HC Deb 26 February 1855 vol 136 cc1886-91

On the order of the day for going into Committee of Supply,

MR. FRENCH

said, that having on a former occasion put a question to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and not having been able to obtain a satisfactory answer, he now availed himself of the opportunity which the present motion offered him to repeat that question. It might be in the recollection of hon. Members that, on the noble Lord taking his seat after his election for Tiverton, he (Mr. French) felt it his duty to ask whether there was any reason why Sergeant Sullivan, who had carried the colours of his regiment and had signalised himself by great bravery in battle, and had been honourably noticed by the general of his division, should not have been promoted, and the House would, perhaps, equally bear in mind that the reply he received from the noble Lord was, that general authority had been given to the Commander in Chief of the army in the Crimea to promote one non-commissioned officer in each regiment; that another non-commissioned officer, belonging to the regiment in which Sergeant Sullivan served, had been recommended for promotion by the colonel of the regiment, and his appointment had been sanctioned by Lord Raglan. He must confess he heard that reply of the noble Lord with great surprise, and he certainly did not think it at all justified a feeling of confidence in the future administration of the noble Lord. The passing of the Alma, the glorious charge at Balaklava, and the desperate strife at Inkerman, were all achievements essentially of the rank and file of the army. When, therefore, such signal courage as that displayed by Sergeant Sullivan was passed over without one mark of recognition, it, in his opinion, was a circumstance calculated to check, if it had not already checked, the voluntary spirit of enlistment on the part of the people in the service of Her Majesty more than all the terrors that the present disastrous state of things in the Crimea could effect. The noble Lord could not for a moment suppose that there was any man, either in that House or throughout the country, who would suffer a system to be continued which rewarded staff officers, almost indiscriminately, for what was called "distinguished services," while it suffered such gallant but friendless soldiers as Sullivan to be wholly neglected and passed by. He would ask the noble Lord to reflect how our gallant ally acted under similar circumstances. If a French soldier had displayed the same heroic courage as Sergeant Sullivan had done he would have had his services acknowledged on the field of battle. Had Napoleon acted upon the system which England was pursuing, France would not now have to boast of the proud array of marshals which its military annals displayed. There would have been no Bernadotte. Nay, if Napoleon himself had been passed over at Toulon under such a system as that supported by the noble Lord, he, in all probability, would have died a subaltern of artillery. The attention of the public in Ireland had been drawn to this case by the leading journals. The Evening Mail, in a very able article, states— Had it been even necessary to make a post of distinction, in order to reward Sergeant Sullivan's bravery, a wise Government would not have hesitated an instant about it, especially at the commencement of a war, on which so much depends evidently upon the courage and intelligence of the 'rank and file,' and of which—according to illustrious authority—all the glory up to this moment pertains to the soldiery. If it be true, as we believe it is, that Sergeant Sullivan was mainly instrumental in saving the Second Division from a like calamity to that which nearly overwhelmed the whole army in a few days afterwards, he should have been promoted on the field of battle. Napoleon Bonaparte would have made such a man a captain before he returned even to his tent. General Canrobert made a chef d'escadron of the officer wounded in defence of their advanced battery before he was borne from the spot where he fell. It is discouraging to find Lord Palmerston, from whose masculine understanding, if not from his appreciation of worth and good service, better things might be expected, standing up to defend so perverse a denial of justice. What if Sullivan's Colonel did recommend another man for an ensigncy, and Lord Raglan approved the nomination, was that a fair reason why his signal merit, proclaimed by the general of division, should not have received a special reward from the fountain head and source of honour at the Horse Guards? It is quite excusable in the man's immediate commanding officer to leave him to the highest authority for the palm he had so nobly earned; it might have seemed like throwing away favours, designed for the other non-commissioned officers of his corps, to accumulate it on one already marked in the public and glorious records of the whole army for advancement. It is not a red tape fact that Sergeant Sullivan has had 'no recommendation.' His recommendation is extant in the Gazette, where his name stands recorded, and remains to shame those who allege so pitiful a pretence for passing him over. He (Mr. French) felt that he would be fully justified in objecting to go into Committee to vote money for a service where the gallantry of the soldier was overlooked and unrewarded, and the recommendations of the generals of divisions treated with contempt, but he should content himself by asking the noble Lord, was Sergeant Sullivan to have his commission or not? In the latter case, if the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir de Lacy Evans) did not move an Address to the Crown, he (Mr. French) should. He also wished to inquire whether the attention of the Commander in Chief had been called to the alleged misconduct of the officer in charge of the stores at Balaklava, in refusing to supply some stoves to one of the vessels on the requisition of the surgeon who stated that they were essential for the health of the men, and that the death of some of those on board had been accelerated by cold? He found it stated by the Times correspondent in the Crimea that the Charity, a screw steamer, was in the harbour of Balaklava, for the reception of the sick and wounded under the charge of a British medical officer; that this gentleman applied to the person in charge of the stores sent out by Government for the use of the army for three or four stoves, stating that several of those under his charge had died from disorders brought on by the cold, and that unless he gut the stoves many more of his patients must experience a similar fate; that he was refused them unless a requisition was sent to Lord Raglan to head quarters, and returned properly signed. The medical man explained that the men would in the meantime perish; the reply was, "I cannot help it, I must have the requisition;" and that he even refused to lend the stoves on an undertaking to return them. He (Mr. French) wished to know from the noble Lord was this same officer still in charge of the stoves at Balaklava, and had any communication been made to Lord Raglan on this subject?

SIR JOHN WALSH

said, that before the noble Lord answered the question, he wished to make an observation, in consequence of an expression which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the battles in the Crimea, which had reflected so much glory upon British arms, had been won by the rank and file of the British army. Now if he meant by that, that the British soldier was the most gallant, and in all respects the best material for a soldier in the world, he (Sir J. Walsh) fully agreed with him, and in that sense acknowledged that it was to the rank and file—to the valour of the British soldier—these victories were owing; but if he meant to place the soldier in a distinct from the officer, and to position say that it was owing to the soldiers and not to the officers who commanded them, then the hon. Gentleman stated that which was not only not precisely in accordance with the actual circumstances which occurred, but which was absolutely impossible to be the fact. They never found yet soldiers fight well unless they were well commanded; and, with regard to the English officers serving in the Crimea, he believed they had shown as much or more valour in the engagements which the hon. Gentleman bad mentioned than had ever been exhibited by any similar class of men in any army in the world. In the cavalry charge at Balaklava there were more officers, in proportion to the men, than was usually the case, and more casualties amongst them in proportion than generally happened under similar circumstances, in consequence of the regiments having been at the time little more than skeletons of regiments, not filled up to their full complement.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the battles in question were won by the rank and file in the manner explained by the hon. Baronet—namely, that the dogged valour and sturdy courage of the troops were necessarily the main element of those victories, but the great number of casual. ties among the officers was a convincing proof that they had done their duty as well as the men, the number of officers killed and wounded on the field being quite as great in proportion as that of the men. With regard to the question that had been put to him, respecting Sergeant Sullivan, he could only state what he had explained before, namely, that in the troops under his command, Lord Raglan had authority to promote One non-commissioned officer in each regiment for distinguished conduct in the field, but of course it was left to the officer in command of the regiment to select the non-commissioned officer who was to be promoted; and, whatever might have been the distinguished bravery of Sergeant Sullivan, for aught they knew to the contrary, the non-commissioned officer who was recommended in that regiment for promotion, had as good if not a better claim than Sergeant Sullivan. It was quite impossible that the Government could Enter into an inquiry of the different claims of men who had distinguished themselves in the eyes of their officers, that must be done by those who commanded them. With respect to the second question, he believed that the attention of the officer in question had been called to the statement which had been made respecting his refusal to lend the stoves. More than that he could not say.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he considered the answer of the noble Lord with respect to Sergeant Sullivan perfectly satisfactory, but he considered that the rule which had been laid down, that one commission only should be given amongst the non-commissioned officers in each regiment was unsatisfactory, and ought not to be put forward against the claims of a man who had distinguished himself in the way that Sergeant Sullivan had done.

MR. H. HERBERT

said, he wished to take an opportunity of correcting a misapprehension which had arisen out of a question which he had put to the Government a few days ago respecting the clothing of the militia in his district. He had stated on that occasion that some of the men had been compelled to mount sentry without greatcoats, and his observations had been construed into a reflection upon the general of the district. He was sorry that such misapprehension should have arisen, for as soon as that officer was informed of the real state of the case he sent a supply, a limited one certainly, being all he could spare, but which was sufficient for the use of the sentries, nor was he accountable for any delay in the supply of those necessary articles of clothing.