HC Deb 26 February 1856 vol 140 cc1407-9
SIR DE LACY EVANS

Sir, I have an important question to put to the First Lord of the Treasury, whom I do not see in his place, but I, nevertheless, feel it my duty to allude to the subject. In the Report presented by Sir John M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch the average mortality of the British army in the Crimea has been given, but not the mortality in the separate regiments. Circumstances, however, were stated in a passage of the Report, from which it would appear that the mortality in some regiments had been greatly above the average. I therefore wish to ask the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government if he has any objection to lay the entire documents before the House? An hon. and gallant Friend of mine on the other side of the House (Colonel North) has alluded to the same subject, and a question has been asked, and a statement been made by the noble Lord at the head of the War Department in another place—

MR. SPEAKER

I must inquire if the hon. and gallant Member is going to put his question?

SIR DE LACY EVANS

Sir, this is a matter of grave importance. Three different statements have been made on the subject, and I wish to know how they are to be reconciled, and it is, consequently, necessary to explain this on asking the question. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) has stated that there were other documents besides the Report—that these documents were highly useful, and had therefore been sent to the medical officers, but that they were not of a nature to make it useful or expedient to lay them on the table of the House. Then the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the War Department, when a question on the same subject was put to him by an hon. and gallant Member opposite, said that the Commissioners had differed in opinion as to the part of the Report in question, and for that reason the documents had not been laid on the table. On the other hand, the noble Lord the Secretary for the War Department has stated elsewhere that the whole of the documents had been laid in their integrity upon the table of the House. What I wish to know, Sir, is, which of these three statements is the correct one?

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, he could not at all admit that there was any discrepancy between the statement of his noble Friend and his own. He had stated that the mortality Returns did not form a part of the Report; and then he had gone on to say why they did not, namely—that the Commissioners had differed in opinion as to the propriety of their publication. On the other hand, his noble Friend at the head of the War Department was asked—admitting that the Returns in question did not form a part of the Report—was there any objection to their publication in another form? When the answer was, that objections were entertained to their publication, but that they had been referred to the Army Medical Department. Thus there was no discrepancy at all between the two statements. He would, however, take the opportunity of stating, in reference to his explanation, why the Returns had not formed a part of the Report— that Colonel Tulloch had since written to him stating that his answer was not correct, and that the difference of opinion to which he (Mr. Peel) had adverted, was in respect of some other Returns, and not the mortality Returns. To that, all he could say was, that he had stated what Lord Panmure told him was his impression, after the interview that had passed between him and the Commissioners. No doubt it was possible that Lord Panmure might have erred in his opinion; at the same time it was clear that the mortality Returns ought to be comprised in a sepa rate paper, while the objections to their publication were precisely those stated by his noble Friend at the head of the Government.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

May I ask are the Returns to be laid upon the table at all?

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

Not at the present time.