HC Deb 25 July 1856 vol 143 cc1426-9
MR. LAYARD

I am anxious to put to the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question of some importance, and I venture to hope that the House will kindly permit me to preface it with a few explanatory observations. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that about a year ago my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) moved for the appointment of a Committee, popularly known as "the Crimean Committee." The noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown endeavoured to prevail upon the House not to grant that Committee, and, to make his appeal the more persuasive, he undertook that he would himself institute an investigation into the disasters which befell our army, see that justice was done to the country and to our soldiers who perished before Sebastopol, and, in a word, be our leader. By way of redeeming this promise two very eminent officers were sent out to the Crimea, where they prosecuted their inquiry with great zeal and energy. They had at hand all requisite means for carrying on the investigation; they took copious evidence, and on returning to this country prepared a Report, which was laid upon the table of this House. In consequence of the statements contained in that Report I gave notice of my intention to bring forward a Motion expressive of the deep regret of this House that honours, rewards, and promotion should have been bestowed on the inculpated officers. Thereupon the noble Lord expressed his willingness to advise Her Majesty to appoint a military commission to inquire into the Report of the Crimean Commissioners. This offer having been made I withdrew my notice of Motion, and refrained from taking any further steps in the matter, for my only object was that full and complete justice should be done to all parties. That Committee has sat, and its Report has been laid on the table of the House. I shall forbear from saying anything as to the feelings with which the country has received the Report that has emanated from that military commission. The document has been laid upon the table at a period of the Session which precludes the possibility of its receiving from this House that deliberate consideration which the importance of the subject merits. But I find that, speaking of the inquiry which they were commanded to institute, the Commissioners used these words:— It appears to us to be attended with unusual difficulties, inasmuch as some of the statements which were to be inquired into were founded in part on evidence which we had not the means of investigating, and the attendance of several witnesses which it would have been desirable to examine could not be obtained. After clearing from all shadow of imputation the officers whom the Crimean Commission had inculpated, and declaring that they were quite guiltless, the Commissioners concluded their Report as follows:— We beg leave further humbly to submit to your Majesty that there does not appear to us any ground for further proceedings thereon. The House is aware of the persecution to which Colonel Tulloch was subjected.

GENERAL PEEL

I rise to order.

MR. LAYARD

Upon that point I will not longer dwell; but it is at least certain that Colonel Tulloch had no opportunity of defending himself, not having been present when the inculpated officers were under examination. Now, the question I should like to ask of the noble Lord is, whether he is himself satisfied with this Report—whether he thinks that it does justice to this House and to the country—and, above all, to the memory of those gallant men who suffered and died for us in the Crimea and at Scutari—and, finally, whether he is willing to endorse what I cannot but regard as the somewhat uncalled-for opinion of the Commissioners that there are no grounds for further proceedings in this matter?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

The questions of the hon. Gentleman appear to me somewhat unusual, for he requires not a statement of facts, but an expression of opinion. I must object to one portion of the hon. Gentleman's observations—that in which he stated or implied that the Board of General officers which sat at Chelsea was appointed to inquire into and report on the proceedings of the Crimean Commission. This is not an accurate statement of the case. The purpose for which the Board of General Officers, which sat at Chelsea, was appointed, was to receive explanations from certain officers who felt that their conduct had been brought into question by certain passages in the Report of the Crimean Commissioners. It was to afford to those officers an opportunity of exculpation, and not to reinvestigate the Report of the latter Commissioners, that the Chelsea Commission was instituted. The hon. Member says that he has read their Report, but allow me to inquire whether he has read the evidence on which that Report is based?

MR. LAYARD

I have.

LORD PALMERSTON

In that case the hon. Gentleman is qualified to pronounce an opinion on the question; but I do not believe that the majority of this House has enjoyed the same advantage. In conclusion, I have only to observe that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to found any further proceedings on the Report of the Chelsea Commissioners.