COLONEL NORTHsaid, the Report recently laid on the table with reference to the condition of the army in the Crimea attributed many of the disasters which took place to the want of forage, he wished to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any notice of the very gross neglect which had been exhibited by Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was at the head of the department responsible for such supplies?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that Sir Charles Trevelyan was not examined before the Board of General Officers, and he had not an opportunity of making any statement as to the course pursued by the Treasury. Sir Charles Trevelyan was only the organ of the Treasury, but of course an opportunity would be afforded him, as an executive officer of the department, of giving any explanation he might think necessary.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that he would take an early opportunity, in the next Session of Parliament, of bringing the subject under the consideration of the House. Sir Charles Trevelyan had positively refused to attend the Board, and had issued a pamphlet containing statements which in his (Colonel North's) opinion, were most disrespectful to the Board.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that Sir Charles Trevelyan had sent in a written statement to the Board of General Officers, but, inasmuch as neither his conduct individually, nor the conduct of the Treasury, was referred to the consideration of that Board, Sir Charles Trevelyan did not think it his duty to appear before the Board to give evidence. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been in communication with Sir Charles Trevelyan on the subject of the Crimean inquiry; and, with reference to the notice which had just been given by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire, he thought it right to state that Sir Charles Trevelyan disputed altogether the correctness of the conclusions at which the Board had arrived so far as the Treasury were concerned.