel Tulloch had stated that they were not served
out because Col. Gordon said that the issue of great coats
was restricted by the Queen's warrant to one in three
years, and that there was no such words in Col. Gordon's
evidence. The usual Horse Guards' coarse was pursued
here—the weak men were overthrown and the strong
triumphed. The hon. gentleman's explanation with regard
to Mr. Filler was as lame as it possibly could be. The
hon. gentleman said that Mr. Filder was not actually re-
called ; but a recall it was in the strict sense of the word,
and no glossing of the hon. gentleman would make the
matter different. When public opinion was "loudly ex-
pressed on this subject the noble lord at the head of the
Uoveznraeat, with his usual tactics, appointed a commis-

" What the Ministers wanted was, that, as a public tri-
bunal, they should determine whether the country ought
to acquit his Majesty's advisers. They pervert, therefore,
the whole nature of the tribunal, and have produced out
of it such a strange, anomalous, and inconsistent proceed-
ing, as was never known in the laws of this or of any other
country, and which cannot be made conclusive to any pur-
pose that shell be at once rational and honest. It is a trial
and no trial. It can neither condemn so as to inflict punish-
ment on the guilty, nor acquit so as to protect the inno-
cent from prosecution. * " * The Ministers
wanted to hush up the business so as to prevent that full
disclosure which a trial would bring out, and which might
involve statements not so convenient to themselves. For
this purpose either no trial at all, or an inquiry in the re-
' gular mode, with shut doors, would have been most con-
venient. But that the impatience of the public would not
readily acquisce in. To that the terrors of the newspapers
were opposed. They therefore conceived and brought forth
that monstrous production, unknown to oar laws and our
usages, an open court of inquiry, of which the only effect
has been to throw dust in the eyes of the people by a show
of trial without the reality."
That was prophetic of this very case. He would take next
the opinion of Lord H. Petty, the present Marquis of
Lansdowne, who was opposed to the appointment of that
commission. Lord H. Petty said :
" I am sure that in this house it will not be thought that
any form of inquiry that has passed already, or anything
that has borne the name of inquiry, has been of a nature
to preclude the expediency and necessity of this house
taking up the inquiry itself, because, with whatever respect
I may view the individual and military characters of the
parsons who composed the beard of inquiry, assembled by
his Majesty's command, I must say that, constituted as
that board was, and directed as its functions were,
that board was a tribunal more iecompetent to
give satisfaction to the country, more irreconcileable with
all the known and received principles oflaw and equity in this
caentry, than any which has ever existed. * * * " I
hold in my hand the opinion delivered by Lord Wood-
houseleo ou the subject of courts of inquiry. Ho asserts
that although there is in the king a power inherent to
convene such boards as courts of advice, yet still that their
decisions have no binding effects on the party accused ; a id
though it has happened that persons suspected have been
examined by them, the call was not founded in justice, nor
can persons be compelled to obey them. Iu this opinio❑
Mr. Macarthur and Mr. Adey, two gentlemen who have
also written on the subject, concur. " * There is, be-
sides, in our iiistory a memorable instance, in which the
reference to such a court was pregnant with evils ; yet,
be believed that this very instance, which has
proved in its operation so mischievous and in its conse-
quences so pregnant with evil, was the very identical pre-
cedent on which the servants of the Crown recommended
to their Sovereign' the formation of the late court of in-
quiry. I allude to the case of Sir J. Mordaunt,. whose
conduct was first submitted to the board of inquiry which
next sent him to a court-martial, when he was acquitted
upon the ground that the only evidence against him arose
from his own answers tending to criminate himself. Such
an example is of itself sufficient to satisfy the house of the
inconveniences and disadvantages arising from that parti-
cular mode of inquiry. I therefore do think myself justi-
fied in asserting that a oourt of inquiry, held as this has
been, opening its door to the public, calling upon the very
parties to give their testimony, and drawing from them in-
formation by which they were to be subjected to criminal
prosecution, was a tribunal calculated rather to defeat than
to oromote the ends of justice or to give satisfaction to tLe
public. Even by the constitution of the court itself it was
impossible for it to inquire into any demerits beyond those
of the officers."

Upon the same occasion, Sir A. Wellesley, afterwards the
great Duke of Wellington, said—
" He perfectly agreed with the noble lord (Lord H. Petty)
in the wish that this court of inquiry might be the last of the
kind which should assemble. It was not a court before which
any officer would desire to bei tried. (Hear, hear.) A
general impression had gone abroad that this court had
been instituted by his noble friend (Lord Castlereagh) out
of friendship to him. It was rather hard upon him to be
subjected to such a reflection ; as, if he had been tried in
any other manner, he must have been acquitted. As far
as he was concerned, ho must say, without meaning to
blame any of the members, that this court had been a
source of injustice, and he therefore hoped it would be the
last court of the kind to which the investigation of the
conduct of officers should be submitted."
Those were the opinions of three of the highest authorities
upon such a question, and yet the Government professed
now to rest their determination to appoint the court upon
the course which had been pursued on former occasions,
and upon the commission of inquiry into the Convention
of Cintra. (Hear.) Now, it really did appear to him that,
upon this occasion, the Horse Guards had brought these
censures entirely upon themselves. They had virtually bid
defiance to the country. Notwithstanding the complaints
and and the indignation of the country they had said, No,
you may prove what you can against the officers concerned,
you may prove them to be utterly incapable,( but we will
exercise the authority wo have, and appoint or promote
them in spite of you." It had been said that Sir Richard
Airoy was appoiuted:in September ;'but as he (Mr.Layard)
believed, he was appointed on the 26th December, which
made a very great difference. It was true that Lord Pau-
inure had stated he never saw the printed report until it
was submitted to the house ; bnt had Lord Panmuro never
seen the written report ? If so, he was almost the only
man in any position in the country who did not see it ; for
he (Mr. Layard) knew it was seen by many before the end
of the month of September.
Mr.PEEL observed that the report which had reference
to Lords Liman and Cardigan had not been presented at
that time.
Mr. LA.YARD replied that the hon. gentleman hat) gone
out of his way to defend Lords Lucati and Cardigan, whose
case had not even been alluded to by the preceding speak-
ers. The fact was that the hon. gentleman had prepared
a speech in answer to the speech which he supposed would
be made by himself (Mr. Layard) in bringing forward the
motion of which he had given notice, and which, for rea-
sons of his own, he had postponed to a more favourable
opportunity. The hon. gentleman would be able, No
doubt, to defend Lord Luc= and Lord Cardigan when
they were attacked. The hen. gentleman had also gone
out of his way to deal with the case of Dr. Hall. Now, if
there was any one case more gross than another, it was
the case of Dr. Hall. The Sebastopol Committee had re-
ported against him ; the evidence of Lord Hardinge and
the evidence of Dr. Andrew Smith was against him ; nod
the only man whom Sir John M'Neil and Col. Tulloch
directly censured, and almost charged with a want of vera-
city, was Dr. He.ll ; and in spite of that, only three weeks
ago, on the 6th Feb.' Dr. Hall was gazetted to a N.C.B.
Now there could not be the excuse' in that case, that the
I Government had not seen the reports against Dr. Hall be-
fore they conferred this distinction upon him. This was
au ezaulple of the wanner in which the house and the