Lords Sitting of 26 January 1855

RESIGNATION OF LORD JOHN RUSSELL.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I think it may be convenient to your Lordships to receive information as to the circumstances connected with the retirement of my noble Friend, the late President of the Council, from the station which he held in Her Majesty's Government. That retirement, my Lords, must materially affect Her Majesty's Government, and from the station and character of my noble Friend great importance must be attached to it. I am not fully possessed of all the motives that may have induced my noble Friend to adopt this decision; and I cannot do better, perhaps, than read to your Lordships the letter containing the offer of his resignation, which I received from him on Tuesday night:—
"Chesham-place, Jan. 23, 1855.
"My dear Lord Aberdeen—Mr. Roebuck has given notice of a Motion for a Committee to inquire into the conduct of the war. I do not see how this motion is to be resisted. But as it involves a censure upon the War Departments conducted by my colleagues, my only course is to tender my resignation. I have therefore to request that you will lay my humble resignation of the office which I have the honour to hold before the Queen, with the expression of my gratitude for Her Majesty's kindness for many years past.
"I remain, my dear Lord Aberdeen,
Yours very truly,
"J. RUSSELL."
According to my noble Friend's desire, I laid his resignation before Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to accept it. I have said, my Lords, that I was not fully possessed of the motives—all the motives—that might have induced my noble Friend to adopt this course. I was well aware that some time ago—two months ago—my noble Friend disapproved
944
of or was dissatisfied with the conduct of the war; but after the explanations which took place on that occasion, and his constant activity in sharing the business and preparing the measures of the Government up to the day on which Parliament reassembled, I was certainly somewhat surprised, as well as deeply concerned, at receiving the letter I have read to your Lordships. My noble Friend may be at this moment giving—at all events, it is his intention this day to give—a full explanation of his motives and of his conduct. It is not for me to do more than express—which I do most unfeignedly—the deep regret I feel at the step which he has thought it his duty to take. My Lords, no man can possibly feel more than I do the great loss which Her Majesty's Government must sustain by such an event as this. Indeed, any of your Lordships who were present must recollect that at the formation of the present Government I expressly stated that I never would have ventured to undertake the formation of an Administration, had I not secured the effective co-operation and assistance of my noble Friend. My Lords, under these circumstances, and in ordinary times, I might, perhaps, have adopted myself a different course from that which I have resolved to take; but in the present condition of the country and of public affairs, and of Her Majesty's Government, I felt it due to our own honour, to our own consistency, and to our sense of duty, to meet that motion which is to be made this night in another place, and which will decide whether a censure is to be pronounced upon Her Majesty's Government or not. Even without the great and powerful and almost indispensable assistance of my noble Friend, we have thought it due to ourselves, to meet the motion so announced, and which induced him to take the course which I have now stated.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PROCESSION IN TUAM—QUESTION
LORD BERNERSrose, pursuant to notice, to inquire whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to the public procession of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics in the town of Tuam on the 15th day of August last, wearing the habits of their order, in contravention of the 10 Geo. IV. c. 7; and whether any proceedings had been taken to vindicate the law, and prevent its violation in future. In bringing forward this subject, he begged

945
to remind their Lordships that on a former occasion the noble Earl at the head of the Government, in answer to a question from his noble and gallant Friend (the Earl of Cardigan) respecting the Six-Mile Bridge affray, declared that no distinction should be made between soldiers and priests, and that while he was at the head of the Government, whether it was the case of a soldier or of a priest, of a peasant or peer, justice should be administered. The statute to which he (Lord Berners) had alluded was the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, passed in 1829, and which was received by the Roman Catholic hierarchy as a constitutional compact, which admitted Roman Catholics to the freedom of the State. Such processions as that to which his question referred were prohibited by the 7th section of that Act, which rendered Roman Catholic ecclesiastics who exercised any of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion, or wore the habits of their orders, save within the usual places of Roman Catholic worship, liable to a penalty of 50 l. It was considered by the late Government that there had been an infringement of the law, and they had thought it to be their duty to issue a proclamation to the effect that, while they were resolved to protect the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty in the full enjoyment of their religious liberties, they were determined to repress the commission of all such offences. At another period, a question having been put to the noble Lord the Home Secretary with reference to an infringement of the law, he stated he was informed that it, had occurred inadvertently, and was, therefore, passed over, but it was at the same time intimated that if there was any further infringement of the law, the statute would be strictly enforced. The person who was the originator of. and who had instigated the breach of, the law to which he (Lord Berners) was now calling their Lordships' attention, was no other than Dr. M'Hale, the self-called Archbishop of Tuam. There could be no doubt that his object was to show that he set the law of the land at defiance, and to establish in this country an authority which was incompatible with the Imperial authority of the realm. This was a person who, in the years 1826 and 1830, signed two pastoral addresses, accepting in the fullest sense the Emancipation Act as a constitutional compact between the Roman Catholics of this country and the Government. The description of the procession was contained
946
in the Tuam, Herald [an extract from which the noble Lord read], and a communication had been received from the resident magistrate in Tuam, stating that the substance of the report was correct. He would beg the House to reflect what the consequences of such a proceeding must be in a country like Ireland, where the feelings of the people were so excited, under the thraldom under which they were placed by the Romish priests. He had purposely abstained from alluding to the religious view of the question, but it had frequently occurred to him whether it would not be fitting for that assembly to ponder over the lesson which history had taught them, that the weal and woe of this great country had always followed the line of policy which had been adopted by the nation in promoting or discouraging the Protestant Church of which we were members.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENbegged to inform the noble Baron that the attention of the Government had been called to the procession referred to as having taken place in the town of Tuam, in the month of August last—a procession, in the opinion of many, undoubtedly in violation of the law. The Government and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had referred the question to the law authorities, and it appeared that this violation of the law, which the noble Baron thought so clear and unquestionable, was matter of great doubt. It was doubtful whether the law had been violated at all, and doubtful whether the facts were as they were stated; and under these circumstances their Lordships would not be surprised if his noble Friend had hesitated in instituting a prosecution on such a subject upon authority so doubtful. No doubt an ostentatious procession had taken place from the dwelling of Archbishop M'Hale to the door of the cathedral, and no doubt it had been witnessed with respect by the population; but looking at the circumstances and to the difference of opinion among the learned persons consulted, he thought that a wise discretion was exercised in not instituting a prosecution, which would not have had a probability of success. The noble Lord (Lord Berners) spoke of the possibility of a violation of the peace; but he (the Earl of Aberdeen) thought that the institution of such a prosecution would have been infinitely more likely to provoke it, and that at this moment above all others it would be unwise to raise questions of a doubtful

947
character, which would only be certain to produce religious animosity. If the law had been perfectly plain, and the Government could have expected with certainty a successful result, there might be much force in what the noble Lord stated. But though he admitted that all laws ought to be respected and enforced, yet he could conceive of cases in which it might be wise to abstain from enforcing a law. On this occasion, at all events, he thought that a wise discretion had been exercised in abstaining from a prosecution, considering all the circumstances, and that there had been no excess or outrage, or breach of the peace, but a simple procession, which was not prohibited by the Act to which the noble Lord referred, and for which it would have been probably most difficult to procure a conviction.
LORD BERNERSsaid, he deeply regretted to have heard the observations of the noble Earl, especially that the law of the land might be allowed to be broken with impunity. Such cases could be drawn into precedents, and fetter succeeding Governments who might desire to enforce the law.

THE 12TH AND 91ST REGIMENTS —QUESTION
EARL GREYinquired whether it were true, as had been stated in the newspapers, that ships had been chartered from this country to bring home the 12th and 91st Regiments from the Cape, and that no orders to that effect having been given to the officer in command at the Cape, he had refused to allow the regiments to be embarked?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the circumstances were these. In the despatch he addressed to Sir George Cathcart, at the time that the constitution was given to the Colony, he stated the amount of military force which he thought ought to remain at the Cape for a time, and also the amount to which it might be ultimately reduced. Subsequent events, however, and communications with Sir George Cathcart, had led him to believe that it would not be possible to reduce the force so rapidly as he had proposed; and on December 22, 1853, he addressed a despatch to Sir George Cathcart, intimating that the force would not be further reduced until he had had an opportunity of completing his arrangements. On the 14th of March last he received from Sir George Cathcart information that he thought it
948
undesirable that the force should be reduced lower then 5,000 men; and though he (the Duke of Newcastle) had informed him that the 12th and 91st Regiments, which stood next for relief, should be brought home, Sir George Cathcart expressed a desire that the 12th should be left, and said that he would remove the 91st from the frontier to Cape Town, with a view to its embarkation, when ships, which probably would be calling at the Cape on their way from Australia, would bring them home. The breaking out of the war led to an alteration in these arrangements. It became impossible to relieve the 99th in Van Diemen's Land, and also desirable that the 46th, which was to have gone out to Victoria, should be retained at home, with a view to its being sent (as it ultimately was sent) to the Crimea. That being the case, it being desirable to bring home the 91st as soon as the Cape force was raised to 5,000 men, arrangements were made that the force should be raised to that amount by drafts sent from this country, in vessels which should bring home the 12th and 91st Regiments. Accordingly the Maidstone and the Punjaub were chartered for that purpose; and on the 6th June he wrote a despatch to the Lieutenant Governor of the Cape, informing him of these arrangements, and of the vessels which would be sent to bring home these regiments; and he also addressed letters on the 30th of May (a week previously) to the Admiralty and to the Horse Guards, informing the Horse Guards of the arrangement, and desiring the Admiralty that ships might be provided to bring home the troops in question. The vessels arrived at the Cape in the middle of October; but it appeared, unfortunately, that although his despatch to the Lieutenant Governor had arrived, the General in command of the forces—Major General Jackson—had not received corresponding orders from the Horse Guards; and under those circumstances, though he was informed by the Governor of the directions he had received from the Minister of War, he declined, because the drafts sent were not sufficient to raise the force to the number of 5,000 men, to allow either of the regiments referred to, to come home. He (the Duke of Newcastle) had subsequently written to him for a more complete explanation of the circumstances. But it was too true that one of the vessels sent out had come back empty, and that both would have done so had it not been

949
for an accidental circumstance—the wreck of a vessel on its way to India, in consequence of which the other of the vessels had brought home a detachment of the 27th Regiment. With that qualification, the report referred to by the noble Earl must be admitted to be founded on fact.

THE "TIMES" CORRESPONDENT WITH THE ARMY.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAin rising to call the attention of the House to the course taken by the press with respect to the war in the Crimea, said: I shall occupy your Lordships but a very few moments in drawing your attention to the subject which I am anxious to bring under your notice. I think sonic noble Lords may be inclined to remind me that this is one of those subjects on which "the least said the soonest mended;" and I have no doubt in my own mind that the noble Lords whom I have now the honour to address—and some, perhaps, of those who occupy the Treasury bench—may think that I have taken a bold course in venturing to place myself in opposition to the Times newspaper, and to risk the vituperation which no doubt I shall receive at the hands of the able writers of that journal, for daring to presume to call in question any part of the course which that journal has thought proper to adopt in reference to the war in the Crimea. But, my Lords, I never have been deterred, and I never will shrink, from boldly declaring my sentiments when I think that any part of the public press of this country outsteps its legitimate bounds, and I conscientiously believe that the course which it is pursuing is detrimental to the public interests of my country. My Lords, I am well aware how inferior I stand in point of talent and abilities to the majority of those whom I have the honour to address. I am perfectly sensible how little service I can render to my country from lack of talent and ability; but I trust I may be permitted to express my sincere hope that I have not been deficient in that moral courage which has so long adorned the House in which I have the honour of sitting, nor that I have been behind your Lordships in openly expressing, at every opportunity, my sentiments upon such subjects as may have come before us, at whatever risk and personal inconvenience. I regard this as one of the greatest blessings among many which I possess at the hands of God. It is this moral courage
950
which enables a man to act up to his principles, and I trust that throughout life I have done so. That principle was strengthened and confirmed in me by the precepts, and, above all, by the example, of one whose memory I shall ever cherish with affection, and under whose tuition I passed my early years. Among his maxims was one which left a deep impression upon me. It was this—"Fear no man. Honestly and conscientiously do your duty in whatever state you may be placed; and God and your own conscience will support you and obviate the difficulties by which you may be surrounded." My Lords, there stands not among you a greater friend to the liberty of the press than I am. My opinion, perhaps, may not be in accordance with that of many of your Lordships, but I believe the public press has been not only of great public benefit, but, further, that it has been a great public blessing, Liberty, however, has its limits as well as everything else; and if those bounds are exceeded, liberty becomes licentiousness. I refer now to attacks upon private and public character—to those anonymous letters and attacks from which the writers, for some object or other, I will not say from cowardice, have thought proper to withhold their signatures. For my own part, in any communications I have made through the press, I have never placed a sentiment before the public to which I have not had the honesty and the boldness to attach my name. Now, my Lords, I am prepared to contend that the paper to which I have alluded—the Times—has exceeded the bounds of free discussion, and I am prepared to contend that it has exercised its influence against some individuals holding high situations of confidence and of trust in our army—men who are now fighting England's battles at this moment in the Crimea—in a manner most cruel and most unjust. I stand not here to vindicate the character and talents of those entrusted with the command of our armies. I am no military man myself, and I should scorn to form an opinion of the conduct of our generals until I had the fullest information. But not so the press. It is a new era in our history if the public press of this country is to send out an individual with our expeditions to comment upon all that takes place in the camp and in the field, to pass strictures on our military movements, and upon the conduct and character of those entrusted with the command of our troops, and,

951
above all, to convey to the enemy information most dangerous to the interests of our army. My opinion is, that if a spy were within our camp, paid by all the gold with which the enemy could reward him, he could not give them more useful information, or more detrimental to the interests of our army, than the correspondent of the Times newspaper has afforded them. What would that great man have said whose loss is felt more and more every day? Would the Duke of Wellington have suffered such a state of things in any army which he had the command of? Would he have allowed information to be conveyed to the enemy in this way? Would he have allowed the weakness and the losses of our army and of our lines of defence, the diminution in our forces, their sickness, our loss of cavalry, and other losses, to be detailed for the information of the enemy, so as to give encouragement to our foes, to show them our weakness, and to place our army in a still more fearful situation than that in which it is now placed? As I said before, I stand not here to offer an opinion as to the military talents of the men who command our armies. But there has been an attack not only against the professional character of Sir Richard England and of Sir John Burgoyne, but against the character of that noble Lord who commands our army in the Crimea—a noble Lord with whom I have been for many years of my life acquainted, and whose friendship I am proud to say I possess. What has the Times stated of that noble Lord? Why, that he has no feeling, no sympathy in the sufferings and privations of the gallant men he commands, that he never is seen in the camp and among his men. A more foul, false, and malignant calumny never was levelled against the character of any man upon earth; for, if there be one man more than another who possesses a really kind heart and sympathy with those placed under him, it is the noble Lord who commands our army in the Crimea. When writers talk about his not showing himself to his army, they cannot have taken into consideration how deeply and incessantly that noble Lord must be occupied in the difficult position in which he is placed—how fully occupied he must be in directing the different departments of his army, and in commanding it in the presence of an overwhelming force of the enemy. Perhaps, indeed, he may have shrunk from witnessing the sufferings of his poor sol-
952
diers, from a conviction and a knowledge that it was neither in his power to alleviate or to remove them. But I say that the public press of this country has outstepped its province, and if it is to take upon itself the direction of the war and to pass censures upon what is done in the camp and in the field, the sooner the government of this country is placed in the hands of the press, and the sooner the noble Lords opposite abdicate their functions, the better. My earnest wish is that the Government had treated with coldness and with contempt the bitter taunts levelled against them with regard to the expedition to Sebastopol; that the Government had followed the sounder dictates of their own judgments, and had deferred the expedition until the spring, when a more powerful force might have been sent, and England might have brought into the field an army sufficiently strong to meet the Russian forces and to really besiege Sebastopol—which we have not yet done, for no place is besieged unless it is regularly invested. I believe the Government were warned of the fearful climate to which the troops would be exposed. I believe they had the opinion of many leading officers—naval and military—both in our own and the French army, that we could not send such an expedition at that time of the year without great risk to the health and to the lives of our men, and without great risk of total failure. But, returning to the main point of my observations, I want to know, if the state of things to which I have alluded is to continue, what man will take the command of an army in the field when he runs the risk of encountering such attacks arising out of offence given to the newspaper correspondent, as I cannot help thinking Lord Raglan appears to have offended in this instance? The question I wish to put to the noble Duke opposite is this—Has the correspondent of the Times paper in the slightest degree received the countenance of Her Majesty's Government? I do not ask the noble Duke whether the expenses attending that gentleman's transport from this country to the Crimea were defrayed by the Government; but I have been led to understand that he had a free passage out in one of Her Majesty's ships. I am further informed that this gentleman has regularly drawn rations for himself during the time he has been in the Crimea. I wish to have answers to these two questions; but I wish further to know whether the noble Duke has received any communi-

953
cation from Lord Raglan, as Commander of the British forces in the Crimea, stating that the course pursued by the press has been detrimental to the best interests of that army, and calling for the adoption of some means by which to prevent the evil? I hope the noble Duke will be enabled to give a satisfactory reply to these questions.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I am sure my noble Friend will excuse me if I do not follow him upon the present occasion into any discussion as to whether we have been taunted by the press into undertaking the expedition to the Crimea prematurely, and have placed the English army in any danger in consequence. My noble Friend upon the cross-bench (Lord Lyndhurst) has given notice of a very stringent Motion upon this subject for Friday next, and it will be my duty, on that occasion, to vindicate the Government from any such charges, quite irrespective of the conduct of the press. My noble Friend and the House will probably forgive me, therefore, if, upon the present occasion, I am not led into that discussion which, towards the close of his observations, my noble Friend rather seemed to anticipate. I concur with my noble Friend that the press of this country has not acted upon all occasions with judgment and discretion. I would say, indeed, that I think it has acted with great lack of judgment and of discretion in publishing information which it has on various occasions communicated, not to the people of this country—for, if that was all, I should rejoice at every information which could possibly be given, be it good or bad—but in publishing information which we must recollect has been conveyed at the same time, and that, too, with the greatest rapidity, to the Emperor of Russia. I believe it to be the fact that there are persons in this country who are in the habit of communicating to the Emperor of Russia by telegraph information which is published by the press of this country in the morning, so that that information may be known at St. Petersburg in the course of that very day. I say, then, that I do think the press of this country—though I will not impute to them a want of patriotism—have evinced a want of discretion in the way in which they have published intelligence from the army. My noble Friend asks me whether the correspondent of one particular paper has received from the Government any encouragement or assistance in the functions which he has performed in the course of
954
the expedition, and he has pointed out two allegations which have been made to him—one, that the individual in question has, with the concurrence of the Government, drawn rations with the army in the East, and that, secondly, he was afforded a free passage on his way out with the army. As it is first, in point of time, I will first address myself to the latter allegation. It is perfectly true that an individual, who was certainly not entitled to give such a permission, did intimate that in one of the vessels—I think it was the first vessel which sailed from this country—which was to convey troops to Malta, the gentleman referred to might have a free passage. Before, however, that vessel sailed the fact came under the notice of the Government, and we sent down express to Southampton or to Portsmouth—forget, for the moment, which of those two places—a message stating that it was contrary to rule—that vessels were taken up for the conveyance of troops alone, and that the gentleman—who was, I believe, at that moment, on board the vessel—must leave. Accordingly that gentleman did leave the vessel and went in his own way, and of course at his own expense, to Malta. I hope I have satisfactorily disposed of this question. Now, with regard to the second statement—as to rations. If this question had been put to me at the beginning of the month of December, I should have given my noble Friend as positive a contradiction as I have been enabled to give to the other one of the statements he has repeated. I answer in these terms for this reason—that it has been my duty to give such an answer, of course under the thorough conviction that that answer was a perfectly true one. At the commencement of December applications were made to me by the editors of two newspapers in this country, requesting that their correspondents in the Crimea might receive rations along with the troops. It was my duty to inform such applicants that it would be contrary to all the rules of the Commissariat service to grant their requests—that no persons could receive rations unless they were present with the army upon public duty, and that, therefore, it was quite impossible that such assistance as they asked for could be afforded. A rejoinder was made by one of these gentlemen, to the effect that the correspondent of one of the London papers was already in the enjoyment of this privilege. It so happened that I had had an

955
opportunity, not long before, of conversing with a friend who had been in the Crimea, and, upon his authority, I positively contradicted that statement. Just before the meeting of Parliament, however, I received an intimation from another gentleman who had come from the Crimea of such a nature as led me immediately to make further inquiries. It is right that I should here state, what is already before your Lordships in the papers I have presented, that it was only in the course of December that the Commissariat came under my immediate management. It was about the middle of December that the arrangement took effect, and, consequently, I was not personally cognisant of the details of the business transacted in that department. The fact is undoubtedly that, by a private permission given by the head of this department of the Treasury, the correspondent in question has received rations from the Commissariat. I can only say that the moment it came to my notice that such a permission had been given, I intimated, through my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the disapproval of the Government at the course which had been taken, and I should certainly hope that that course has since been pursued which ought to be taken—namely, that the privilege in question has been abandoned. I wish, my Lords, that these circumstances should be distinctly understood, and if your Lordships think I have erred, I wish, at all events, the fact should be known that, under the circumstances, I did not think it was fair at once to give a peremptory order that the privilege should be withdrawn. I have trusted to the good feeling of the gentleman referred to at once to abandon a privilege which certainly, according to the rules of the service, ought never to have been conferred upon him. At the same time, I have signified my positive diispleasure and disapproval of any such exception having been made. It is not only in reference to this gentleman or to any individual traveller; the Commissariat ought never to give out rations at all under such circumstances. As far as I am individually concerned, therefore, and as far as the Government is concerned, such a course will not be continued, and if this gentleman has not withdrawn from the receipt of rations, undoubtedly it will be the duty of the Government to issue a positive injunction upon that subject. My noble Friend asked me, further, whether I
956
had received any complaint from Lord Raglan with reference to the information which had been conveyed to the enemy by the publication of articles, or rather of correspondence, in the newspapers? I have received such representations from Lord Raglan. The first which I received from him was on the 5th or 6th of December. He sent me an extract from a newspaper, pointing out how admirably the writer had—no doubt, unwittingly—managed to assist the objects of the enemy, and to thwart the objects of the allied army; and he applied to me to use my influence to endeavour to prevent a recurrence of that. Upon receiving this communication I took a step which, I believe, a Minister of the Crown is not justified in taking except in very extreme cases indeed. I addressed myself to the editors of the newspaper press of London, requesting that they would abstain from publishing such intelligence as might be useful to the enemy, and so prejudicial to the operations of our own army. It was the first time I ever made such an application, and I should not have done so—feeling the impossibility of attempting to interfere peremptorily—if I had not absolutely felt it my duty to interpose in a friendly spirit to endeavour to obtain so great an object. As I before said, I wrote to the editors of the London press, stating the nature of the complaints made by Lord Raglan, pointing out the inconvenience which had arisen, and appealing to their patriotism and sense of duty to exercise a vigilant control over communications not only from their own correspondents, but over the private letters received by them, which are in many instances doubtless as mischievous, if not more so, than the letters of newspaper correspondents, and urgently requesting them to put a stop to the mischief which resulted from such publication. From some of the conductors of journals thus addressed I received no answers, but those I did receive were of a most courteous description, promising that the greatest care should be taken for the future. I can only say I do regret that the courteous promises contained in these letters have not been as completely and as thoroughly fulfilled as, I must say, I had reason to expect; for Lord Raglan has had occasion to make another complaint, which I received only the day before yesterday, pointing out reports of the same character proceeding from the same quarter on the 18th of December. I deeply

957
deplore these facts, but it will not be my duty to make a similar communication again, and I can only regret that my first communication has not been so successful as I had reason—on the part of the public, and not in any way on my own account—to anticipate. I shall rejoice, indeed, if the remarks made by my noble Friend this evening induce these gentlemen in future to exercise greater control over their correspondents and over themselves, and to abstain from publishing facts which, however much they may interest the public here, must be most prejudicial to our army by the information communicated, not merely to the Emperor of Russia, but, with the greatest possible rapidity, to the commanders of the enemy's forces in the Crimea.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYwas understood to say that he had been informed that a meeting of the correspondents of the newspapers had taken place, and that Lord Raglan, or some one in his behalf, had addressed them all, and remonstrated with them as to communicating information which might be detrimental to the allies and useful to the enemy; that some one of these gentlemen had used insolent and arrogant language, and that Lord Raglan had found it necessary to send him out of the camp. He understood further that all the newspapers but one had given Lord Raglan an assurance that they would not communicate anything detrimental to the service. That gentleman said he was under no obligation whatever to observe secrecy; that he was sent there to report what fell under his observation. He believed that a second remonstrance had also been made, urging upon those gentlemen the propriety of being more discreet.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEstated, that he had understood that Lord Raglan had, either by himself or through others, remonstrated with some of the individuals who were the correspondents of newspapers in the Crimea, but he was not aware of the circumstance of any of those gentlemen having used arrogant or insolent language in reply, or of their having been subsequently sent out of the camp. If any gentleman had so conducted himself, after having been remonstrated with in a proper form and upon sufficient grounds, he should, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, consider Lord Raglan as fully justified in sending such person out of the camp; and most undoubtedly that noble
958
Lord would be supported by the Government if he should consider it his duty, under such circumstances, to remove any correspondent of a newspaper from the camp.
THE EARL OF DERBYstated, that in the course of the observations just made by the noble Duke, he had said that the Commissariat Department had not been handed over to his control until the middle of December. Now, on the 18th of December, a Motion was made in that House for the production of copies of any Order in Council respecting the establishment of the separate departments of the Secretary of State and the War Department, and of any correspondence which had taken place between the departments on the subject. In consequence of that Motion, which was at once acceded to on the part of the Government, papers had been laid upon the table of the House, from which it appeared that somewhere about the 12th of June the office of Secretary of State for the War Department was constituted, and the noble Duke was appointed by an Order in Council. With respect to correspondence on the subject, only one paper had been produced, and that was a Treasury minute dated the 22nd of December, four days after the Motion was made, and which could not, therefore, be referred to at the time the Motion was made. Was the House to understand that from the 10th of June to the 22nd of December, no correspondence whatever had taken place on the subject, or that no record existed of it, and that no arrangements had been made regarding the functions of the Secretary of State for the War Department, as constituted by the Order in Council of the 10th of June, with the exception of the letter of Sir Charles Trevelyan, produced in compliance with the Motion of the 18th of December?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: The noble Earl had, as usual, in addition to putting his question, endeavoured to draw unfavourable inferences from circumstances which he had but imperfectly stated; he had, however, no objection to answer the question. When the noble Earl moved for a copy of the minute to which he had referred, and of other papers on the subject, he (the Duke of Newcastle) mentioned this Treasury minute as being then in existence. It did undoubtedly bear date four days after the Motion was made, but it had been prepared at least three weeks previously. When the noble

959
Earl gave notice of his Motion, he (the Duke of Newcastle) was perfectly cognisant of the contents of the minute, and he had every reason to believe that it had passed the usual assent of the Treasury. But those who were acquainted with the mode of conducting business in the Treasury knew that, although the First Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reality controlled the minutes of this description, it was necessary to pass them by the junior Lords before proper validity could be attached to the minute; and from this circumstance it occurred that, although the minute in question had been previously approved by the heads of the Government, still the minute bore date, according to the Treasury rules, several days later than the day on which his noble Friend brought forward his Motion. The noble Earl wished to know whether any other communications had passed with respect to the arrangements of the military departments. When the noble Earl made his Motion in December, he expressly stated that he did not of course refer to any private correspondence which must in all cases pass between the heads of departments before so important a change could be effected. No doubt a very considerable amount of private correspondence had passed between the various departments on the subject of the establishment of a Secretaryship for war; but the only official document was the Treasury minute which had already been presented to the House. It was not usual to communicate to the House communications which were, generally speaking, of a confidential character, and he thought it would be unadvisable at the present moment that such communications should be produced. With respect to the transference of the Commissariat to the War Department, although the two Secretaryships were divided in June, still it was not until December that the unfortunate Secretary represented in his person had a room in which to put his head, and he was conducting his business as best he could in two rooms lent to him by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. Under such circumstances he refused to undertake the duties of the Commissariat Department, which, being nominally under his direction, would be actually under the direct control of another department. Such a state of things would be neither fair towards that branch of the service nor to himself, and it was not therefore until offices had been provided for him that the duties of the
960
Commissariat had been transferred to him.
LORD VIVIANwas understood to ask the name of the officer in the Commissariat Department who had allowed the Times correspondent to use army rations.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEstated, that it was not usual for the Government to cast any blame upon its subordinate officers, and, as far as possible, it was the duty of the Government to assume the blame of all transactions to themselves; still at the same time the instructions in respect to the correspondent of one of the newspapers being of a private nature, and being decidedly unauthorised, and therefore unprotected by the usual good official rule, he could not under such circumstances decline mentioning the name of the gentleman who had given instructions—it was Sir Charles Trevelyan.
House adjourned to Monday next.