HC Deb 23 April 1855 vol 137 cc1686-700
MR. ROEBUCK

said, that his name appeared on the paper appended to a notice that the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. de Vere) be added to the Army before Sebastopol Committee. On consultation, however, with the Committee the result was, that they wished him to state to the House, as a conclusion to which they had unanimously come, that in their opinion it would be better if no further additions were made to the Committee. ("Oh, oh!" and laughter.) He really could not see what there was in that announcement to elicit the laughter of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He could take upon himself to state that the members of the Committee had been extremely sedulous in their attention to business, having only on one occasion failed to make a Committee. As yet there had been no difference of opinion amongst them, and they regarded the discussion which had taken place in that House as tending to injure them in their judicial capacity before the country. They thought that they could best conduct the inquiry without any further addition to their numbers, while, at the same time, they would advantage the public service by putting an end to discussions that interfered with the discharge of their duties. He could only add, that he had mentioned the decision of the Committee to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he had acceded to their views; it was, therefore, not his intention to propose any one to fill the place on the Committee vacated by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball.)

MR. BENTINCK

said, he certainly was not surprised, after the discussion of a former evening, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought proper to withdraw his motion. With all respect, however, for the opinion of the Committee, as just enunciated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must say he regretted exceedingly that it was not in his power to coincide with it. In making that remark be begged to say that he intended to impugn neither collectively nor individually the conduct of the committee. But having on a former occasion contended—and contended with the concurrence of opinion of at least a large minority in that House—that considering the subjects which were being discussed before the Committee, it was indispensable that at least one Member of it should be connected with the naval profession who might cross-examine closely and efficiently a great number of the witnesses necessarily produced before the Committee—many of whom trying to save their own reputation, would be bent on trying to conceal the truth. Now he would defy even the acuteness of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself to extract the truth from an unwilling witness of that description. He could only express his surprise that the independent advocate of investigation into abuses and mal-administration of affairs at the seat of war should have thought it necessary to refer upon all occasions of doubt for advice to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. He, however, repudiated the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman; for he contended that the nomination of the Committee ought to rest entirely with the House of Commons, and ought not to be dependent upon arrangements made behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. All such hole-and-corner work was most unseemly and irregular in reference to a subject like that before the Committee. He was informed that up to the present time a very small portion of the inquiry connected with the transport service had been gone into, and he submitted to the House, whether this did not materially strengthen his argument as to the necessity of having upon this Committee a naval officer of experience in that House—and of experience in his profession. Such an officer he now proposed in the person of Captain Gladstone, and he thought the noble Lord opposite, if he systematically persevered to prevent the appointment of the only description of man who could by possibility sift the truth on one important branch of inquiry, would lead the country to believe that the object of the Government was not to promote but to stifle investigation.

MR. MACARTNEY

seconded the motion.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That Captain Gladstone be added to the Committee."

LORD SEYMOUR

said, as one of the members of the Committee he rose to state the reasons why he thought there was no necessity for any additional member in the room of the hon. Member for Carlow. They had been inquiring consecutively for a great number of days, they had published a blue book in which there were given 13,000 questions, and they had asked some thousands more questions, and there was a very voluminous appendix. Should any new member be appointed to the Committee, in order to put himself in the same position as the other members it would be but reasonable to require him to go carefully through all those questions and evidence, so as to enable him to go on with the inquiry. In coming to a decision upon the matter, it was most important that no party feelings should be excited. He had not taken part in the discussion in that House with respect to the members to serve on the Committee, nor should he then if he had not been asked to do so. The Committee unanimously agreed that if a new member came in he should make himself acquainted with all the evidence which had already been obtained; and it was evident that even when a member came in after a few hours' absence he had to ask many questions, and the previous examination had to be repeated to him, and thus much time was consumed. Should the House think that all these questions were material, and should they decide to run the risk of having all these questions put again, they must not complain if the inquiry should be thereby protracted. It was the general opinion that the inquiry should be brought to a conclusion in a reasonable time; but should the Committee be forced to go over again the same questions, he could not answer for the period when their decision would be arrived at. He would dislike to divide on a question whether any particular member should be added to the Committee, but the Committee considered that they did not require another member. There were ten members present every day, and no party question had arisen. If the House wished to impair the efficiency of the Committee, nothing could do it more than a party division in the House in respect to it.

MR. LIDDELL

said, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) that this inquiry ought to be brought to a close as speedily as possible. However, the great reason adduced for making no further additions to the Committee was that the new member or members could not have been expected to have made themselves masters of all the evidence. Now he begged to remind the House that that was an argument which might have held quite as good on Friday night, when there was the question of the appointment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. de Vere). It seemed that there had been a kind of agreement in this matter between the Chairman of the Committee and the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He had hitherto considered the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) as an independent Member, but after the proceedings of that night he must confess that his faith in him was shaken. He had thought that it was a question of the country against the Government, but now it appeared to be entirely between the Committee and the Government. He deprecated anything like a factious feeling upon this subject. The country wanted a strict and searching inquiry. The Committee had to deal with naval questions, and he should in consequence vote for the appointment of a naval officer.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, he would admit that the argument was equally good on Friday night against the accession of a new member, but it was not the Committee that moved for that accession. The argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell) therefore went against himself. The Committee never asked for the appointment of another member [Mr. LIDDELL: The Government did.] If the hon. Gentleman thought that he had gone into that Committee with a foregone conclusion of drawing up a bill of indictment against the Government, he had mistaken his man. More factious and dishonourable motives could not be imputed to any man than to say that they had been packed, or that it was intended to pack them, not for the purpose of investigating the truth, but for the purpose of trying a foregone conclusion. Every member who was old enough have cut his wisdom teeth in that House must be perfectly well aware that no Committee was ever formed without consulting the heads of parties. With regard to the necessity of a naval officer being on the Committee, he did not see the necessity for it, as all the Committee had to inquire into was to ascertain if the naval officers obeyed their orders. At the present stage of the proceedings he certainly thought it would be rather a disadvantage to appoint a new member on the Committee. It was clear that if they were to have a Gentleman on the Committee who knew nothing and who had not read these 14,300 questions which had been asked, the report of the Committee must be delayed a considerable time.

MR. PACK

said, that the House could only judge of the opinion of the Committee on Friday night from the motion which stood in the name of its Chairman, and which proposed the appointment of a new member. He believed that a naval member was wanted on the Committee, and he should therefore support the motion.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he wished to say a few words in consequence of the way in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Ben- tinck) had represented the agreement with respect to the appointment of the Committee, totally forgetful of the ordinary course of proceeding in that House. The hon. Gentleman said that the Committee should be appointed by the House and not by the Government; and so it was, for it was the House which appointed the Committee. If the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman were followed, what would be the consequence? The hon. Gentleman wished that when a member desired to appoint a Committee he should without communication with any one, propose a certain list of names. If that were done, there would be a long debate upon every name proposed, and there would be no end to the proceeding. The only method of coming to a conclusion was, that the person who proposed the Committee should consult with the leading Members upon the different sides of the House, and should come to an understanding upon a list of names which should be unobjectionable to any party, and which should yet command the confidence of the House. The course which had been pursued by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) with regard to the Committee was that which was invariably and necessarily pursued in the appointment of every Committee which was ever named in that House for any useful purpose. In reference to the present question, all that he wished to say was that his hon. and learned Friend had stated to him that evening that the Committee had unanimously come to the decision that they preferred not to have any new member added to the Committee. So far as the Government were concerned, it was a matter of perfect indifference whether a member were added or not; and, moreover, they had not the slightest objection, if a member were to be added, that that member should be a naval officer. He felt, however, that some deference was due to the opinion of the Committee, which appeared to be unanimous; and he should therefore vote with his hon. and learned Friend if the motion went to a division; but he assured the House that it was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether the motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite were carried or not. He was quite sure if the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Gladstone) were appointed that he would discharge his duty with satisfaction to the country.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he entirely agreed with the noble Lord in the observations which he had made with respect to the system followed by the House in the mode of appointing Select Committees, and he thought that the Government might very well be acquitted of any sinister purpose in the mode in which they sanctioned the appointment of such Committees; for nothing could be more natural, fair, or convenient, than for a Member on moving a Committee, to place himself in communication with the leaders of different parties in the House, in order to ascertain who would be best qualified to inquire into the particular subject-matter at issue. It was an object of great importance to have upon the Committee the most competent men who could be procured, and persons who possessed the confidence of the country. With regard to himself personally, any influence he had exercised in the appointment of the Committee had been this. He was not consulted in the appointment of the Committee, as he would probably have been, had the Committee been nominated upon that side of the House, but the appointment of the Members of the Committee was left with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had, however, with great courtesy, done him the honour of asking his opinion upon the nomination of a certain number of Gentlemen to represent the general feelings of Gentlemen who sat upon that side of the House, and who had voted with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in favour of the inquiry. In alluding to the matter he wished to remove from the public mind, and from the House generally, any idea that there had been a party feeling with regard to the appointment of the Committee. The only part he had taken upon the subject was this:—The hon. and learned Gentleman asked him to recommend four Members to sit upon the Committee; and, as the names of any Members be might recommend would have to come before the House for their approval, any recommendation which might be considered unjustifiable, or to misrepresent the feelings of the House, could easily have been set aside. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had done him (Mr. Disraeli) the honour of placing his name upon the Committee, but particular reasons with regard to the pressure of public business induced him to believe that he was unable to do proper justice to the sub- ject, and therefore he recommended that his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) should sit upon the Committee in his place. He felt that in making that recommendation he was taking a course which would give satisfaction to a great majority of hon. Members. And who was the second Member whom he had recommended? Having observed that the name of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) did not appear among the names proposed either by the Government or by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, he thought that the public would not feel satisfied unless the hon. Member for Aylesbury formed part of the Committee, and, as all that was required was an investigation into the subject by those most competent to carry on the inquiry, he said that he should wish to see the name of the hon. Member for Aylesbury upon the Committee. Having proposed these names, he felt that there ought to be upon the Committee both a military and a naval man, and he therefore recommended the names of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigan (Colonel Lindsay), and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott). The names of these Gentlemen were, however, omitted in the Motion brought before the House, and no naval officer whatever was nominated. A strong feeling being entertained that a Member of the naval profession should occupy a seat in the Committee, he was consulted upon the subject by hon. Gentlemen who sat upon that side of the House, and the name of a Member of the Royal Navy was mentioned, to whom the only objection he could urge was, that from the general arrangement of the Committee, the Government having lost a Member, it might be considered that they were trying to obtain an unfair advantage if they recommended a Gentleman from that side of the House. He therefore had not supported the proposition, but he subsequently supported the nomination of an hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Scobell) from the other side of the House. He only went into these details to show that there was no desire whatever to give this Committee a party character, and that the only wish was to have efficient Members serving on it, whose labours should command the confidence of the House and the country. If it could be supposed that they were deviating from the understanding originally entered into with regard to the general balance of party interests in the Committee, he certainly should have avoided voting for any Gentleman at all. But when the noble Lord at the head of the Government sanctioned, the other night, the nomination of a Gentleman whose name was unknown to ninety-nine out of every hundred Members, he should, if he had been present, have expressed an opinion that the noble Lord ought to propose for the adoption of the House the name of a Gentleman better known and of more experience. There could, however, be no question that all parties were now entirely free to take that part with regard to the present vacancy which they thought best calculated to promote the public interests. The noble Lord could not urge that he in fairness ought to recommend an hon. Gentleman to fill the vacancy, for the noble Lord plainly told them that he did not value the appointment, and had no desire to nominate a Member of the Committee. But, though the noble Lord did not value the matter, the question was a serious one fur the consideration of the House. Having well weighed the number to be appointed upon the Committee, and the character and talents of the Gentlemen appointed, they ought to hesitate before they gave to the Committee, or to any Minister, the power of diminishing the number of Gentlemen to whom such highly important functions had been delegated. If such a proceeding were allowed, it might be in the power of the Government to reduce the number of the Committee, by giving places to certain of the Members composing it. The noble Lord said, it was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether this or that, or no Gentleman at all, were appointed upon the Committee; but he (Mr. Disraeli) considered that the Members of the Committee were fulfilling some of the most important and responsible duties ever delegated to a Committee, and no Minister of the Crown had a right to use the language which had been used by the noble Lord on the present occasion. The noble Lord had spoken of the Committee with contempt. ["No, no!"] Had not the noble Lord said, within the last few minutes, that it was of no consequence who the particular individual was who should occupy the vacant post, or whether any Member at all was added to the Committee? Were not the Members of the Committee performing judicial functions? In the opinion of the people of England, they were fulfilling more im- portant duties than had been fulfilled for many a long year; and was the House of Commons to be told that it was a matter of no importance to the First Minister of the Crown whether a particular individual was chosen, and that, in point of fact, it was an insignificant matter whether the number should be kept up or not? He might as well say it was a matter of insignificance whether the number of the Judges should be kept up, for the present inquiry, so far from being a matter of indifference, was a subject of the highest importance. The gravest duty they could fulfil was to appoint a competent and worthy Member of that Committee in lieu of that Gentleman who, by the agency of the Minister himself, had left that solemn tribunal, on whose verdict more perhaps depended than either the House or the country had yet taught themselves to believe. It was, therefore, of the highest consequence that they should take care not only that the number should be complete, but that the Members of the Committee should be competent. The remaining question, was, whether there ought not to have been upon this Committee to inquire into the state of the army before Sebastopol, a Member of the House who was also a Member of the naval profession. If such a man had been proposed from the other side of the House, he would have supported him in preference to any Gentleman who sat upon the benches near him, for the very reason which had been thrown into their teeth—that they ought not to admit the imputation of party feeling in the appointment of the Committee. He did not think it fair to impute any such feeling to his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck), who had shown by his Motion that he did not seek to infuse party spirit into its composition. They had not succeeded in appointing a zealous supporter of the Minister, and an able and gallant officer, and why? Because the noble Lord at the head of the Government opposed it. The noble Lord had shown his respect for his supporters by refusing to grant the fulfilment of their wishes, and now he said it was a matter of indifference to him who was appointed, or whether any one was appointed at all. It was much to be regretted he did not express that sentiment on Friday night; he would have saved a world of discussion, for the noble Lord might then have listened to the suggestion of his (Mr. Disraeli's) hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck), who had now proposed an hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was not a partisan, but who was a relative of a right hon. Gentleman who was Minister when some of the most important transactions to be inquired into occurred, and who, though not now a Minister, was still responsible to the Parliament. This was not a proposal to be tortured and perverted by the ingenuity of rhetoric into a party movement; on the contrary, it was one that was recommended to the House by the most weighty reasons; it was one most conducive to the public service, and would bring the intelligence and experience of a man of character, ability, and professional knowledge to bear upon the question. He did hope that his hon. Friend who had with so much perseverance, in the face of great difficulties, brought this question again before the House, would triumph to-night, and that they would appoint upon the Committee on the army before Sebastopol, a man able to go into the whole question connected with the transport of our troops and stores to the seat of war.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire might have spared upon this occasion much of his vehement rhetoric. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to the answer given by his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) to the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), had, after fairly stating the principles upon which a Committee ought to be constituted, endeavoured, by misrepresentation, to lead the House and the public to suppose that his noble Friend had spoken with levity of the Committee and expressed his indifference to its composition. He (Sir G. Grey) could only say that nothing could be further from the truth. His noble Friend, in speaking with reference to the particular vacancy occasioned by the appointment of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of the Colonies, had, in answer to the reproach cast on the Government by the hon. Member for West Norfolk, that he had entered into a compact with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to conceal something that ought to be inquired into, said that he was perfectly indifferent to the Committee in that sense, and that his only wish was that it should be conducted in the manner which would best attain its object. But the right hon. Gentleman, not satisfied with sneering at the noble Lord, attacked the Committee itself, and denounced it as unparliamentary, because, in a unanimous Resolution, it had determined that, in the present advanced stage of the inquiry, which was of a judicial character, it did not think it would add to its efficiency or be consistent with its objects that a new member should be appointed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) was a member of that Committee, and agreed, as he (Sir G. Grey) understood, to that Resolution, and now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, who told them he was not animated by party feeling, though he could not help thinking the matter originated in party feeling, denounced the conduct of the noble Lord, and intimated that the proceeding of the Committee in agreeing to such a Resolution was not altogether satisfactory. He (Sir G. Grey) repeated that the Government had nothing to conceal in this matter, their object being only that the inquiry should be fully and fairly conducted, and he still thought, in deference to the Committee, who ought to be the best judges of the matter, that it was most undesirable to add a new member at this stage of the inquiry, though personally he had not the slightest objection to the appointment of the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Captain Gladstone).

MR. WHITESIDE

said, the right hon. Baronet who had last addressed them appeared offended because his (Mr. Whiteside's) right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) had spoken his mind plainly on the subject, the importance of which no one could deny. They all knew that the noble Lord at the head of the Government struggled with the greatest ability against the appointment of the Committee itself, afterwards that he took an active part in the choice of the members, rejecting some and suggesting others; and yet the House were to be told that it was quite constitutional for a Minister to create a number of placemen, and reduce the Committee by taking away its members. The same principle might induce him to take away two, three, or four. The noble Lord had prevented the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball) from hearing the whole of the evidence and giving a judgment on it, and now he said no other member should be appointed on the Committee, because he would not have heard that evidence. He (Mr. Whiteside) always listened to the noble Lord with admiration, but sometimes with regret. The noble Lord had opposed the appointment of the hon. and gallant officer (Captain Scobell) because he thought it desirable that there should be an Irish Representative on the Committee, and now he proceeded to remove from it the very member who represented Ireland. The blood of his countrymen had been lavishly shed in the Crimea, and the inquiry into the cause of the calamities that had occurred was one of great importance. The noble Lord said, however, that, as the House of Commons did not choose to appoint an Irishman on the Committee, they ought not to appoint any member—English, Irish, or Scotch. He thought the inconsistency of the noble Lord was most evident. He (Mr. Whiteside) had heard that the affair had been arranged and managed, and that the noble Lord, finding that public opinion was adverse to his conduct on Friday night—that public opinion having previously shattered the Government of which he was a member upon this very question—endeavoured to get out of the difficulty by saying that it was not a matter of the least consequence to him whether a naval man who on Friday was so unfit to be appointed should be placed on the Committee, or whether an Irishman, whom on Friday he thought so fit for the position, should be appointed. He (Mr. Whiteside) hoped the House would maintain the Committee in its integrity and independence, and, for his own part, he did not think they could select a more worthy, a more competent, or a better qualified man to serve upon it than the Gentleman whose name had been proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck).

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that, as some imputations had been thrown upon him, he hoped he might be allowed to trouble the House with a very short explanation. Although he might subject himself to further imputations by the statement he was about to make, he thought it due to the noble Lord at the head of the Government to say, that he hail nothing whatever to do with the recommendation of the Committee. That recommendation was made, if he recollected rightly, by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington); and when the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) came down to the House that evening, he (Mr. Roebuck) communicated to him the opinion of the Committee. The violent harangues of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were, therefore, altogether unfounded, for he had never consulted with the noble Lord on the subject. The right hon. Member for Droitwich had proposed that he (Mr. Roebuck) should be commissioned on the part of the Committee to state their opinion to the noble Lord, and he did so when he saw the noble Lord in the House. The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had said that up to that time he had regarded him (Mr. Roebuck) as an independent Member of the House. The hon. Member insinuated that he (Mr. Roebuck) was in that painful position of having his confidence withdrawn from him. He could assure the hon. Member for South Northumberland that that painful position he would endeavour to bear. He thought this was a matter entirely for the judgment of the House. The Committee had hitherto done what they conceived to be their duty; if he knew anything of the members of the Committee he was satisfied they would continue to do their duty; but if the House thought fit to add to the Committee an hon. Member who was the brother of one of the parties accused, although he might think it a singular decision, be could have no objection to the proceeding.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he thought the country would have some difficulty in understanding why it was that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee came down on Friday ready to sanction the prospective appointment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. de Vere) as a member of the Committee, while he stated to-night that the Committee were averse to the addition of any new member. He thought the country would be unable to understand the indifference of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) on this subject to-night, and his great anxiety on Friday night to have Ireland represented on the Committee. If the Government were ready now to assent to the appointment of a naval officer upon the Committee, how was it that they so strenuously resisted such an appointment on Friday? The noble Lord's anxiety to have an Irishman on the Committee seemed to have entirely evaporated, and, with his characteristic jauntiness, he expressed his perfect indifference whether Ireland was represented on the Committee or not. The Committee had yet to inquire into very important matters. They had not only to ascertain what was the condition of our army in January, but what was its condition at the present time; what the new Whig Ministers had effected for its improvement; what had been done by Lord Panmure to increase the number of bayonets, the force of cavalry, or the efficiency of the transport service. He thought the noble Lord at the head of the War Department ought to be called before the Committee to satisfy them whether the country had really gained anything by the change of Ministry. He considered that such an inquiry should not be prosecuted by men who were placed upon the Committee by the Government, or who expected favours from the Government. He voted on Friday against the appointment of the hon. Member for Limerick, as he had done against that of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball), because he anticipated what would happen. He knew what was the goal to which the hon. Member for Carlow was looking. He knew the hon. Gentleman was just the man whose services would be valuable to the Government, and that they would show their gratitude to him on the first fitting occasion. As an Irish Member, he (Mr. Maguire) must express his regret at the utter indifference which the noble Lord had manifested to-night with respect to the representation of Ireland on the Committee.

MR. BENTINCK ,

in reply, said, that the noble Lord, in alluding to the remarks he (Mr. Bentinck) had made as to the manner in which the Committee had been formed, seemed to forget that be had distinctly stated that, however the custom of the House might apply with advantage under ordinary circumstances, he considered that the circumstances under which this Committee was appointed were so exceptional, that what might be a good rule in other cases might, in this instance, be objectionable. The noble Lord had stated that he was quite indifferent whether the hon. and gallant Member whose name had been proposed was appointed a member of the Committee or not. The greater part of the inquiry respecting the transport service was yet to take place, and, therefore, the necessity for a naval officer on the Committee was as great as at the commencement.

The House was about to divide, when

MR. ROEBUCK

rose, and said, he had no wish to divide the House.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, if the Chairman of the Committee had no objection to the Motion, he had none either. Thus far he was ready to show the extent of his indifference.

Question put, and agreed to.

The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.