§ LORD PANMUREMy Lords, before we proceed to the other business of the evening, I think it my duty to inform you that Her Majesty, by the advice of Her Ministers, has appointed a Board of General Officers to inquire into the matters adverted to in the Report of the Commissioners who were sent to the Crimea to make certain inquiries. This Board is to receive explanations on the subject of complaints made by officers who have been adverted to in that Report, and to inquire into all the circumstances connected therewith.
§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKEI think the step now taken by Her Majesty's Government is one which ought to have been taken long ago. In my opinion, the moment that Report was in the hands of the Commander in Chief the natural and proper course for him to have pursued was to order a court of inquiry into the conduct of the officers who have been alluded to. I think the situation in which those officers have been placed is one of great pain and difficulty. They have been obliged to bear the obloquy of public opinion, and to redress their own grievances with their own hands in the public prints—a course which I think is derogatory to the government of the army, and dangerous to the discipline of the public service. I think the course which should always be pursued in military matters is, that those who enter the military service and place themselves under martial law should receive in return that protection and support to which they were entitled on having yielded themselves to the public service and its severe discipline. These officers are entitled to call for a searching investigation into their conduct, and if that is not granted they should be released by the acts of the public officers from a position so painful. I express no opinion as to the conduct of those officers, or as to matters which occurred in the Crimea, but I have stated the course which generally is and should be pursued in the military service.
§ LORD PANMUREI think it would 1018 have been as well if the noble Earl had made himself acquainted with the facts of the case before saying that the Government ought to have taken this step long ago. The Government was not in a position to take this step long ago, because they were not in possession of the information to enable them to do so until the 20th of last month. It is very true that the first Report of the Commissioners arrived in this country about the latter end of June last; but it was a bald, naked Report, relating entirely to the Commissariat Department, with one sentence only referring to any military officer, and was unaccompanied by any evidence, and therefore not at all in a condition for the Government to act upon. The second and main portion of the Report, together with the evidence, was only placed in my hands in print on the 20th of January. The Commission was appointed under very peculiar circumstances by the Government, in order to collect information as to the state of the army and the supplies of food and forage. The House of Commons and your Lordships were informed at the time that the Government relied very much on the information received by those Commissioners to counteract the state of things then existing; and, altogether, the manner in which the Commission was appointed, and the manner in which it was announced, led the public justly to expect that the Report of the Commissioners, as well as the evidence, would be laid in full before them. I have laid that Report and the evidence in its integrity before the public; and now, if certain officers find themselves aggrieved by the Report of the Commissioners, it is no fault of mine if some of those officers who find their conduct impugned should think their position would be most improved by publishing their defences immediately. I do not think they have done either harm or good by so doing; but a board of general officers, totally unconnected with affairs in the Crimea, has been appointed to inquire into the allegations of the Commissioners' Report, and to hear the defences, or, I should rather say, the explanations, of those officers who conceive themselves aggrieved by that Report. I shall carefully abstain from giving any opinion as to those allegations, but the Government consider they have taken a proper course in instituting the inquiry which I have announced as about to take place.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHAre these general officers to examine witnesses?
§ LORD PANMUREYes.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHSome of the witnesses examined by the first Commission may be still in the Crimea. The Report will be very unsatisfactory if it is not accompanied by the evidence of the same witnesses in the former Report.
§ LORD PANMUREThese general officers will have the same power of taking evidence, and satisfying themselves upon the matters adverted to, as the Commissioners in the Crimea had.
§ EARL GREYI cannot help thinking this is a subject of great importance, and that it is very unfortunate that it has been brought before the House in this incidental manner. I am extremely sorry to hear the statement which has just been made, because I cannot help fearing that it will be a very irregular proceeding, and may lead to very serious consequences. A Commission of Inquiry is about to be appointed. Now, I hope the objects of that Commission will be clearly defined. I understand a Committee of Inquiry where there are specific and distinct charges against officers for having acted improperly, as was alleged at the Convention of Cintra; but, as far as I am aware, there is no charge against officers serving in the Crimea, except that they have failed in evincing the energy and judgment in the performance of their duty which they ought to have exhibited. I believe no one has imputed to these officers any intentional fault. Surely it will be a very vague and difficult inquiry whether more or less skill, more or less judgment, or more or less energy has been displayed. For my part, I think the proceeding is altogether unprecedented, and liable to lead to dangerous results. It seems to me this difficulty has arisen from a very unfortunate mistake. My noble Friend has stated that the complete Report of the Commissioners did not reach his hands till the 20th of January. Then, I say, it is to be regretted that it was laid so soon before Parliament. As far as I have had any experience of the mode in which the Government deals with Reports of important Commissions, the course has invariably been this:—When the Report is received Her Majesty's Government carefully 1020 consider whether the inquiry is complete and satisfactory, or whether further inquiry is necessary; and, if it be complete and satisfactory, what steps ought to be taken upon it. In laying the Report of a Commission before Parliament, it is usual to declare what judgment Her Majesty's Government have formed on that Report, and what course they propose to adopt in consequence. But, my Lords, we are now placed in a very embarrassing position. This Report has been immediately published although my noble Friend admits that it appears to bear hardly on certain officers.
§ LORD PANMUREI did not say that.
§ EARL GREYMy noble Friend says he did not say that. There is some reason for further inquiry. Either the Report bears hardly upon certain officers, or they have not had sufficient opportunity of explanation. Well, then, I say, in justice to those officers, if there be anything in this Report reflecting on them, upon which they ought to be heard, the opportunity of explanation should have been given before the Report was produced, and before an ex-parte statement, as it must be taken to be, was laid before Parliament. I say, also, it is a reflection upon the Commissioners, after their Report has been made public, to make it the subject of further inquiry. The appointment of a new Court of Inquiry implies that Her Majesty's Government, who selected these Commissioners, are not satisfied with the manner in which they have performed their duties. I am not able to express an opinion whether further inquiry is necessary. I have read the Report, but not the evidence which accompanied it, I should, therefore, be sorry to express an opinion; but I do say, if further investigation is necessary, the Report should have been withheld until that further investigation was completed.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI think the points raised by the noble Earl are three. He objects to the course taken by the Government, first, because it is without precedent; secondly, because it is hard upon the officers to institute inquiry without specific charges being alleged; and, thirdly, because the Government were bound either to make their opinion known, or to withhold the Report until further investigation had taken place. With regard to the first point, the want of precedent, I believe the course adopted is in strict conformity with 1021 the inquiry which was instituted after the Convention of Cintra. With regard to the hardship of calling upon officers to answer charges, not specific, that might be properly urged against proceedings by court-martial; but the chief object of this Court of Inquiry is to enable certain officers to relieve themselves of imputations which they consider are cast upon them without proof. With regard to the Government withholding the Report, the public would have felt aggrieved if such information as the Report contained had been longer withheld; and, in fact, the Government has acted upon the Report, as far as remedying certain evils connected with the Commissariat. The Government has not only acted consistently with precedent, but with fairness to the officers themselves, in instituting this course of inquiry, before which they will have the opportunity of making those explanations which they may think due to their own characters.
LORD BROUGHAMI see great difficulty in this proceeding, and wish to call the particular attention of your Lordships to what has been stated by the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Ellenborough). Here is a proceeding in the nature of an appeal from the Report of Commissioners upon certain facts into which they have inquired by the examination of evidence, chiefly, if not entirely, obtained upon the spot. There is dissatisfaction expressed by some parties or others with the result of the inquiry as contained in that Report, and this dissatisfaction gives rise to the appointment of a Board of General Officers, who are to review the proceedings before the Commissioners, to take into consideration their Report and the evidence on which it is founded, and to pronounce their opinion by a second Report upon the same subject, either confirming, differing from, or altering the judgment of the two Commissioners. But, unfortunately, as my noble Friend states, the Board of General Officers must rely on totally different evidence, because they are not, I suppose, to go out to the East, for the purpose of examining witnesses there, as was done by the original Commissioners. They are to examine witnesses here. My noble Friend the President of the Council reminds us of proceedings after the Convention of Cintra, and thinks that a good answer to those who say there are no formal charges which the Board of Officers can investigate. But, in the case of the inquiry after the Convention 1022 of Cintra, which was instituted because of the general discontent in the country, there had been no previous inquiry, no previous decision, no report come to by other authorities. It was not at all in the nature of an appeal, or review of a former proceeding. It was an original proceeding by which inquiry was first made whether all had been done which ought to have been done—whether the Convention of Cintra ought to be approved—and whether the conduct of persons before and in that Convention ought to be sanctioned. If an inquiry had been instituted on the spot—at Cintra, or at Lisbon, or anywhere in Portugal—if that inquiry had led to the examination of witnesses, and had given rise to a Report, and that Report, being objected to, had been sent to a Board of General Officers to review, the cases would have been somewhat parallel. But, as the facts stand, it seems to me there is no similarity between them. I see that the greatest possible difficulty and disadvantage will be sure to arise in this inquiry from one body—the two gentlemen sent out to the Crimea—examining one class of witnesses and the Board of General Officers examining another. You may have a few witnesses here, a few heads of departments, but, generally speaking, the bulk of the evidence will be entirely hearsay.