THE EARL OF LUCANMy Lords, I wish to make a few remarks in reference to some animadversions which have been made upon me in another place, in consequence of what I addressed to your Lordships a few nights since, on the production of the Report of the Board of General Officers at Chelsea. I think the most convenient course will be to read what I did say on the occasion. I have placed it upon paper, and have shown it to several persons who were present at the time, and they all admit its accuracy. I said—
The Minister of War, excusing himself on the last occasion for not producing the Report, stated that he was acting under the advice of the Judge Advocate General. I do not desire to comment upon the manner in which that learned Gentleman conducted himself on that inquiry, or I might say that he appeared to me to assume more the authority of the Board than the position of the legal adviser of the Board. What character he assumed during the deliberations, with closed doors, I will not say; but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the learned Gentleman is a colleague of the noble Lord, and is, therefore, no doubt most unfairly, open to the suspicion that he might not be more impatient for the drawing up of the Report than the noble Lord is for producing it. In passing, I must take the opportunity of observing that it is repugnant to all sense of justice that in a political inquiry a political partisan should be the officer to advise the Court. A review of the proceedings at Chelsea makes it clear that the administration of justice before military courts requires consideration on the part of the Legislature, and as I believe that consideration cannot be given to it in a more fitting place than your Lordships' House, I hope the next Session will not pass away without the attention of your Lordships being called to the office of the Judge Advocate General, the functions of that officer, his tenure of office, and the mode of procedure before military courts, which I do not hesitate to say is at present un necessarily tedious and obstructive to eliciting truth.I believe that to be a most accurate report of what fell from me on that occasion; the learned Gentleman in another place 1177 put very different words in my mouth, and not wishing to detain the House more than a few minutes, I will only advert to those sentences of his speech to which I take exception. The learned Gentleman is made to say—but I hope he is misreported—that I ascribed the delay in not laying the Report on the table sooner to the fact that he had drawn up the Report. Now, I never for one moment supposed that he had drawn up the Report; nor did I in my speech say a word about his having drawn it up. The learned Gentleman is also reported to have said that I stated that he had been dilatory in the matter, for the purpose of serving the objects of the Minister for War. What I said was simply that, as there was no great impatience on the part of the Minister for War to present the Report, and that as the learned Gentleman was a colleague of that Minister, he might be open to the suspicion that possibly be was not very impatient himself about the production of the Report. The learned Gentleman went on to say that I was in constant communication with the persons who were connected with this inquiry, and he did not believe that anybody of the least authority had given him the information. Now, I ask the learned Gentleman to whom he alludes? I deny, in the most positive and solemn manner, that I have been in communication with any one individual connected with the inquiry. He stated, also, that I did not obtain the information from Lord Hardinge. Now, what does that mean?—that I did obtain it from Lord Hardinge? It is perfectly true that there is a connection between me and Lord Hardinge, through our children, but it is not the less true that I never saw so little of Lord Hardinge as during the last six months. It is a positive fact that I never exchanged words with him, in my recollection, since the 18th of April last. Nevertheless, I may be told that it is most likely a communication has taken place with Lord Hardinge through my daughter or son-in-law. I declare, in the most solemn language that I can use, that, until the last week, I never myself touched on the subject, either to my daughter or to Mr. Hardinge, whom I have not seen three times during the last fortnight. So much for the insinuation about Lord Hardinge. The learned Gentleman went on to add that I had been in frequent communication with Lord Hardinge; but never was anything so fabu- 1178 lously untrue. The noble Lord the Minister of War has the advantage of me, inasmuch as he happened to be under the gallery of the other House when the speech of the learned Gentleman was made, and therefore knows whether the Report I am alluding to is correct.
§ LORD PANMUREI beg to say I was not under the gallery at the time.
THE EARL OF LUCANA gentleman came from the House of Commons, and reported to me what had been said, and he stated that he had just left Lord Panmure under the gallery. The hon. Gentleman was Mr. French, the Member for Roscommon.
§ LORD PANMUREI had been in the House to communicate with Lord Palmerston, but I was not sitting under the gallery.
THE EARL OF LUCANIt is further reported that the learned Gentleman said I imputed to him partiality during the conduct of the inquiry, and that he had abused the authority with which he was invested in order to prejudice me. I think the House will acquit me of having ever said anything of the sort. He is also reported to have said that I complained that the inquiry was a political inquiry, in consequence of the Judge Advocate being a Minister, and having attended Court. I never said anything of the kind. I called it a political inquiry, because my impression is that it was a political inquiry. I do not consider that the composition of the Board made the inquiry political, but that the subject matter which came before it did so. I say that the inquiry was partly military and partly political. I have not read much of the Report, but if I am not greatly misled—and I do not think I am, because I read it in the Daily News—it is stated that officers have exonerated themselves by throwing blame on Sir Charles Trevelyan; and if that be so, then I say the inquiry has been a political inquiry. Now, if I have cause to complain of one thing more than another which fell from the learned Gentleman, it is the last passage which I shall refer to. He said, "I am bound to say I believe that however incomplete the inquiry, and however insufficient the evidence may have been in Lord Lucan's case, yet the General Officers, looking at that evidence, have given a just verdict." Now, my Lords, this is the first time I ever heard that the evidence in my case was incomplete. I may remind your Lord- 1179 ship that Colonel Tullock was taken ill, and could not support his charge. My case lasted, with the intermission of a day or so, three weeks, and I never yet heard that any one point required further elucidation. Indeed, I understood that if ever there had been a case thoroughly investigated it was mine. I, therefore, do not think it is too much to say that that insinuation is baseless; and, if the learned Gentleman did make it, it is base. I shall now content myself with leaving it to the House and the public to form their own opinion as to the party to whom the charge of uttering unmitigated untruths applies; and I will give this advice to the learned Gentleman, namely, that holding as he does a judicial situation, and being, therefore, supposed to have the benefit of judicial immunity, he should be a little more careful in the language he uses in speaking of others.
§ LORD PANMUREHaving heard the observations which have been made by the noble Earl, I think I cannot do better than give him the advice which he has just given to the learned Judge Advocate—to be a little more careful in the language he uses to other parties. I certainly understood the noble Earl to say that the Judge Advocate General had drawn up the Report of the Commissions, and that he had used his position to delay the production of that Report. He was so understood not only by myself, but by those members of the Board who have seats in this House. The noble Earl has now entered into an explanation in answer to the statement of the Judge Advocate, and I can only say that it is extremely to be regretted that the noble Earl should have availed himself of his position as a Peer of Parliament to cast grave reflections on the highest judicial authority of the army—the individual who administers its criminal law, and advises the Sovereign in various judicial matters relating to the army. This is bringing into contempt a high authority, not only of the Crown, but a high authority as a civil member of that service to which the noble Earl belongs. My Lords, I will enter into no controversy with two parties, carried on in two different Houses of Parliament—but this much I must say, that if a high officer of the Crown is to be attacked, and has charges made against him in this House of Parliament, your Lordships must not be surprised if, being entirely innocent of those charges, he takes an op- 1180 portunity of vindicating himself in the only place where he has the opportunity of making his defence.
THE EARL OF LUCANI challenge the noble Lord to produce any newspaper in which it is reported that I said that the learned Gentleman had drawn up the Report. I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was, that "the learned Gentleman was a colleague of the noble Lord, and was therefore, no doubt most unfairly, open to the suspicion that he might not have been more impatient for the drawing up of the Report than the noble Lord was for producing it."