HL Deb 07 December 1857 vol 148 cc228-37
EARL GRANVILLE

I am desirous, my Lords, of making some explanation with regard to the contradictions which I felt it to be my duty to offer to certain statements of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) during the debate on Thursday night. The noble Earl stated that Major-General Hearsey had been reprimanded by the Governor-General for having promoted a Sepoy to the rank of havildar on account of his gallant conduct at the outbreak of the mutiny. I had read all the papers relating to the subject, and my impression—an impression confirmed by several noble Friends near me—was that no such reprimand had been given, and I accordingly stated that impression. Since then I find, on referring to the blue-book, that there are certain orders and regulations in existence which, whether right or wrong, limit the powers of officers commanding troops in the field, which orders did not originate with Lord Canning, and consequently with the right or wrong of which he had nothing to do. I find that Lord Canning, in answer to the despatch of General Hearsey referring to the promotion of this Sepoy, said, that he considered General Hearsey had no authority to make any promotions under the existing regulations; but his Lordship added that, as the promotion in this case had been announced, and was in his opinion richly deserved, he begged to submit to the Council that it should be confirmed. It appears to me that if the noble Earl had read the blue-books, instead of a certain red pamphlet, he would have seen that the intimation to General Hearsey could not be considered a reprimand, but that, on the contrary, the act of General Hearsey had been confirmed. The other statement of the noble Earl to which I wish to direct the attention of your Lordships is one with reference to the conduct of the President of the Board of Control. The noble Earl on Thursday night said—and I am now quoting from the report contained in The Times— Really, my Lords, what I am going to say sounds so incredible that it is difficult to believe it, and I ask to be contradicted by the Government if they are able to contradict me, but should they do so I promise to bring forward incontrovertible evidence to prove it. Some considerable time after the arrangements to which I have referred the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control somewhat surprised the agent of the Peninsular and Oriental Company by a letter, in which he asked him if some plan could not be arranged by which troops which could be sent to India by means of the steamers of the company. Well, my Lords, the gentleman to whom the letter was addressed read it over, and then examined the seal and scrutinized the signature to see if it could possibly be a hoax, but finding that it was a genuine production he wrote back to say, 'You ask if it can be done; why, it is being done and has been done for a considerable time, under the authority of the Government.' I ask your Lordships if it is not inconceivable that the President of the Board of Control, himself a Member of the Cabinet, should write and ask if it was possible to organize a scheme when that scheme had been in full operation for a considerable period under the sanction of the Government? I said at the time that I believed the assertion to be without foundation. I have since made inquiries in reference to that subject, and all I have to say now, is that Mr. Vernon Smith never wrote such a letter, that the Peninsular and Oriental Company never received such a letter, that therefore they did not make the reply which had been suggested by the noble Earl, and such reply was of course not received by the right hon. Gentleman.

THE EARL OF DERBY

My noble Friend was good enough to give me notice, about an hour ago, of his intention to make some explanations as to certain contradictions with which he met some statements of mine on Thursday last. Since that notice I have endeavoured to recollect what these contradictious had reference to; and I found that the three points on which the noble Earl contradicted him—one of which he had not alluded to to-night—are the reprimand to General Hearsey, the want of an announcement to disabuse the Sepoys of the impression that it was intended to interfere with their religion, and the course attributed to the President of the Board of Control. With respect to the first point, it is very evident, from the statement just made by the noble Earl, that he does not understand the real statement made by me with regard to the reprimand addressed by the Governor-General to General Hearsey, All that I stated was simply that General Hearsey having taken upon himself to promote a Sepoy for gallant conduct, the Governor-General had disapproved of the act. My noble Friend the other night charged me with having taken my statements not from the blue-book, but from a certain red pamphlet. I admit that I have read that pamphlet, and if any of your Lordships should not yet have done the same thing, I would advise them at once to peruse it, for a more able resumé of the proceedings in India I never met with. However I did not make a single statement founded upon that pamphlet without verifying it by comparison with official documents, and my noble Friend mast admit that, even had I borrowed my facts from the red pamphlet he alludes to, I did not borrow its language. I stated that a reprimand was inflicted upon Major General Hearsey, for promoting the Sepoy in question, and I say so still. But I find that I have judged the Minute of Council too favourably, for I assumed that it contained a high approval of General Hearsey's conduct; which was not the case. Not only is the act itself disapproved of, but there is not the slightest notice of the gallant and distinguished conduct of the General on the outbreak of the mutiny, and under the most critical circumstances. In the Minute of the Governor-General, confirmed by the Council, it is stated That it is not in the power of the Major-General commanding to make this promotion, which can proceed only from the Government of India, and therefore should not have appeared in a divisional order without the sanction of the Governor-General. I say that appears to me to be a reprimand. It may not appear so to the Government of India, but I believe every gallant and high-spirited officer would feel it to be so. It is quite true the Minute goes on to add:— But the promotion has been announced by Major-General Hearsey, and is richly deserved by Sheik Phultor, and may, I submit, be properly confirmed. The order of the Major-General was undoubtedly confirmed, but the confirmation was accompanied by a reprimand. The next statement I made was respecting a refusal to insert the names of two officers in general orders, in which the Governor-General says,— I am sorry I cannot agree to Major-General Hearsey's proposal, that Lieutenant Baugh and Sergeant-Major Hewson, who suffered so severely in the conflict with the mutineers, should be the subject of a general order. The Minute goes on to say,— I think it should be observed to Major-General Hearsey that it would have been better if the divisional order had not characterized Murgal Pandy's condition as one of religious frenzy. That is the notice which is taken of General Hearsey's conduct, and I am astonished that my noble Friend should persist in saying it was not intended to be a reprimand. I am sure it would be considered so by any high-minded man. The next matter upon which my noble Friend met me with a contradiction was my statement that, for a considerable period of time, no steps were taken to disabuse the minds of the Sepoys with regard to the intentions of the Government not to interfere with their religion. My noble Friend said, "What can you mean by that, seeing that within a month there was a discontinuance of the issue of greased cartridges which had been complained of?" But there was no declaration by authority to the Sepoys, stating that it was the determination of the Government, as it had ever been, to abstain from all steps tending to an interference with their religion. Now, upon the 9th of June my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Ellenborough) asked whether it was the intention of the Government of India to issue any proclamation to quiet the public mind in that country? "No," said my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville), "the Government had no such intention; it was needless to issue any such declaration, which might be mischievous. The Government entirely approved the conduct of Lord Canning in abstaining from disturbing the public mind of India by any such proclamation." But what really did happen? At the very time the noble Earl was making this vindication of the Governor-General, the Governor-General had acted in accordance with the suggestions of my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), and had actually issued a proclamation such as the Government at home were lauding him for not issuing. The only thing is, that it was done three months later than should have been the case. Now, as to the third contradiction; I certainly should be very sorry to misrepresent, or even to exaggerate, the mistakes of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, and I was not at all surprised that the statement I made the other night should have been received with an expression of incredulity, for when the statement was first made to me I said at once, "That is impossible." I was certainly very greatly surprised when I heard the contradiction I have just received, because with the exception of using the words "a considerable time," whereas it now appears that it was only three or four days, the statement I made was precisely the same given to me by a gentleman, who I am sure would not mislead me, and who obtained it from the Manager of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a Member of Parliament, not at this moment in England, to whom the letter in question was addressed, and by whom it was answered. Upon the day before Parliament met I again saw my informant, and said, "This is a most serious charge; are you sure you are quite correct in your facts? "He said, "The managing director to whom he had referred was not in England, but that he would have an opportunity of seeing the other managing director, and would ascertain positively." He did see him, and upon the next day he informed me that there was no mistake, and upon his authority I made the statement to your Lordships. I should regret very much if I have done injustice to the President of the Board of Control, but if I was in. error I am astonished that the noble Earl, who could have had immediate access to the best quarter for information upon the point, if he had ascertained that I was misinformed, should not have given an immediate and authoritative denial. I cannot explain the contradiction between the two statements, but I have stated by what means I acquired the information; my noble Friend has given a contradiction, and there I suppose the matter must rest.

EARL GRANVILLE

As to the explanation respecting the alleged reprimand to Major-General Hearsey, I have nothing to add. With respect to the other point, the omission of the Government to issue a proclamation in India, I will only remind your Lordships of what was the charge made by the noble Earl,— Throughout the whole of this period, from the beginning of February to the 20th of March, no single step, as far as I can find, was taken on the part of the Government either to disabuse the minds of the Sepoys on the subject of these greased cartridges, or to ascertain their probable intentions and the extent of the disaffection prevailing among them. My answer to the charge was— Neither do I know what authority he has for saying that Lord Canning did nothing to stop the issue of the greased cartridges. To my knowledge he sent a telegraphic despatch discouraging the issue, and ordering that the native troops should use their own ammunition. I recapitulated what appeared to me to have been the statement of the noble Earl, and contradicted it. If I was incorrect, I do not know why the noble Lord did not set me right at the time as to my misapprehension of what he had said. As regards the explanation which the noble Earl has just given respecting the charge which he made against Mr. Vernon Smith, I can only say that I hold in my hand a correspondence which will place the whole question in the clearest point of view before your Lordships. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control, the moment he became aware of the nature of the imputation which the noble Earl made against him, instituted the strictest inquiry among the clerks at his office as to their knowledge of the existence of the ground upon which the charge was based. They were, however, utterly at a loss how to account for the noble Earl's statement, and accordingly the Chief Clerk at the India Board addressed the following letter to the managing director of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam-packet Company:— You will see that Lord Derby makes a very round assertion respecting a correspondence between our President and your board upon the subject of facilitating the transit of troops across Egypt. The assertion is so strongly insisted upon that I begin to doubt my own recollection; but will you bear me out in the impression that no direct correspondence between our office and yours has taken place at all on this subject, and that the first notice of it (and that indirectly through the East India House), was in September last? To that communication the following reply was received at the India Board:— In reply to yours of this morning respecting the assertions made by Lord Derby on the subject of facilitating the transit of troops across Egypt, I beg to say that this company received no direct correspondence from the Board of Control, and that the first communication made by this company for the conveyance of troops via the Overland was dated the 9th September, and addressed to the Hon. the East India Company. This correspondence cannot, I think, fail to dispel all doubt in reference to the subject. But before I sit down I cannot refrain from expressing it as my opinion that some precaution ought to be taken in sifting information before a charge of this nature is brought against a public servant who happens to be engaged in the discharge of an arduous duty. The noble Earl denies that he has borrowed his language from that of the pamphlet to which he has referred; but he will not deny that there was on the first night of the Session a similarity—and I admit a judicious and prudent similarity—between the expressions, and arguments, and even jokes, which he used, and those which fell from the right hon. Gentleman who represents him in another place. The only exception to this rule was that the noble Earl made a charge in this House against the President of the Board of Control, and that an attack was made upon the President of the Board of Trade by the leader of the Opposition in the other House of Parliament. Now, I cannot help thinking that the better distribution of parts would have been, for the noble Earl to make the attack upon my noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House, and for the representative of the noble Earl in the other House to make the attack upon the President of the Board of Control, when both my noble Friend and the right hon. Gentleman would have been enabled to defend themselves.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I quite concur with the noble Earl in the opinion that it is desirable the utmost caution should be exercised in sifting information before a charge is brought against a public man; and I must add that I thought I could have no better authority than that to which I alluded for the statement which I made, while it appeared to me that I had so far sifted the question that I could not possibly have been led into a mistake. With respect to the similarity which the noble Earl speaks of as existing between my arguments and those which are used by a right hon. Friend of mine in another place, I can only say that it is not extraordinary that some such coincidence as he mentions should prevail, inasmuch as it is my custom, whether in or out of office, to communicate freely with my colleagues in both Houses of Parliament. That is not probably the practice of those with whom the noble Earl is associated in the Government. I can assure the noble Earl that I was not even aware that the attack to which he alludes had been made upon my noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place. If he is particularly anxious that I should do so, however, I have no objection to make an attack upon him in this House.

EARL GRANVILLE

My noble Friend has no particular wish to be attacked; but when an attack is made upon him he is desirous that it should not be done behind his back.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

My Lords, I think I am bound to state that either in the month of August or September last—I forget which—I heard from the gentleman to whom my noble Friend near me has referred the statement in respect to the President of the Board of Control which has been the subject of discussion this evening. I afterwards visited my noble Friend at Knowsley and mentioned the circumstance to him. He at once said, "Oh, it is impossible; it cannot be true." That is precisely the state of the case, and I shall only add that I made the statement on authority which I could not for a moment doubt.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

The noble Earl opposite says that the statement of the noble Earl near me is completely contradicted by a letter from the Manager of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam-packet Company in reply to one addressed to him from the Board of Control. Now, from my recollection of the Board of Control, no such letter could have been sent through that office. As a public office, it corresponds only with the Court of Directors, so that any letter which was addressed from it to the Director of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam-packet Company must have been of a private, and not of an official character.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

It is quite true that no official communications can take place between the Board of Control and any other body except the Court of Directors. But I hold in my hand a letter which I think will set at rest the whole question at issue. Nobody imagines that the noble Earl opposite made the statement which he has made without believing it to be correct, and I am perfectly ready to admit that it has been the result of a misconception. The letter which I am about to read to your Lordships was written to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty by Mr. Willcox, who was—I am not sure whether or not he is now—a director of the company. It is as follows:—

"Dec. 6, 1857.

"Dear Sir Charles,—My attention has just been called to a report of the Earl of Derby's speech in the House of Lords on Thursday evening, and I read with great surprise the following:—

(He quotes The Times' report.)

"'1. The Peninsular and Oriental Company offered in the month of July last to make such arrangements that the troops might have been taken across the Isthmus in twenty-four hours, and they likewise offered the use of their mail steamers, which would carry 500 men each trip.

"'2. In the month of August an application was made to the Court of Directors to make the same arrangement with the Peninsular and Oriental Company which had been offered and refused.

"'3. Some considerable time after these arrangements had been made, the President of the Board of Control somewhat surprised the Peninsular and Oriental Company by a letter which he wrote to them to ask if a scheme might not be organized for sending troops to India by the company's steamers. Now, this had been done for a considerable time, both under the authority of Her Majesty's Government and that of the East India Company, and yet the President of the Board of Control wrote to ask if it was possible to organize a scheme for doing it.'

"I have to observe, in reply to the 1st and 2nd, that their statements are utterly untrue, and not only so, but that nothing whatever occurred in connection with the Peninsular and Oriental Company which by possibility could give rise to a misconception upon the subject. The fact is, that upon this question, from the first down to the present, no tender or offer for the conveyance of troops viâ Egypt per the company's mail packets has ever been made by them. They knew too well the absurdity of attempting to convey during the monsoon months a body of deck passengers (for they have no room below) to India. (In this last monsoon, in a gale of wind accompanied by heavy rain, the company lost their steamer Erin on the coast of Ceylon.)

"It was not until the first week in September last, in consequence of a verbal communication from the East India Company to that effect, that on the 8th of that month the Peninsular and Oriental Company submitted a scheme for conveying fortnightly by their mail steamers detachments of men from 220 to 250 per steamer, engaging to maintain them in case of need on board their coal hulk Ariadne at Alexandria, or their hulk Zenobia at Suez.

"In answer to the 3rd, neither the President of the Board of Control, nor any one in connection with that department, ever addressed a letter to the company, cither officially or privately, either on this or any other occasion.

"The idea that a Board of Control should so flagrantly assume the executive is so absurd that on this point I must assume that the noble Earl has been incorrectly reported.

"I have only to add, if it were true that the Peninsular and Oriental Company made an offer in July and August last (monsoon months often prevailing into September), the Government would have been perfectly justified in rejecting the scheme for the conveyance of troops by the mail steamers during that period.

"I am, dear Sir, yours truly,

"B. M. WILLCOX.

"Right Hon. Sir C. Wood."

This is, I think, as complete and emphatic a contradiction as can be given to the charge which has been brought against my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control.

THE EARL OF DERBY

All I can say is, that some of the statements contained in that letter are in direct contradiction to the published report of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam-packet Company.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

If the noble Earl will look to the city article of The Times of to-day he will there find reference made to a communication which has taken place between the Government and the company with respect to the conveyance of troops viâ Egypt. He will also find that the date at which the telegraphic despatch was received, naming the day on which the vessel which is to take those troops is expected to arrive at Suez, is later—being, I think, the 17th of November—than any day named in this letter.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

said, that the explanation gave rise to another discrepancy, for it was on the 1st October that the first batch of troops were sent by the overland route.