The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-20 00:00:00

CRIME AN INQUIRY.

Sir A. CAMPBELL rose to move an address for the copy
of a letter from Sir John 3PNeill, G.C.8., to Lord Pan-
mure, of the 9th Febru try, 1856, respecting the services of
Colonel Tulloch, and of any reply thereto. When the
noble lord at the head of the Government was asked a
question the other day with regard to a recognition of the
services of the Crimean. Commissioners his reply seemed
to amount to this, that, not withstanding their efforts,
which led to so many improvements in the condition of
our soldiers at Sebastopol, they were, after all, unprofitable
servants, and that they ought to be contented with the
satisfaction which they must experience at what they had
done. He had no wish to impugn so high an authority
with reference to what was the standard of duty and the
proper reward, but it appeared to him that there had been
an omission in the distribution of rewards which almost
amounted to a denial of service. He hat not only to com-
plain that the answer of the noble lord was unsatisfactory,
but that what he did say came so tardily and reluctantly
as to deprive his words of half their force. No sort of
commendation or approval of the labours of these commis-
sioners or their report had ever emanated from the Govern-
ment that was not wrung from them by such questions as
had been put the other night ; and of no spoptaneous ap-
probation of their conduct could he recall any instance,
unless it was that of Lord Panmure at a public dinner in
Scotland. Now, he understood that shortly after the
publication of the report a communication was made by
Sir J. McNeill to Lord Panmure, in which he called at-
tention, not to his own services, for he had no desire and
no expectation of any reward for himself, but to the ser-
vices of Colonel Tulloch, to whom, it seemed, some ex-
pectations had been held out before his departure for the
Crimea of promotion or employment in the army. He
wat not aware what reply was sent to that letter, and to
ascertain this was the object of his present motion, If
an answer was given it would be satisfactory to the house
and the country to know what that answer was, and what
reasons were given for not adopting the suggestion of
Sir J. McNeill. It could hardly be contended that the
correspondence was private. He did not see why there
should be any indisposition to produce the answer to
the house. The Crimean Commissioners were selected
by the Government; they went out to the Crimea,
as he was assured, with great reluctance ; they under-
took a most difficult and arduous duty; they discharged
that duty manfully and honestly; they investigated the
causes of those disasters and horrors which had befallen the
British army, and which excited so strong a feeling of in-
dignation in this country; they made suggestions which
were in several instances adopted, and in consequence of
those suggestions the sufferings of the army were materially
alleviated ; they returned to this country, and so far as he
could ascertain, no notice had been taken of them on the
part of her Majesty's Gore nment. Even if Col. Tulloch
was correct in supposing that a sort of promise of promo-
tion h, i been held out to him, that reward to which, under
such circumstances, he would have had a just claim was
denied him. Now, the commissioners either did or did not
discharge their duties faithfully. If the Government were
of opinion that they had not properly discharged those
duties, he thought it was only fair to them and to the
people of this country that the points in which they had
failed should be stated. If, on the other band, they bad
fulfilled the expectations which were entertained of them
—if, despite the difficulties and obstacles they had had to
encounter, they had successfully discharged the duty in-
trusted to them—if the result of their inquiries and report
had been to ameliorate the condition of the army, and to
point out to those who were at its head the dangers to be
avoided in such a winter campaign as that of the Crimea,
he thought they ought not on their return to have been re-
ceived in silence, or with cold and reluctant approval, but
that no meed of honour and no cordiality of approbation
would have exceeded their deserts. (Hear, hear.) He
begged to move an address to the Clown for a copy of a
letter from Sir J. McNeill, G.C.8., to Lord Panmure, of
the 9th clay of February, 1856, respecting the services of
Col, Tulloch, and of any reply thereto.
Lord PALMERSTON. -The hon. baronet has not done
justice to her Majesty's Government in stating that no
ackno wledsment of the services of Sir John 31'N-ern and
Colonel Tulloch had been made beyond that which he says
was tardily wrung from them, and which they were unable
to withhold. I stated—not this session, but last session—in
terms which I thought full and ample, the high sense her
Majesty's Government entertained of the services of those
officers. They performed a difficult and important task
with great credit to themselves, and with great advantage
to the public service, With regard to the acknowledgment
that should be made to them, we are still in communica-
tion with them on that subject. I must, however,object to
the motion of the hon. baronet, and on these grounds. A
letter was written by Sir J. McNeill to Lord Panmure,
but from circumstances the only answer given to it was a
private note from the private secretary of the noble lord,
which was not, and was not intended to be, an official do-
cument. The hon. baronet asks for this correspondence,
in order to ascertain whether Sir J. McNeill recommended
Col. Tulloch for military promotion, and what answer was
given to that recommendation. I am quite ready to give
the hon. baronet as much information as to those two facts
as he would possess if the papers were before bins. Sir J.
McNeill did undoubtedly recommend Col. Tulloch for pro-
motion, and her Majesty's Government did not think fit to
adopt the recommendation. Their reason for arriving at
this conclusion was, as I stated on a former occasion, that
the services performed by Col. Tulloch were purely of a
civil nature, and that military rank was not an appropriate
acknowledgment of civil services. Col. Tulloch had, already
attained the rank of colonel by merits of his own, not in
consequence of service; and it visi thought that it would
not be conksteut with a due regard for the interests of the
service to give him the rank of major-general for his ser-
vices in connection with the Crimean commission. Had
we done so we must have placed him over the heads of
several very distinguished officers who served in the field
in the Crimea, and they would have had ground to com-
plain that this civil officer—for so I must call him with re-
gard to the service he performed—had been promoted over
the heads of those who had been actually engaged in the
field against the enemy. I give the hon. baronet the full
benefit of the facts that Sir J. APNeill did recommend Col.
Tulloch for military promotion, and that we did not think
it consistent with our duty that military rank should be given for such a description of service. The hon. ba-
ronet has stated that expectations were held out to Col.
Tulloch that he would receive military promotion. I have
no knowledge of such an intimation • but, whether such
expectations were held out or riot, I thinki it would have
been improper to make Cul. Tulloch a major-general for
the performance of civil duties, however well he may have
performed those duties, and however valuable his services
may have been.
Mr. S. HERBERT thought there was some misappre-
hension on the part of his noble friend with regard to the
past services of Colonel Tulloch. The noble lord seemed
to say that Colonel Tulloch had already received such pro-
iotion that he could not now be farther advanced, and
that that officer had never seen service in the field. The
fact was, however, that Colonel Tulloch had served in the
Burmese war, where he greatly distinguished himself.
Colonel Tulloch subsequently rose by his merits, and had
rendered very efficient services to the public. With re-
spect to the reward that might be given to Col. Tulloch
for the discharge of his difficult duty in the Crimea, which
had undoubtedly been attended with great advantage to
the army, he (Mr. Herbert) would say nothing, because
the noble lord had informed the house that the Govern.
ment were in communication with Sir J. McNeill and Col.
Tulloch on that subject. He would therefore only express
his hope that these officers would receive some suitable
acknowledgment for the services they had rendered.
General CODItINGTON was understood to express his
opinion that if Colonel Tulloch had been promoted to the
rank of major-general for services performed in a civil
capacity, many officers who had commanded battalions
throughout the siege of Sebastopol, and who had not re-
ceived such promotion, would have had grounds for dissa-
tisfaction.
Sir A. CAMPBELL said after the statement of the
noble lord, he would not press his motion.
The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn.
On the motion of Col. DUNNE the following members
were appointed the Select Committee on Contracts for Go-
vernment Departments :—Col. Dunne, Mr. Muutz, Mr.
Peel, Captain Laffan, Sir C. Napier, Mr. Thomas Mitchell,
Mr. Moffatt, Mr. Tite, Mr. Otway, Mr. Stafford, Colonel
Boldero, Mr. Corry, Mr. Liddell, Colonel Gilpin, Mr. L.
Davies, and Colonel Lindsay.
Mr. WHIT ESI
COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND).
DE obtained leave to bring in a bill for
seeming the titles of purchasers
of estates sold under the
Court of Chancery in Ireland. Also; a bid to make provi-
sion for the appointment of registrars to the Masters of the
Court of Chancery in
,Ireland ; also for the safe custody of
title-deeds and documents lodged in the:said court, and to
amend the practice iu certain particulars.
The bills wore brought in and read a first time.
CHIEF CONSTABLES BILL.

At the request of Sir W. JOLLIFFE,
Sir G. GREY promised to consider whether some fur-
ther arrangements should bo made with reference to super-
annuations.

The bill was read a third time and passed.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT.

Mr. W HITESIDE renewed his motion for returns, which
stood over from yesterday, with respect to the removal of
Baron Richards, declaring his object to be, if possible, to
obviate the necessity of appointing a third judge.
Mr. HORSMAN said the hon. and learned gentleman
was too late. A third commissioner had been appointed.
Mr. WHITIISIDE thought it very sadden. Was he
appointed at the same salary ?
Mr. HORSMAN said—Yes; at the same salary.
The motion for the returns was agreed to.
The Ministers' Money (Ireland) Bill was lorought in and
read a first time.
The house odjorned at 2Q miuu,te4 Pad 1 o'clock.