§ VISCOUNT GODERICHclaimed the indulgence of the House while he brought before it a question of a personal character, which he regretted to say involved a reflection upon some proceedings of the hon. and gallant General the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), for whom he entertained, on occount of his public services, the highest esteem. Had those proceedings concerned himself alone he should not have been inclined to trespass upon the attention of the House; but they concerned other Members of the Committee upon the Transport of Troops to India, and it was at their request that he brought this subject before the House. Another reason for his doing so was that he had been told by the highest authorities that the proceedings of the hon. and gallant General were altogether unprecedented, and if they did not constitute a breach of the rules of the House, were so gravely irregular that they ought to be submitted to the House, in order that they might not be drawn into a precedent. In the month of February last a Committee was appointed, on the Motion of the hon. and gallant General, to inquire 1868 into the mode in which reinforcements had been, and ought in future to be, sent from this country to India. That Committee originally consisted of Sir De Lacy Evans, Viscount Goderich, Lord Stanley, Sir John Pakington, Mr. Horsman, Sir Edward Colebrooke, Sir James Elphinstone, Mr. Adderley, Sir Charles Napier, Mr. Bernal Osborne, Captain Vivian, Mr. Byng, Mr. Willoughby, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Danby Seymour. Shortly afterwards, owing to the change of Government, Lord Stanley and Sir John Pakington retired, and, upon the Motion of the hon. and gallant General, Mr. Sclater-Booth and Lord John Hay succeeded them. Mr. Adderley was reappointed. That Committee took evidence, and at the commencement of the month of June the gallant General, as Chairman, presented to it a draught Report, with the conclusions of which several Members felt that they could not concur. In consequence he (Viscount Goderich) put in circulation certain Resolutions, and when the gallant General moved the second reading of his Report the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) moved, as an Amendment, that before considering any Report it was desirable to ascertain by Resolutions the opinion of the Committee on the principal points involved in the matters referred to it. That Amendment was carried by a majority of one, and certain resolutions were adopted, which, with the evidence, had been reported to the House. That Report having been made, he did not contemplate that the personal conduct of any of the Members of the Committee would be called in question. The hon. and gallant General, however, entertained a different view of the course to be pursued, and had circulated a document in which he appeared to insinuate that some Members of the Committee were actuated by motives unworthy of their position, and of the trust which was reposed in them by that House. If the hon. and gallant General entertained this opinion, he might either have expressed it in the Committee or in that House, when those whom he accused would have met him face to face. The latter course the House knew that he had not pursued, and so far was he from adopting the former, that on the last occasion on which the Committee sat he (Viscount Goderich) publicly assured the gallant General that it had been with the greatest regret that he had opposed the acceptance of his Report. The hon. and 1869 gallant General replied to him courteously, and he left the Committee without supposing that the hon. and gallant General entertained the slightest suspicion that he had been actuated by any other than public motives. Instead, however, of adopting either of these two courses, the hon. and gallant General put in circulation the document to which he was about to call the attention of the House. Before noting the contents of that document, however, he must refer to the mode in which it was circulated. It was printed with the outward appearance of a Parliamentary paper, and circulated under a covering having the heading "Parliamentary Proceedings;" consequently it bore the appearance of having received some Parliamentary sanction. To whom was it sent? It was circulated, he believed, among the other Members of the House, but it was not sent to himself, to the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian), to the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. B. Osborne), or to his noble and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast (Lord John Hay); and yet it was upon their conduct that it reflected. The first intimation which he received was from his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng), who was one of the Members who voted for taking the draught report into consideration; but when his hon. Friend applied for a copy for him, he was told that his (Viscount Goderich's) name was not upon the list, and he could not receive one. He never had received a copy, and that which he held in his hand he had only obtained by the kindness of a friend. The hon. Member for Bodmin also applied for a copy, and was refused. Therefore, if he had a right to complain of the contents of this paper, he had still more right to complain of the manner in which it had been circulated. It did appear to him that in withholding from those whose conduct was criticised in it copies of this document the gallant General was guilty of a want, he would not say of courtesy or generosity, but of the fairness which one man might be expected to extend to another. The paper consisted of the draught report of the gallant General, which had been printed in extenso in the published Report of the proceedings of the Committee, of extracts from the appendices to the Report not yet in print, and of a preface written by the hon. and gallant General, and for the sake or circulating which it must have been that this document was issued. It 1870 was to this preface that he especially wished to draw the attention of the House. This preface contained severe criticisms on the conduct of those who differed from the hon, and gallant General, and the charge insinuated was that the seven Members of the Committee who voted against taking the Report into consideration were actuated, not by a sense of public duty, not by the result of the evidence and their own thought, but by a desire to screen the Members of the late Administration from the censure which they deserved. The hon. and gallant General said in this preface—
The task of drawing up a draught Report devolved upon the Chairman, who deemed it his duty and for the public advantage to mark without favour or affection, and in direct terms, the serious official mistakes alluded to. This, however, seemed displeasing to several of his colleagues. The draught Report was read a first time on the 8th of June. On the 18th the Committee met again, when a Motion was made to consider Resolutions before taking into consideration any draught Report. There were present during this Vote—Sir De Lacy Evans, in the chair, who voted for considering the Report; Sir C. Napier, Sir J. Elphinstone, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Byng, Mr. Sclater-Booth, and Mr. Willoughby, who voted for proceeding by Resolution before considering any draught Report; Lord John Hay, Mr. D. Seymour, Sir E. Colebrooke, Mr. Osborne, Captain Vivian, Lord Goderich, and Mr. Crawford.The hon. and gallant General then went on to say—A technical majority of seven of these were apparently anxious to obtain for their political friends, is far as practicable, the usual amiable verdict, 'Nobody is to blame.' As a censure of the late Administration was involved in the result, an impartial judgment by the Committee could only have been expected from a far balance of parties in the Members, but that balance did not eventually exist, because the unexpected change of Government during its proceedings deprived it of the valuable assistance of the present President of the India Board, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the President of the Board of health. It had also the effect of depriving the Chairman of the right of voting.That sentence he did not quite understand, because the gallant General had the same rights as any other Chairman of the Committee.Thenceforward the seven Members of the Committee abovenamed, some of whom had held office under the late Government, or had been supporters of it, were enabled, though not in a numerical majority, to carry any Motion agreeable to their wishes.That the hon. and gallant General should say that the majority were quite wrong in their conclusion did not surprise him, but what they had a right to complain of was, 1871 that in a document privately circulated he accused them of having been actuated by wrong motives, not by a sense of public duty, but by a desire to screen the Members of the late Administration from a censure which they deserved. To that assertion on his own part, and on the part of those who acted with him, he gave the most distinct and emphatic denial. He was most especially surprised that the gallant General should have made such a charge against the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford), who, as the representative of the first constituency in the kingdom, might have been considered above any such suspicion, and who, on the very last day of the sitting of the Committee, moved the insertion in the last Resolution limiting the praise there given to the East India Company, and most remarkably excluding Her Majesty's late Government from all share in it. He should also have thought that the character of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) and the manner in which he had criticised the conduct of the military departments with reference to the war in India, would have saved him from such an accusation. For himself he would say nothing. He would content himself with giving a distinct denial to the charge made by the gallant General, and would leave his character to the judgment of the House. He must, however, call attention to the manner in which the gallant General had criticized the proceedings of the Committee. Having stated that the Chairman could not vote in favour of his own report—as, of course, according to the rules of the House, he could not—he went on to say that Mr. Adderley, though entertaining opinions entirely in unison with those of the Chairman, did not feel at liberty to vote in this division for reasons apart from the merits of the question. He called upon the gallant General to prove that the right hon. Gentleman referred to did approve his draught report, or had even read it. He believed the fact was, that his right hon. Friend concurred in his opinion as to the conduct of Sir George Grey at the Cape, but he doubted whether there was any further concurrence between them. He agreed with the gallant General in regretting the retirement from the Committee of the President of the India Board and the First Lord of the Admiralty; but as the draught report said that there was reason to fear that the present Government were committing the same mistake as their prede- 1872 cessors in sending troops round by the Cape, it was doubtful whether that document would have received the support of the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. The hon. and gallant General then went on to criticise the language and grammar of the Resolutions. With regard to that matter, however, he would not trespass upon the House. What he was anxious to do was, to give to the charge of the hon. and gallant Officer, impugning the motives of those who sat with him on the Committee, a most distinct denial. The course taken by the hon. and gallant Officer was entirely without precedent, and if followed upon other occasions would materially alter the character of Select Committees. Members of Committees stood towards each other in friendly and, to a certain extent, confidential relations. They deliberated with closed doors; other Members of the House were excluded, the object, doubtless, being to enable the Committee to consult with the utmost freedom. It was obvious that that object would not be attained if members of a Committee were to be subjected to a criticism of their conduct and motives in coming to a particular Resolution. As far as his own character and feelings were concerned, he should not have thought it necessary to bring this subject before the House, but having taken a rather prominent part in the Committee, and having been requested by his Colleagues to vindicate their proceedings, he had considered himself bound not to shrink from a painful duty. He would be glad to accept an assurance from the hon. and gallant Officer that he did not intend to impugn the motives of those whose names he had mentioned in his pamphlet; but if the hon. and gallant Officer persisted in his assertions, then all he could say was, that he should feel he had discharged a duty he owed to his friends, leaving his own character to the impartial judgment of the House of Commons. With the view of giving Sir De Lacy Evans an opportunity of making a statement, he would formally move the adjournment of the House.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANS, who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say that he was not surprised, nor did he regret, that the noble Lord had brought forward this subject, although he thought that due notice had not been given. He himself had arranged with three or four Members of the Committee to call attention to the question of the transport of troops to India 1873 on Friday next, because he believed that a full and ample discussion of the whole matter was required by the public interests at the present moment. He could assure the noble Lord that, on personal grounds, he regretted having felt himself obliged to cause the publication which occasioned the noble Lord's present remarks; and he certainly should not have done so, had not the noble Lord and his friends so in adequately appreciated the great national importance of the matter. The noble Lord urged that, if he (Sir De L. Evans) had any complaint to make of the Committee, he should have urged it in the Committee; but the fact was that he had done so, and, he was sorry to add, not in the most polite terms. When the few sentences termed Resolutions were brought forward as the result of three months' labour, concluding in the effect with the statement that no department of the Government was to blame, and that "considering the sudden emergency, and the distance which the troops had to be sent, the Committee were of opinion that credit was due to those on whom the sending of the troops devolved," he (Sir De L. Evans) exclaimed that such Resolution was neither more nor less than a full exoneration of the late Government. If that was not objecting, he did not know what was. It was not correct to say, therefore, that he abstained from stating his objections in the Committee. The noble Lord had spoken of the impropriety of circulating privately criticisms upon the conduct of a Select Committee. How could a document be called private which had been sent to all the principal Members of the House of Commons, including, if his memory served him rightly, the noble Lord himself, and the apparent official publicity of which the noble Lord, in the early part of his speech, had compared to a Parliamentary paper? He had asked the printer of the House for 100 copies of the draft Report, and, setting down 100 names from recollection, requested him also to forward them through the post; and as soon as he heard that the hon. Member for Dovor had been inquiring for a copy, he ordered one to be sent to him at the Reform Club. [Mr. OSBORNE: I never got it.] The noble Lord considered that he (Sir De L. Evans) had made grave imputations as to motives against certain Members of the Committee, but really all he attributed to them was an amiable desire to favour their political friends. He was astonished 1874 to find this represented as a grave charge. It was merely a laudable attempt to obtain the usual amiable verdict, "Nobody to blame." It was said, also, that he had violated the forms of the House. He was ready to express his regret if he had done so; but there were some things which, in his judgment, were more important than forms, and those were the great interests of the people. At the same time, he much regretted having fallen into any irregularity, and begged to state, frankly and explicitly, that he had no intention to wound the feelings or impugn the motives of the noble Lord and his friends. When he first moved for the appointment of this Committee, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that he came upon the House "like a thief in the night"—such were the very words used; but he did not think it necessary to call upon the House to protect his character against such an imputation; on the contrary, he laughed at it, and he saw no reason why the noble Lord and his friends should pursue a different course on the present occasion. But, on the subject of party, had not they recently heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from the noble Lord the Member for London also, time after time, homilies on the importance of party in a constitutional Government, and the importance of upholding party ties? He had heard over and over again, from the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord, that the only true way to conduct the affairs of this House was by maintaining party organization and respecting the ties of party. Such high authorities he was bound to suppose were right; and was there, therefore, anything wrong in his (Sir De L. Evans) saying that the majority of this Committee were good friends of their party? He never should have thought of this criticism on the proceedings of the Committee—which, he admitted, was singular—but for the importance of keeping attention directed to the subject, seeing that the Session was drawing rapidly to a close, and the crisis in India did not yet show symptoms of being brought to a speedy termination. The Report, as it appeared to him, indicated a magnificent contempt for facts, and for the evidence on which it proceeded. He (Sir De L. Evans) stated last Session, when the tidings of the mutiny were first received, that it would be practicable to send troops by the overland route. At the same time, he urged that steamers should 1875 be employed as well as sailing ships, and expressed his regret that orders had not been at once sent to the various Colonies to expedite the forwarding of whatever military resources they could spare to meet the emergency. He also recommended that some of our great war steamers should be brought into requisition for sending out troops. There was another reason for calling attention to the matter, in the fact that, though the Resolutions of the Committee had been published, the evidence had not been yet circulated. But what in fact was the real state of the case? The evidence completely bore out the statements made on moving for the Committee. Admiral Leeke stated that two or three war steamers, sent at once from this country with troops, would have had a great moral effect. The senior member of the Council of Bombay gave similar testimony. Captain Harris, the naval assistant, who had been sixty-eight times across the Red Sea, and over the route he (Sir De L. Evans) recommended, declared that there was no single objection to it; and the Quartermaster General in Egypt in his Report, and Colonel Fraser, who had conducted the transfer over Egypt, of the dragoon regiments from India to the Crimea, had both borne testimony to its practicability. After such evidence, he thought the House and the country would be surprised at the conclusion to which the Committee came. He contended that the overland route was proved to be perfectly safe; and it was important, therefore, that the country should be made aware of the serious mistakes made by the late Government on this subject, in order to provide, as far as possible, against a repetition of them. These were his objects in the course he had taken.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI rise to order, Sir. I understand that the House, in consequence of a personal charge having been made against some of our Members, agreed to grant an opportunity for a vindication of the character of the Members of the Committee, and also to afford an opportunity to the hon. and gallant General to substantiate his charge, or to give such explanations as he might think necessary. With that view we have consented to the postponement of business of great importance, as I am sure that on all Occasions, when the personal conduct and the personal character of any hon. Member is concerned, there is no sacrifice which we will not be ready to 1876 make; but I put it to the hon. and gallant General whether the opportunity thus afforded by the House should be made use of to go into a discussion of the whole question which was the subject of the Committee's investigations? Such a discussion would lead to a debate of great length, and therefore, I would put it to the hon. and gallant General whether it would not be more in consonance with the understanding on which the House permitted this matter to be brought forward to confine himself on this occasion to the personal considerations, without going into the general question?
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSThis matter is before us.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he should be sorry to trespass upon the indulgence of the House, but he certainly thought himself free, on the Motion of adjournment, to make some remarks upon the evidence taken before the Committee. As he stated orginally, it was on public grounds, and not from any personal considerations, that he wished the subject to be inquired into. But as the right hon. Gentleman did not wish the discussion to be prolonged, he would but refer to one statement of the Committee, which he thought demanded some comment. They stated that, though the overland route might be advantageously resorted to in an emergency, it would not be advisable to rely upon it for the transport of troops to India. Now, he had only adverted to the case of an emergency ("Question!"). If this is not the question, I have nothing more to say.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, in all these cases, in which the conduct of a Member of this House, and especially a Member who, on so many grounds, is entitled to our respect as the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, is impugned, there are generally details of a painful character which it is desirable that a fair opportunity should be afforded of discussing. But in this case I think it proper that the House should take an early opportunity of expressing its opinion. It does appear to me, after having listened, not only to the noble Lord (Viscount Goderich), but to the gallant General himself, that he (General Sir De L. Evans) has committed a very irregular act. That Act, the irregularity of which he himself admits, is, I think, not free from con- 1877 siderable impropriety also. I do not understand how the business of our Select Committees is to be carried on in a manner to give satisfaction to this House and to the country if, when the proceedings of a Select Committee are concluded, any hon. Member of that Committee who has not succeeded in having his opinions adopted, is not only to play the critic but to circulate a document which impugns not merely the judgment but the motives of his colleagues who were in the majority against him. Suppose this proceeding of the hon. and gallant General was accepted as a precedent, and that after a Committee had come to a decision and made its report, an hon. Member, who may be in the minority on that Committee, should publish a pamphlet imputing motives to the majority, and circulate it amongst Members of this House? I think the inconvenience to the public business as well as the injury to the private feelings of hon. Members would be so great that it is not necessary to make it the subject of comment. The hon. and gallant General has alluded to me—I am sure in no unfriendly spirit—in regard to some observations I made when this Committee was first proposed. Those remarks were made, not certainly in my character of leader of the House, but in a character of far less responsibility. However, I am sure the hon. and gallant General will not for a moment put in the same class observations made openly, in the full heat of public debate, and which can be immediately noticed and answered, with a document written and printed and circulated certainly in a manner and under conditions which, whether intended or not, succeeded in preventing the parties most interested from being acquainted with their contents. Sir, the gallant General will not on reflection put under the same head that freedom of debate which always is indulged in during our discussions in this House, and which is necessary to a frank and satisfactory criticism of public affairs, with the course which he has thought proper to adopt. Now the hon. and gallant General has, I am sorry to say, directed most of his observations in vindicating the course which he took, and which I think all Members of the House must regret that he did take. At the same time the hon. and gallant General has frankly expressed his regret if he has not pursued the usual course. He has expressed, in a manner more marked and emphatic than any other part of his observations, his re- 1878 gret that he should have hurt the feelings of any hon. Member who served on that Committee or should have violated the usual order of proceeding in this House. I trust, therefore, that that will be considered sufficient, and that this conversation may now end. The noble Lord has fairly and completely vindicated the conduct of himself and his colleagues whom he represents in this matter, before both the House and the country. The gallant officer has shown to the House—what indeed was not necessary—that in all he has done he has been animated solely by that high sense of public duty which always actuates him. I hope, therefore, we shall not be drawn into debate on this matter; especially as the matter is not formally before us, and the House is not asked to give any opinion on the subject. The object of this conversation has been, I apprehend, not, on the part of the noble Lord, that the House should express any censure on the conduct of a hon. and gallant General, whom we all very much respect and honour, but rather that he should place the conduct of himself and his colleagues in a right position, and also that the general rules regarding the conduct of business by Select Committees should not be changed, or in any way departed from without some notice to this House, conceived in such a spirit and expressed in such a manner as that the violation of our rules should not be drawn into what I think would be a very dangerous precedent. The object of the noble Lord being entirely gained, I think this Motion should end without any feeling on the part either of the noble Lord or of the gallant General, which would disturb that accord which I hope will always characterize our debates, and which tends so much to maintain the dignity of our privileges.
§ VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, that he had not the slightest wish that this debate should be continued after the regret which he understood the hon. and gallant General had expressed for having impugned the motives of the majority of the Committee. He most cordially agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not permit anything that had passed to interrupt that courtesy and good feeling amongst the Members of the House, which he (Lord Goderich) concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking were so necessary to be continued. He thanked 1879 the right hon. Gentleman for the handsome manner in which he had done him justice; and would now ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion by leave withdrawn.