ARMY BEFORE SEBASTOPOL COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 28 February 1855)

MR. BENTINCK,
in moving that "the name of Sir George Tyler be substituted in lieu of the name of Sir George Cornewall Lewis in the Army before Sebastopol Committee," said, he must express a regret that the House had not thought fit upon a former occasion to sanction the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), to place upon the Committee the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell), because, if they had thought proper to sanction that Motion, there would have been no necessity that he (Mr. Bentinck) should trouble the House on the present occasion. He wished it to be understood that he had no intention of impugning the Committee as it now stood, but, as they would have in the course of their inquiry to cross-examine professional men, whose cha- 2061 racter and conduct might be called in question, and who would have an interest, therefore, in concealing the truth, it was of the utmost importance that for the objects for which the Committee were appointed there should be upon it at least one naval gentleman. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), in opposing, the other night, the Motion of the right hon. Member for Tyrone, made a remark which, coming from such a high authority, had struck him (Mr. Bentinck) as being a very singular one, The hon. and learned Gentleman said, it was unimportant that there should be upon the Committee a Gentleman of the naval profession, whose peculiar duty it might be to examine witnesses connected with that profession, inasmuch as it was sufficient that the witnesses themselves should be professional men. Now he (Mr. Bentinck) thought that was a good reason why there should be a naval man upon the Committee to examine these witnesses. It had been his misfortune last year to sit for four months, almost day by day, on a Committee appointed by that House, upon which were Gentlemen of acknowledged legal ability and great Parliamentary experience; but at the end of the four months they were compelled to report to the House that, from the contradictory and unsatisfactory nature of the evidence, they were unable to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion as to the merits of the case. If such was the result of a Committee consisting of Gentlemen so eminently calculated to probe a subject to the bottom, what would be the result in this case, where professional men would be examined who would have an interest in concealing and evading the truth? He fully concurred in the views expressed by hon. Gentlemen of the necessity of exercising extreme caution in this inquiry, as to the nature of the subjects gone into, and if he were to be asked why, entertaining such opinions, he had voted for the appointment of a Committee, he would reply, that, he gave his vote upon that occasion solely on the ground that this was a vote of no confidence in the Government. He felt most strongly the indispensable necessity of having upon the Committee an officer of Her Majesty's navy, and he, therefore, begged to move the Motion of which he had given notice.

§ CAPTAIN SCOBELL
said, he also thought it most desirable that a naval officer should be a member of this Com- 2062 mittee. They had spent 5,000,000l. for transports, the whole of the army and stores had gone by sea, and why should they not have a sailor on the Committee? They had put two Gentlemen connected with the army on the Committee because they understood army affairs, and why should they exclude the naval profession? They could not have a better naval man on the Committee than the hon. Member who had been now proposed. It was absolutely necessary, in cases of this kind, to have upon the Committee some one who understood the matters to be inquired into. Lawyers could not understand the technical terms of naval matters, any more than seamen could understand the technicalities of law. He had himself sat, but a short time since, upon the Emigration Committee, upon which another naval officer had also sat, and he was quite sure that the members of that Committee would admit that without the nautical men upon it, it would have often been totally at sea.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
There is a preliminary question, Sir, in this matter which the House ought to consider. Let us clearly understand the circumstances under which the Committee was appointed. It was appointed under an agreement between myself and the noble Lord at the head of the Government. [Cries of "Time!"] I must state the facts; the House will draw the conclusion. When I put the names of the Gentlemen whom I intended to move as members of this Committee I found I had made a mistake; they did not meet the wishes or possess the confidence of the House. I therefore waited upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and made a proposition to him. It was this—that the Government should choose six of the members of the Committee, and I should choose seven; and that these names should be submitted to the House for its decision. The noble Lord entertained my proposition. To whom did I then go? To the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), and, in conjunction with him, I named the seven members of the Committee. Among the six nominated by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was Sir George Cornewall Lewis; he has ceased to be one of the Committee; hence it is that, acting upon the understanding which existed between the noble Lord, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and myself, I feel myself bound to give the Government the same opportunity to select a 2063 member of, and to preserve the same balance in, the Committee as it was agreed in the first instance they should have. It is only fair that the arrangement entered into upon both sides of the House should be acted upon. Upon that ground alone do I oppose the present Motion. I certainly do not do so with any desire to cast a slur upon the hon. and gallant Member whose name has been proposed. Let me address myself shortly to the only argument which has been used, namely, that there ought to be a naval man upon the Committee. Now, the Committee is not going to judge of naval tactics, it is only going to do that which any man of common sense could understand. The lion. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) has said that the Committee ought to have a naval officer to assist it in understanding naval affairs, and that without such aid matters will be unintelligible. How do, in courts of law, judges and juries decide upon matters of art and of science? By means of scientific witnesses. So we in the Committee shall call scientific witnesses, and from their evidence we shall be enabled to form an opinion. It happens that there are two gallant military Officers on the Committee; but they were were not chosen as officers, but as Members of this House, competent to judge as other Members are of the subjects which would be brought before them. It is upon these grounds, and desiring that the arrangement honestly made should be honestly carried out, that I resist this Motion.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, he felt some difficulty with respect to this question. He had no desire to prevent the arrangement to which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) had referred being carried out; at the same time he thought it most desirable that a naval officer should be upon the Committee. Of the two objects, he felt himself bound upon the whole to regard the latter as of the greater importance, and he should therefore support the Motion.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
said, it was all very well to talk of judges and juries deciding professional and scientific questions by the aid of scientific or professional witnesses; but the other day the Judge of the Admiralty Court had a couple of admirals sitting by his side.