THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, there stands upon the notice paper for to-day a question put yesterday by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) with respect to a statement made by me in a speech in this House, and although the hon. Gentleman is not now in his place, it may perhaps be convenient that I should give an answer to 1397 that question. The question is, whether I have any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of the official papers on which I founded my statement that, exclusive of sick at Balaklava and elsewhere, there was an effective British force of 28,200 men, independently of 3,000 or 4,000 marines and marine brigade. Now, my answer is to this effect. There is a great deal of objection, founded upon general principles, applicable to times of peace as well as times of war, to producing statements declaring the number and distribution of military forces. It has never been the practice of this House to call for such statements even in times of peace, and I need hardly say that, under present circumstances, great inconvenience would arise from the adoption of such a practice. I therefore hope that there will be no disposition in this House to press the Government to produce statements of this character, and thus set an injurious precedent. It is not a thing which should be encouraged; but if the hon. Member for Richmond or any other hon. Gentleman desires access to that information in order to satisfy his own mind as to the correctness of the statement made by me, that access will be most freely given to him by the Government.
COLONEL DUNNEthought it would be most dangerous to expose the positions and numbers of our forces to the enemy; but the fault lay with the Government itself, in mentioning the number of effective troops before Sebastopol.
§ The House adjourned at One o'clock till Friday next.