Crimean texts

[Page 381 of the Proceedings]

TWENTY-SECOND DAY.

16th May 1856.

The Board of General Officers met at Chelsea, pursuant to adjournment.

(Commissary General Filder.) Yesterday I had occasion to quote several letters referring to Admiral Boxer, but I should not have done so if those documents had not been already published. I am desirous of taking this opportunity of saying, that at a subsequent period he arrived at Balaklava, and I was then in direct communication with him; and I wish to bear testimony to the very great assistance which I always derived from him when he was at Balaklava. Nothing could exceed his zeal and activity in forwarding all things connected with the commissariat. He built a very excellent wharf for landing all the larger articles of supply, which, with his inadequate means, was such as perhaps a professional engineer could not have constructed. And from the naval officers generally I always received the most prompt assistance in all matters relating to my department.

I will now submit a few additional remarks to the Board with regard to the supply of forage and the deficiency of the quantities transmitted from England, notwithstanding my repeated representations to Sir Charles Trevelyan of the impossibility of my obtaining a supply from local resources. I have to add, that it would appear that the home authorities subsequently became aware of the necessity of responding to the demand of the commissariat, for from the time I resigned the charge of the commissariat with the army in the East, forage was forwarded from England by the War Department at the rate upon an average of 2,385 tons per month, and during that time the greatest number of animals foraged in any one month was 27,650; the increase in the number of animals bearing no proportion to the increase in the quantities of forage forwarded, a fact which distinctly shows that it was acknowledged that my successor could not by any exertions obtain and convey to the army the requisite supplies from local resources, and which fully justifies the course I had taken in requiring the supplies to be sent from England.

The quantity forwarded by the War Department from the 1st of March 1855 to the 31st of March 1856, a period of 13 months, was upon an average of 2,104 tons per month, and the average number of animals with the Crimea during the same period would have been (had the Cavalry remained there the whole of the time instead of being brought down in the month of November to forage at Constantinople) 21,742.

Now assuming, as Sir Charles Trevelyan seems to have done, that 400 tons per month, the largest quantity ordered to be contracted for by the Treasury, were sufficient to supply 7,000 animals, the quantity of 2,104 tons per month would at the same ratio have fed 36,820 animals, or if the larger quantity of 500 tons per month, which Sir Charles Trevelyan ordered to be shipped during the months of December and January is taken, the quantity provided by the war department would, at the same ration, have fed 29,456 animals. I am further borne out by the fact that no supplies of forage have, since I resigned, been obtained for the use of the army in the Crimea, from any place in the Turkish dominions from which I did not procure them; and, although the supplies may have been obtained and forwarded to the Crimea in larger quantities from the same places, it must be remembered that sixteen additional hydraulic and two screw presses had been sent out from England on my application, and had been erected and put in use subsequent to my departure.

I was yesterday proceeding to speak about the supplies of tea which we had in store. Blame has been attributed to me that green coffee was continued for the use of the troops while tea was available. The Commissioners state that 2,705 lbs. or 173,000 rations of tea, were lying in the commissariat stores in December, whilst green coffee continued to be issued to the troops till the month of February, leaving it to be inferred, therefore, that tea was not issued till then. In both respects the Commissioners are in error, the troops having ceased to receive green coffee from about the 20th or 24th of January, and as much tea having been issued to them in that month as in February. The supply of tea was constantly being increased throughout the winter, either by consignments from Constantinople or by purchases on the spot, and the issues were made in proportion. I will proceed to quote from the return at page 13 of the Appendix to the Commissioners Report. It will be seen, from that document that in the month of October 7,110 lbs. had been issued from the depôt, being more, relatively to numbers, than has been issued to the troops in the Crimea at any time since that article has formed part of the fixed ration; and by this issue the supply was nearly exhausted. It was at this period that I desired the commissariat officer in charge of the depôt to retain always on hand a sufficient quantity to meet the demands for the hospitals, of the probable extent of which he was better able to judge than I was, all requisitions for that service being addressed directly to him. A quantity having been received in November, the remains on 1st December were 1,490 lbs., which must be considered a small supply for the hospitals of any army of which the sick were numerous. On the 15th of December, 1,215 lbs. having been received from Constantinople,

[Page 382 of the Proceedings]

the quantity in store, after deducting the issues that had been made during the month up to that date, was 2,495 lbs, not 2,705 lbs., as stated by the Commissioners; and by subsequent issues the remains were reduced to 2,387 lbs. on the 31st of December; and the issues having been continued through January the balance at the close of that month stood at about the same low point as on the 1st of December on 1,470 lbs. It was only, therefore, during about 16 days (from the 16th to the 31st of December) of the period mentioned that the remains of tea in depôt at all approached the quantity stated by the Commissioners, who appear in this case, as in the instance of limejuice, to have made their report from documentary evidence instead of inquiring of parties on the spot who could have been them correct information. As in the case of limejuice, also, the report is not consistent with the documentary evidence they carried away with them, for on referring to the same return it will be seen that there was no limejuice in store on the 16th of December. Yet the Commissioners state it was lying there unused from the 10th.

The Commissioners, at page 17 of their Report, complained of the inexpediency of the arrangements in putting up the hay presses at Constantinople, by which arrangement the hay was greatly delayed. I have replied to that in the letter laid before Parliament. But I was not aware till a considerable time after they were erected that the presses were separated from the hay; but when it did come to my knowledge I disapproved of the arrangement, and I then received the following explanation from Mr. Smith, in a letter dated 24th December 1854.

"I sent Mr. Edwards and Mr. Downes to see what was best to be done; and they both recommended, under all the circumstances, that the presses should be erected where they are. To have erected buildings in other places would have been a work of months, with interminable expense."

I subsequently learnt also that there were two depôts of hay, - not one as stated by the Commissioners, - 13 or 14 miles apart, and that the one set of presses and the engine were put up near that depôt which rendered it unnecessary to erect new buildings, and where also there was nearly as much hay of suitable quality as at the other. The best possible course, therefore, was that adopted by the commissariat. The Commissioners must have got their information at Constantinople, yet no officer of the commissariat there appears to have been examined by them although the two officers who selected the site for the presses and who could have given the best explanation of the transaction, were present at Constantinople when the Commissioners were pursuing their inquiries. When I answered the only two questions that were put to me on the subject by the Commissioners in the Crimea it had escaped my recollection that I had received an explanation of the transaction from Deputy Commissary General Smith, and it was not till after I had transmitted to Lord Panmure my reply to the report that I found Mr. Smith's letter to me, which recalled the matter to my recollection. The Commissioners comment in very severe terms upon the arrangement by which the presses were separated from the hay, but had they made inquiry of the proper parties they would have found that it was the best that could have been adopted.

I wish to deliver in a statement obtained from the Audit Office, showing the quantities of rice issued to the troops between the 16th of November and the 27th of December 1854, when that article had ceased to form part of the authorized ration, and the Commissioners said that the troops were wholly without it; and showing also, the quantities deficient on the returns on which the issues were made. The result is as follows: -

The vouchers for these issues are not liable to the objection stated at page 44 of the Commissioners' Report, that receipts were granted for the full amount of the rations due, whilst there were deficiencies in the quantities actually delivered; the receipts in those cases showing deficiencies, while other vouchers relating to the same period show no issue at all of rice.

I am naturally desirous of showing that it did not require the presence of the Commissioners in the Crimea to bring about the excellent state of the supplies, in which they have described it to have been at the time of their departure. It had been gradually brought about by the unaided exertions of the commissariat, directed by me, in proportion as they ceased to be impeded by impassable roads and continuous storms. I have no recollection, indeed of ever having received any specific suggestion from them on the subject, and I am quite certain that no measures were taken by me for procuring supplies that were not in operation before they arrived. I beg to hand in a certificate which I have obtained from the Audit Office of the quantities of different articles of diet issued from the depôt at Balaklava during the first fifteen days of March, that is before the Commissioners had arrived in the Crimea, or I had had any communication with them. This includes every article of diet that was in course of issues when the Commissioners left the Crimea, or has at any subsequent time been issued to the troops there, with the exception of fresh bread and the two minor articles of pepper and salt. The former, as I have already stated, was, at the period when the Commissioners left the Crimea, exclusively furnished from the floating bakery which I had obtained from

[Page 383 of the Proceedings]

England, aided by two ovens built by Colonel Tulloch, yielding, according to a certificate which I beg to deliver in 2,412 rations of bread daily towards the consumption of an army drawing, exclusive of Turks and Sardinians, 42,000. The latter, that is the pepper and salt, had been added to the ration on the recommendation of a board of officers of which I was myself a member; and with respect to the issues of fresh meat, I had as many vessels employed in importing cattle when the Commissioners arrived as when they left, more indeed in proportion to numbers, the British force drawing rations having increased in the interval from 35,000 to 42,000. The Commissioners may in general terms have mentioned the need of increased issues of fresh meat, bread, and vegetables; but of that I was perfectly well aware. They neither made any specific suggestion to me, nor did they do anything themselves towards this improved state of things, excepting always the two ovens which had been built by Colonel Tulloch.

The Commissioners arrived at the commencement of spring, when there was every day an improvement in the state of the roads, in the sea navigation, and in the health of the troops. With the return of fine and warm weather the cause of our difficulties ceased. Without having any more cattle depôts, or more vessels employed in the conveyance of cattle, I was enabled gradually to increase the issues of fresh meat in proportion as the season advanced and the weather became less tempestuous. The issues, which in February had amounted only to eight days' ration, were increased in March to twelve and a half days', in April to fifteen days', and in May to seventeen days', as will be seen from the accompanying statements, furnished by the Audit Office, showing the issues of salt and fresh meat respectively during those months, as extracted from the attached accounts of the commissariat officers. The vouchers for these issues are not liable to the objection urged by the Commissioners, and already adverted to. There having been no deficiencies of provisions at this period, and fresh meat not having been issued daily, according to a regulated allowance, the quantities could only have been filled in after the issues had been completed. The issues continued to increase, and in the first part of June they were in the proportion of 19 days per month, and in the latter part of June and in July 21 1/2 days.

In May, previous to the departure of the Commissioners, a proportion of porter had also been issued, but the quantity did not exceed six days returns in the whole of the month, and the issue was not in consequence of any suggestion of the Commissioners, but resulted from inquiries instituted on the recommendation of the board of officers by which salt and pepper were added to the ration.

I have now submitted my explanations on the more important points, as to which charges of mismanagement, negligence, and improvidence are either directly or by inference brought against me by the Commissioners. I have not thought it necessary to enter into a detailed explanation of each particular case. My conduct, I am sensible, must be judged from a larger point of view, such as whether I am to blame for the deficiency of forage, to which, step by step, all other deficiencies are mainly attributable, as limiting the number of transport animals that could be maintained in the Crimea, and whether I availed myself of all the sea transport which I could obtain for the conveyance of forage and live cattle. I trust I have shown to the satisfaction of the Board that in neither of these respects can blame be justly imputed to me.

The Commissioners, indeed, arrived in the Crimea when our difficulties were at an end, and at a season of the year when it was not possible for them to form a just idea of what they had been, and they appear, consequently, to have failed to make allowances for circumstances beyond human agency or control, or to appreciate the unforeseen contingencies which thwarted all reasonable calculations.

Neither was it difficult for them to suggest improvements, the expediency of which had already been indicated by experience; but the Commissioners might at least have satisfied themselves by inquiry, whether what they had to suggest had not been previously adopted; and if they had so inquired, they would have found that there is scarcely one remedial measures recommended by them which had not in fact been already put in practice in the Crimea, or which is not conformable to the established custom of the commissariat with armies in the field whenever circumstances admit of it.

It is made a general charge against me, not perhaps directly expressed, but certainly implied, that I only followed the beaten track in obtaining supplies; that I was incapable of originating new measures, or of availing myself of means within my reach, however obvious they might have been. I might be permitted to ask the Commissioners on what grounds this imputation rests, there not being, so far as I have been able to discover, any evidence to this effect, and it is inconsistent with the fact. As stated in my pamphlet, I obtained supplies by every variety of mode in which it was possible to procure them, according as one or other was most suitable or necessary and there were always ample supplies of all articles in possession of the commissariat, except forage.

The Commissioners do, indeed, admit, that I and the other officers of the Commissariat acted according to the measure of our ability, but I decline for myself and for them this palliation of imputed errors, improvidence, and mismanagement; and without desiring to claim for myself or them an undue measure of capacity for the discharge of our functions, I yet think I can assert that we not only did our best, but the best which the circumstances, unprecedented and unparalleled, permitted.

Having thus endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, I trust, to show that the heavy inculpations

[Page 384 of the Proceedings]

laid against me in the Report of the Commissioners are devoid of real foundation, and would probably have been withheld had a fit opportunity of explaining the supposed grounds of them been afforded me. I beg to be allowed to add a few words on the apparent hardship of the treatment to which my case has been subjected.

I would first observe, that the arduous charge which I held with the expeditionary force was unsought, and devolved upon me as a professional duty, from which my age and long and laborious services might perhaps have excused me, but which I cheerfully undertook, notwithstanding the manifest inadequacy of the then existing means of execution, in the confidence that the deficiency would gradually be remedied; and that due allowance would, in the meanwhile, be made for its natural consequences. Considering what the extent of the deficiency was not only in the number and experience of the officers through whose agency I was to conduct the very numerous and dissimilar branches of duty then allotted to the commissariat, but, in the almost absolute non-existence of the various subordinate establishments necessary to the efficient performance of them, I do not think that the manner in which they were discharged at any period fairly subjects me to the imputation of either negligence or incapacity, nor, except in regard to the provision of transport, and even that only prospectively, is any such inference drawn from it in the Report antecedently to the time of our terrible winter difficulties. To the disastrous consequences thence ensuing I accordingly presume that I must ascribe it, that I have been without any previous trial or even accusation, taunted in an official and published document with being through incompetence to my task a chief cause of them, superseded in my charge when both they and the true causes of them were at an end, and deprived of all acknowledgment of my otherwise unquestioned services, though this has been granted in the shape of honorary recompense in every parallel case, and even to the officer who succeeded to my post when it had been freed by my exertions from all serious difficulties, and who was never afterwards called upon to encounter any resembling them. Had I been convicted of actual delinquency, my offence could not have been visited with a heavier penalty; but I must respectfully deny that it has been merited by any proved misconduct of mine; and although I of course cannot appeal to this Board for redress of what I deem a grievous wrong, I confidently submit my case to your impartial consideration, and request you to declare whether or not in your opinion the allegations against me are sufficiently established to require that they should be referred to a more formal tribunal. If not, I trust that the previously irreproachable services of more than fifty years, of which forty have been passed out of my own country, may entitle me to expect the withdrawal of a severe and unmerited censure.

1911. (General Sir G. Berkeley.) What proportion of commissariat officers do you consider ought to be attached to each division of infantry and each brigade of cavalry?

- There should be one officer in charge of a division, and one officer to each brigade.

1912. Do you mean a deputy commissary-general to each division?

- It has been customary to attach an assistant commissary-general to a division, one officer to each brigade, and one to the artillery. Latterly there have been two batteries of artillery with each division of infantry, and that makes one officer scarcely adequate to that duty.

1913. You had one commissariat officer to each brigade of artillery?

- No, I had not enough to put one commissariat officer to each brigade of artillery. I had one to the artillery of each division, and there were two companies of foot artillery in each division, that is double the proportion of artillery there used to be in the Peninsula. I had not two officers to appoint to the artillery of each division, and one officer cannot well attend to two brigades of artillery without some additional assistance.

1914. In the Peninsula there was one head commissariat officer attached to each division of infantry, and a commissariat officer to each brigade, and one to a battery of artillery?

- Yes, it was so. That was the organization I should have carried out, if I had had the means. I was once or twice without any officer for two or three of the brigades of infantry.

1915. That would have been ample?

- Yes, I should think for field operations that that would be sufficient; but such duties do not form a very large proportion of commissariat duties; the depôts require a great number of officers.

1916. You could not do with less in each division than the number you have mentioned?

- No.

[Page 385 of the Proceedings]

...

1927. (Lieut.-General Knollys.) Can you state approximately the lowest number of days for which you had a provision of salt meat and biscuit on hand?

- I have not the means here. I think there must be a mistake in the quantity as to 28 days.

1928. At page 11 of the Appendix there is this return, "Statement of salt meat received, issued, &c., from 1st to 21st January, at depôt of supplies, Balaklava. January 21st 1855, received from Her Majesty's ship 'Curlew', 69,720 lbs.; remaining in store 1st January, 750,265 lbs."?

- That is perfectly correct. I have proved that from the accounts in the Audit Office.

1929. The return goes on to state, "Received from other sources than royal navy, 1st to 21st January, 318,800 lbs."?

- Yes.

1930. The total issued from the 1st to the 21st January 658,540 lbs.?

- That is the total quantity. I had 247,000 lbs. remaining.

1931. On the 21st?

- Yes.

1932. Eight or nine days supply?

- Yes; that is the smallest number of days supply, to my belief, that I ever had on hand at any one time, and that arose partly from my issues to the navy.

1933. That arose from your issues to the navy?

- Yes; and the detention of the vessels by contrary winds.

1934. (Major-General Peel.) What is the present organization of the commissariat? who is the head of it now? To whom do you report?

- That is rather difficult to know. I address all my letters to the Under Secretary of State, but they come back without any reference, signed by Mr. Petrie, formerly the chief clerk of the commissariat at the Treasury.

1935. In fact since the commissariat has been removed from the Treasury, you hardly know to whom you are attached, or who is at the head of it?

- I consider Lord Panmure to be the head, certainly; but as to the officer with whom we correspond, and through whom we receive all orders, I am really in doubt as to who is the proper officer.

1936. (President.) Can you state why the depôt at Malta was never established?

- We wanted the supplies in the Crimea, that was the only reason.

1937. It was intended by the Government to establish a depôt at Malta?

- Yes; I proposed it originally, but my requisitions were made faster than the supplies arrived, and therefore it was never formed.

1938. (General Sir G. Berkeley.) Do you consider that it would have been an advantage to have had a large depôt at Malta?

- It was better in the Bosphorus, that was our principal depôt; but I wanted a further reserve, more than I thought I could have magazine room for in Constantinople, not knowing exactly the locality when I proposed it, but it was better to have it at Constantinople.

1939. Because it was nearer?

- Yes. ...

...

[Page 386 of the Proceedings]

...

1949. (President.) Did the commissariat take possession of all the stocks of forage on their arrival before Sebastopol?

- We put sentries over them, but they were very little more than haycocks; they were very numerous, and the consequence was, that with all the sentries that you could place you could not secure it. It put storekeepers and guards over them, but it was not possible to protect them adequately, and there was a waste, therefore, to a certain extent.

1950. (Major-General Peel.) Will you state what responsibility you consider attaches to the commissariat department for that portion of the stores usually known by the name of "Quartermaster-general's stores"?

- Solely for their safe custody: I am not responsible that they are equal to the wants of the service in any way.

1951. Merely for the custody, and for the issuing of them?

- Upon approved requisitions.

1952. Who makes the original requisitions?

- The quartermaster-general sends them home. He is not in communication with any department at home but sends a demand through the Commander of the Forces, who submits it to the Secretary of State for War.

1953. How was that branch of stores originally furnished, where did they come from to you?

- They came consigned to me, but not upon my requisition. It must have been by the quartermaster-general's department in England, communicating with the Ordnance Department I presume.

1954. They came direct from the Ordnance Department to you?

- They came consigned from the Tower to the commissariat.

1955. Can you enumerate what the articles are which you consider come under the denomination of the quartermaster-general's stores?

- They are very numerous, - every thing wanted for field or camp equipment; for instance, they wanted horse shoes for officers chargers under the new service in which we were employed, as the cavalry officers could not buy at any price horse shoes. The quartermaster-general sent home a requisition for horse shoes from England, and the officers paid for them. That shows that whatever is necessary, as arising out of the service, the quartermaster-general makes application for it; it was quite new, and I should not have enumerated horse shoes for officers horses in ordinary cases.

1956. (Lieut.-General Sir W. Rowan.) Quartermaster-general's stores embrace not merely the equipment, but everything that the army can require in the field?

- Yes; there is no other channel by which the wants of the army can be ascertained but through the quartermaster-general.

1957. (Major-General Peel.) The coffee that was issued to the troops was unroasted, was it not?

- Yes.

1958. When were complaints first made to you on that subject?

- I never heard of any complaint till the month of November.

1959. Were the troops supplied with any coffee mills to grind it from the commissariat?

- We purchased some on the requisition of the quartermaster-general, and they were distributed among the regiments.

[Page 387 of the Proceedings]

1960. At what date?

- It was in the middle of winter. I will not be sure but it was further advanced than November. It was December or January.

1961. (Lieut.-General Sir W. Rowan.) Was it upon your requisition that the coffee was sent out green?

- I have endeavoured to explain that in my pamphlet. A board was held, of which I was a member, to ascertain which of the different articles that we were supplying to the troops at cost price should be made a fixed ration. I found them going so fast, that unless some regulation was made, I could not keep up supply, and I proposed that some one article should be a fixed ration, and the evidence was in favour of coffee, but the board knew that we were selling it to the troops green.

1962. Up to that time the troops paid for it?

- Yes in unlimited quantities. Do all we could, we could not check the demands for these things till they all disappeared. I think what would have lasted 72 days under regulation, went in 30, and the troops soon would have been without anything at all.

1963. Where did your first supply of green coffee come from?

- From England, by order of the Treasury; they sent out various articles for the troops to purchase at prime cost.

1964. (Major General Peel.) Before the supply of coffee-mills, how did you anticipate that the soldiers were to roast it?

- That would not be a subject for my consideration; but there would have been no difficulty, I should consider, if they had fuel and their usual camp kettles. I still think that coffee burnt at the moment is better than anything else.

1965. (General Sir G. Berkeley.) They used to roast their coffee in the lids of their camp kettles, did they not?

- Yes; but they threw them away.

1966. (President.) Could it not have been roasted at Constantinople?

- I think not, to any extent; it would have had to be distributed all over Constantinople.

1967. (Lieutenant-General Knollys.) Had you, as Commissary-General, anything to do with it being roasted or unroasted?

- No, not till it was desired; but there was great delay in sending out the roasted coffee. I sent home for it in the early part of October, and though my letter must have reached London about the 23rd of October, I did not get the roasted coffee till the 24th of January. Then it will be seen from what I have just stated that a certain quantity of tea was issued, and I kept constantly getting it up from Constantinople. In March nearly as much was issued as in October, but not being at that period a fixed ration I took no measures for procuring a supply from England. The tea issued in the month of October was larger in quantity than was at any time issued, either after or before it became a ration in proportion to numbers.

...

General Airey, in his statement, makes an allusion to a statement that I made in a letter which I laid before the Houses of Parliament. He says,

"The Commissary-General, in his explanatory letter laid before the Houses of Parliament, has no doubt shown, that from the 1st of August until after the first bombardment of Sebastopol, he was in more or less uncertainty as to the situation in which the British army would have to winter; but I am sure he does not intend to convey the impression that this uncertainty was occasioned by any omission or reserve on the part of Lord Raglan."

I submitted a memorandum as a point of duty, and I always received every assistance from him that was possible. I do not suppose that the Commissary-General of any army ever had such frequent communication with the Commander-in-Chief as I had with Lord Raglan. He never denied me access at any time whatever; however important the business he might be employed upon, he invariably gave me audience. I saw him at all times, and I always received every possible assistance from him in every way, and I never had any cause to complain of want of confidence in his communications with me, but the contrary.

Colonel Gordon, in his evidence yesterday, or on the 14th, says,

"The commissariat drew upon our stores very largely upon their own authority, without any reference to the department, which was also a mode of getting rid of the supplies."

Now I never sanctioned any issues from the stores excepting on two occasions. There was a quantity of old blankets that the troops had refused, and I authorized their being appropriated to the muleteers and Turkish labourers; and I also upon one occasion authorized the issue of about 20 tin kettles for the use of the storekeepers, - 20 or 30 - beyond that I never authorized any issue of quartermaster-general's stores. I bought a large quantity of clothing from the regiments. Upon finding that they got clothing gratuitously they did not want to make use of the necessaries that had been ordered out from England, and I paid the regiments the amounts of the bills, and those articles were issued upon my order by the authority of the Duke of Newcastle to all the drivers. Those were the only instances in which I ever interfered with the quartermaster-general's stores; but the necessaries that I bought of the regiments could not be considered as quartermaster-general's stores. I wish to explain that I never interfered with the supply of the army in that respect, the requisites for all articles that we required for our own use being invariably approved by the quartermaster-general,

[Page 388 of the Proceedings]

and no issues were made to the commissariat but on his approval. I think General Airey stated that they were called quartermaster-general's stores merely with reference to the accountability, - the convenience of accounting for them, - but that was not the origin of the term quartermaster-general's stores. In the early part of the last war in 1806, the quartermaster-general not only had the control of the supply and the appropriation of the stores, but he had the custody of them also. I can produce proof that he was the public accountant for the stores, and when they were transferred to the commissariat we kept up the term of quartermaster-general's stores.

1971. (President.) When were they turned over to the commissariat?

- I think it must have been about the year 1806 or 1807. I can produce the quietus of the quartermaster-general for his accounts for those stores given in 1806 in Sicily.

1972. (Lieutenant-General Sir W. Rowan.) But there was a storekeeper-general's department?

- From the quartermaster-general the custody was transferred to the commissariat; and then, in consequence of the magnitude of the transactions in the Peninsula, a storekeeper-general was appointed, and he took them out of our hands. Then afterwards they reverted to the commissariat.

1973. (General Sir G. Berkeley.) You were talking of a time before when the army was in Sicily?

- That was the time when the quartermaster-general was the accountant. He absolutely had those stores in his custody, and he was a public accountant.

1974. You may recollect that when a cargo came out of the Peninsula the commissary-general used to report to the quartermaster-general that so many thousand pairs of shoes had arrived, and then notice would be given in orders to the regiments to make their requisitions on the quartermaster-general?

- Something like that took place in the Crimea.

1975. Then he signed the requisition, but the commissary-general issued them?

- Yes; we had the custody and the issue, he had the appropriation; but the commissariat officer to whom I assigned that duty in the Crimea communicated directly with the officers of the quartermaster-general's department. It was reverting back again to the commissariat having the custody instead of a separate storekeeper-general.

1976. (Major-General Peel.) In answer to question 14,540 at page 127 of the Third Report of the Sebastopol Committee, the Duke of Newcastle says,

"The arrangement, I am bound to say, was adopted after a very careful consideration by the Ordnance and the Commissariat together, Lord Raglan having given his opinion on the point before he left the country; it was, I believe, founded upon the existing practice, and was one with which I did not interfere until I began to feel that it was working ill, about August or September?"

- When we started originally the stores were for a force of 10,000 men, and we could very easily have done that, but it afterwards required a separate department for them.

1977. (Lieut.-General Knollys.) Would it have been better to have had a separate storekeeper's department?

- Certainly.

1978. So as to have left you to perform your duties of the commissariat undisturbed by the duties of the storekeeper?

- Yes.

1979. (Major-General Peel.) That has been adopted now?

- Yes, Captain Gordon relieved the commissariat officer of the charge in the summer, when all our difficulties were over.

1980. (Lieut.-General Sir W. Rowan.) Is that a new department now?

- I consider it to be a branch of the ordnance. He is the ordnance storekeeper. He reports direct to that branch of the War Department which has taken the ordnance duties.

1981. (Judge Advocate-General.) I think the purport of your statement to the Board yesterday and to-day has been chiefly to impress upon them that it was owing to your requisitions to the Treasury at home not having been attended to that there was this great deficiency of forage?

- Certainly.

1982. I wish to ask you how you reconcile that statement with the statements which we find you made yourself to the commander-in-chief, as well as to the Under Secretary of the War Department, and also with the statements made to you by the subordinate officers of the commissariat; for instance, in your letter to the Under Secretary of State to the War Department you state, that

"at no time, from a few days subsequent to the hurricane, have we ever been without two or three vessels in the harbour of Balaklava laden with chopped straw. So uniformly has this been the case, that I have not found it necessary, until now that a long continuance of contrary winds has retarded the arrival of further supplies from Constantinople, to avail myself of the offer, which General Canrobert made, of three vessels of chopped straw which he placed at our disposal immediately after the loss of all our forage by that event. Previous to the hurricane, we always had a large supply of English hay on hand."

On the 15th of January, Commissary Smith addresses you from Constantinople, and he states that he has no occasion to draw upon the depôt that has been formed for chopped straw, because, he says,

"There has been an abundance of straw more easily available for shipment to the Crimea, and I have caused cargoes of it to be forwarded to the utmost extent to which the means of transport afforded me would admit of."

He says, further down in the same letter,

"At all events, there has never been any want of barley or other forage corn at Balaklava."

In your own communication with Lord Raglan, on the 27th of January, you say,

"With respect to forage, I would observe that, with the exception of a few days after the hurricane (that is, from about the 21st to 30th November), we have

[Page 389 of the Proceedings]

never been without a supply of hay or straw at Balaklava; but the state of the weather, the appropriation of the men-of-war's boats (upon which we are dependent) to the landing of guns and ammunition, and embarkation of sick and wounded, or other circumstances have occasionally prevented a sufficient quantity from being brought on shore."

And at the close of that memorandum you say,

"It may be stated, that all horses of this army which are under shelter are almost without exception in good condition, although they have received no greater allowance of food than other horses."

Then Mr. Tyrone Power says,

"Hay, since the tempest on the 14th of November, has somewhat been deficient, but chopped straw or bran was always procurable in lieu of it."

Does not it appear that there actually was forage within your reach?

- There was always forage, chopped straw, in Balaklava, certainly; but I could not land it in sufficient quantities; it was not possible for the supply of that army; but I could have landed pressed hay.

1983. If you had had more, you could not have landed it more easily?

- Not the chopped straw, the pressed hay I could have landed. We did not land more hay than was sufficient for the day; we had to keep pace with other supplies too.

1984. You have not met the statement of Mr. Commissary Smith. The question is, how the horses came to perish, and it was because the forage had not been sent out from England, according to your statement. But I see that Commissary-General Smith states,

"There never has been any want of barley or other forage-corn at Balaklava."

There was always sufficient chopped straw according to that statement, besides hay?

- The cavalry were on a reduced ration of hay because I had not more throughout the winter.

1985. But all the difficulty was in landing?

- Not in landing the hay, but in landing the chopped straw; if more had come I could not have landed more.

1986. (Lieutenant-General Sir W. Rowan.) Will you describe the process of landing chopped straw?

- It came up loose, particularly in the early part of the time, and we employed labourers; and the cavalry also and those who were entitled to rations of forage went on board the vessels to fill their sacks to bring it on shore, and it was brought on shore in large sacks which we obtained from Constantinople for the purpose; very large sacks.

1987. (Earl Beauchamp.) Was the straw very short?

- It was chaff; but latterly, after we had finished pressing the hay, all our presses were appropriated to pressing the chopped straw.

1988. (President.) In bags?

- We had bales made on purpose, and latterly we got up more chopped straw, and issued more than we could have done before when loose. Some of the contractors also undertook to bring presses out from England.

1989. (Judge Advocate-General.) Do you conceive that any communication was made to the authorities at home that could have misled them as to your having sufficient supplies?

- I consider it impossible.

1990. Do you mean that your requisitions were so precise and urgent, that they could not be mistaken?

- If any word of mine had possibly misled them, the next mail would have corrected it. I never ceased writing by every mail.

1991. Do you consider that Sir Charles Trevelyan's replies to your statements are not sufficient?

- I do not consider them sufficient, certainly; and the proof I think is, that he says the arrangements that were necessary for 7,000 animals are very different from the arrangements for 23,000. If he had sent out hay for those 7,000 in the winter, as the War Department did for the 23,000, I should never have wanted; and in the statement which I have made to-day I meant to make that point clear.

1992. (Major-General Peel.) What is the difference of the proportion between what the War Office sent out and what Sir C. Trevelyan sent out?

- They must have sent out four or five times so much. I have in my calculations taken, not what I received, but the highest quantity every contracted for, and during three months I did not receive five days' rations of hay from England.

1993. (Judge Advocate-General.) Have you heard what has been stated here by Sir Richard Airey, as well as what is contained in the Report, that you were constantly urged, I think daily urged, by Lord Raglan, and I think General Airey, to increase your transport?

- I do not recollect what communications General Airey made to me; he might have made them by the order of Lord Raglan, but Lord Raglan was constantly impressing upon me the necessary for more transport, but he knew I could not feed more animals.

1994. Was Lord Raglan satisfied with the answers that you gave him?

- He was satisfied that I had done my duty.

1995. But he repeatedly urged you to get more transport?

- He always expressed his desire about the transport.

1996. You always told him that you could not feed more?

- I told him I had more animals in the Crimea than I could feed.

1997. Did he not send some officers to Eupatoria to procure horses?

- I was separated from the head quarters, and was at Balaklava. The usual practice in buying horses is for a veterinary surgeon or an officer of cavalry, accompanied by a commissariat officer, to buy the animals, and he gave an order to the veterinary surgeon to proceed to Eupatoria, and he carried instructions to the commissariat officer there to pay for them, and they came.

1998. What were they for?

- They were for my purpose, commissariat purposes, and partly for regimental bât animals.

1999. What became of those horses; were they fed?

- Yes; but they did not do more than replace the casualties.

[Page 390 of the Proceedings]

2000. You had a number of horses at Constantinople, had you not?

- Yes; and I brought them up as fast as I could get conveyance for them.

2001. Had you to the amount of 2,500 at Constantinople?

- Originally I had, but I could not have fed them in the Crimea.

2002. You did not bring them to increase the transport, but merely to supply the casualties?

- Yes; I would have brought them all if I could have fed them all.

2003. (Major-General Peel.) If it had been consistent with military considerations to have sent the cavalry in the year 1854-55 to Scutari, as during the last winter, and you had been relived from supplying them with forage, could you have brought over at that time an additional number of transport horses, and have fed them?

- Yes, certainly; but about the conveyance, I am doubtful.

2004. The transports that took the cavalry might have brought them back?

- Yes, but I am certain that I got all the transports that I could; I got every possible transport.

2005. Had you horses at that time in the depôt at Varna?

- At Constantinople.

2006. Therefore, it was not a deficiency of animals, but a deficiency of forage?

- Yes; but there would have still remained the impossibility of conveying them to the Crimea; I could have fed them if the cavalry had been sent away.

2007. Besides the want of forage, there appears to have been a want of transport?

- Certainly; I did not get all the transport that I applied for; they offered me horse transports, but they had been converted into cargo vessels, and were down at Constantinople under the orders of Admiral Boxer; and Mr. Smith's letters show that he was every day urging Admiral Boxer to give him all the transports he could, but he could not get enough for forage and fuel.

2008. At what date did Lord Raglan transfer to you the whole of those horse transports?

- I do not recollect, but it is mentioned in Colonel Gordon's evidence that the first occasion they offered me them was on the 19th of November; three days before that they were all at Eupatoria, and I sent to Eupatoria to take out the hay, but they were all gone. The head quarters for sailing transports after the storm was the Bosphorus, owing to the want of room at Balaklava, and the unsafe anchorage at any other place. On the 11th of December, under the idea that the "Jason" was still under repair, they offered me again the horse transports, but I did not accept them; they were offered to me in lieu of the "Jason", which was already repaired. If Colonel Gordon were here, I would ask him where they were. The return of the principal agent of transport shows that there was not a single available vessel at Balaklava, and that all the sailing transports were under the orders of Admiral Boxer. Deputy Commissary-General Smith's letters show that he got all that he could from him.

2009. The horse transports were sailing vessels?

- Yes, but most of them had been converted into cargo vessels. The "Arabia" that brought up the charcoal was one of those vessels; there were four or five that brought over the heavy cavalry, and their fittings were removed, and they were converted into cargo vessels.

2010. How many vessels had you placed under your own control exclusively?

- Only three in December; originally there were only two when I started from England, these were fitted up for cattle vessels. I afterwards increased the number, and in March I had six permanently employed in conveying cattle only.

2011. The ordinary way of transacting business was to make a requisition to the transport agent for transports, instead of which Lord Raglan placed under your control a number of vessels, over which the transport agent had no control?

- Yes; for a time. I consider that those, except the original number that I had from England (all the others were lent me), were under the orders of the naval authorities, but they never did interfere in any way, - they gave them up to my use, - but they might have interfered if they chose. By the instructions given by the Admiralty with respect to the other vessels that I had brought out from England, nobody could interfere with them, but those that I obtained from the navy out there were still under the control of the naval authorities, but they never did interfere.

2012. That arrangement was found to work much better than the ordinary process?

- Very much better, I think.

2013. (Lieutenant-General Sir W. Rowan.) The horse transports were fitted up in a particular way and when those fittings were taken away they are useless?

- Yes; for the conveyance of horses.

2014. (Major-General Peel.) They converted the transports into vessels to bring over bullocks, did they not?

- No; charcoal and chopped straw; the "Arabia" brought up a cargo of charcoal and timber; she had been originally a horse transport.

2015. What vessel did you complain of as having lost so many bullocks in coming over?

- The "Rip van Winkle" was lost entirely; there were four vessels in which I lost, in the early part of the winter, one-third of the animals; If they had been available I should not have considered it prudent to employ them after such a loss, but they were not available, there were not any available at Balaklava. Mr. Smith obtained all that he could from Admiral Boxer at Constantinople, and a part of those vessels that he did get had been horse transports.

2016. (Judge Advocate-General.) Did you always complain of not getting forage from England?

- Always.

2017. When you were on the spot?

- Yes.

[Page 391 of the Proceedings]

2018. And in the winter of 1855?

- From the beginning; from the first arrival in the Crimea I constantly repeated my application for pressed hay.

2019. Did you put in yesterday any letter addressed by you to Sir Charles Trevelyan, complaining that your requisitions had not been attended to?

- I quoted several; they are official letters.

2020. With the dates?

- Yes. With regard to those 279 horses from Eupatoria that were supplied at the time, they did not do more than put my transport where it was before; I was very shortly after that at the lowest point.

2021. Those were horses that Lord Raglan had sent for when you abstained from sending for your own stock at Constantinople?

- Yes; because they were so much nearer. Lord Raglan heard that horses were to be got there, and he sent an officer to purchase them.

2022. Then horses could have been easily procured at Eupatoria?

- At one time they might have been.

2023. What horses were they?

- Ponies, such as the ammunition ponies.

2024. Ponies of the country?

- Yes. But with regard to feeding them, it did not increase my number of animals to feed, for I lost as many as were bought.

2025. They were bought at a low price, were they not?

- The same class of animals were bought at Varna for about 4l. or 5l. I think they were rather higher at Eupatoria, but not much.

2026. You will put in everything that you read yesterday, if you please?

- Yes.

2027. (President.) In the absence of hay, could Indian-corn straw have been procured in any quantity?

- There would have been the same difficulty in carrying anything loose. I could not get it pressed from Malta. Lord Raglan wrote to Malta in October, I believe, and I wrote to the commissariat officer, and we got some supplies; but the means of Malta are very insignificant. During 150 days I received 16 days' supply; they were shipped, not received; but I only received from October up to the end of February four days' supply of pressed forage from Malta.

2028. (Judge Advocate-General.) What are the precise difficulties in carrying unpressed hay?

- An Austrian vessel of 500 tons on one occasion brought me 50 tons of unpressed hay, and she was full; that is the proportion, about one in twelve.

2029. What could that vessel have carried of pressed hay?

- Pressed as it is in England it would carry equal quantities; they have kept improving the process of pressing, till at last you can bring a ton weight of hay into a ton of measurement, or nearly so.

2030. You referred in your statement yesterday to the position of these presses with reference to the hay?

- I did, to show that the best possible arrangement was made. There were two depôts. I did not know it at the time, but on looking over my letters I find that I had written to Mr. Smith long after I heard that the presses had been put up for the hay, not knowing the locality, and I wrote with some degree of dissatisfaction, and then he explained to me that to have put them elsewhere new buildings must have been erected. Since that I have learned from him that there were two depôts of hay. I did not know it at the time, but where he did put the presses there was much good hay; he had only one set of presses.

2031. Sir Charles Trevelyan sent out four?

- He calls them so, but it was one set of presses - an engine with four presses; it was one set.

2032. You only applied for one?

- One set. I did not know what was the construction of the presses; he could not have sent me less.

2033. But they were sent out immediately?

- Yes. I believe there was no delay whatever in that respect. I applied for them when I was not aware of our winter campaign in the Crimea, or I would have applied for more.

2034. You applied before November?

- Yes. The moment I made that contract for 3,500 tons, and they converted a part of that into pressed hay, I wrote home for the presses, not thinking that we should be in the Crimea during the winter.

2035. When you state that you represented to the Treasury that pressed hay was wanted, do you overlook what Sir Charles Trevelyan has said, that they could not, without further communication with you, ascertain what quantity you required?

- I wrote for 2,000 tons, being a better judge than he could be, and they did not sent those 2,000 tons; that was the 13th of September.

2036. You applied on the 13th of September for 2,000 tons?

- Yes; when I was off Sebastopol.

2037. And you got one-tenth?

- I did not receive more than one-tenth of that particular demand; in November, I sent another estimate of the quantity, and then on receipt of that he made arrangements for a larger supply, but still not more than half the quantity that I estimated for, and that is the quantity that he alludes to in December and January.

2038. Have you any letter of his in which he states his reasons for not directing more to be sent?

- No. On the contrary, in the letters that I read yesterday, he keeps saying that I shall have ample supplies, and he recommends me to borrow from the French. Therefore I must have mad him very sensible of my distress; but the ample supplies never came. The large supply that he talks of was only five days' hay.

2039. You are not aware of any difficulty in getting hay in this country?

- I cannot answer for that. I know that when Lord Panmure came into office there seemed to have been no difficulty. I can give in a statement showing the number of tons that were ordered

[Page 392 of the Proceedings]

to be shipped by Lord Panmure immediately; and instead of 800,000 lbs. a month, the first shipment is 3,600,000 lbs.

2040. When did that shipment begin?

- In March. (A paper was handed in.)

2041. You procured this from the War Office?

- Yes. I now hand it in. Colonel Gordon could speak to those horse transports. They were not available at Balaklava, and the returns that I have referred to show that they were all down at Constantinople.

2042. (President.) Do you wish to put a question to Colonel Gordon?

- Yes.

2043. (Commissary-General Filder, to Colonel Gordon.) On the 11th of December it is stated in your evidence that the horse transports were at my disposal - are you aware whether they were so at that time?

- If I recollect rightly they were placed at your disposal. Instructions were given to Captain Christie to place all the horse transport at your disposal about that time, but before that, I think, in the end of October, they had also been placed at your disposal. Upon the requisition of the commissariat officer, at Eupatoria, any of the horse transports were to be used for conveying cattle.

2044. In October I used them - it was at the end of October and the beginning of November I used so many sailing ships?

- I think in the end of October the naval officer, Captain Christie, was desired to place any horse transport at the disposal of the commissariat upon their applying for them - they were then lying in Kalamita Bay, and in various ports in the neighbourhood, and in the bay of Balaklava after the storm; those that were not lost were all brought into port somewhere - some had gone to the Bosphorus, and, in fact, they all got into some port. Again, in December, another letter was written either to Commissary-General Filder or to Captain Christie to say that all the horse transports of all kinds were to be placed at his disposal, because then it was quite evident that the army would not want them for any move, and they were all to be placed at his disposal. That is as well as I can recollect.

2045. You would consider a return signed by Captain Christie, showing where every vessel was, would be more correct than any information which you possess?

- My information was then quite correct.

2046. On the 11th of December were there any horse transports at Balaklava?

- There were transports at Balaklava, but at that time I should think that those that were there not employed were all dismasted, and I should doubt the fact of there being any there that were available.

2047. If there is an appropriation return, signed on the 8th of December, by Captain Christie, that would contain a correct account, would it not?

- Undoubtedly.

2048. If they were down at Constantinople, and the commissariat officer made application for them, and he got as many of them as he could, that would be what you would call an appropriation - making use of them?

- Exactly.

2049. (Lieut.-General Knollys.) The hospital stores would come directed as the quartermaster-general's stores?

- Invariably.

2050. You handed them over to the medical department, and made the cognisant of their arrival?

- That was the practice, and they generally took them off our hands on the beach, in very many cases.

2051. For instance, the limejuice?

- The officer in charge of the depôt sent a letter, which I quoted, to show that the purveyor took a portion of them off his hands on the beach.

2052. (General Sir G. Berkeley.) In the explanation given by the Treasury, it is stated, at page 17,

"At no period did Mr. Filder express in his correspondence with the Treasury any intention or desire to increase the number of transport animals beyond the above-mentioned standard; on the contrary, it will be seen by a comparison of his two memorandums submitted to Lord Raglan, dated 5th October 1854, and 16th February 1855 that he considered the transport he had in the Crimea within a fortnight after his landing sufficient"?

- That refers to a very different period, when there were no deficiencies, when I carried up everything that the troops could want. There was no fuel at that time issued, nor required to be issued; that was in October, the 5th or 8th of October.

2053. On the 1st of November 1854, the number of animals in the Crimea which were fed by the commissariat previously to the hurricane amounted to 7,250?

- Those were all the cavalry, artillery, and baggage animals; but my memorandum that is there submitted to Lord Raglan refers to an earlier period, when we had no difficulty about transport.

2054. Then you never did express in your correspondence with the Treasury any intention or desire to increase the number of transport animals?

- No. I intimated a desire to increase the quantity of forage which would have enabled me to bring more animals if I could have got transport for them. I only asked them for forage, not for animals. I had animals.

2055. (Lieutenant-General Knollys.) You had them at Constantinople?

- Yes; I do not consider it any answer to my requisition for forage that I did not tell them that I wanted animals.

2056. (General Sir G. Berkeley.) You could have got any number of animals?

- Yes; if I could have found transport to convey them and have fed them; but I could not feed them. I could not bring forage enough. Unless I had pressed hay I could not feed them. I have a letter here to Mr. Smith, the officer at Constantinople. A letter has been quoted from him, saying that I never wanted forage; but this letter from me to

[Page 393 of the Proceedings]

him in January will plainly show what was the real state of things at that time. I was not so well off as Mr. Smith seems to assume.

2057. (Judge Advocate-General.) What is the date of that letter?

- It is dated the 28th of January.

"Balaklava, January 28, 1855. - Sir, should you find it impracticable to obtain from the naval officer superintending the transport service in the Bosphorus a sufficient number of vessels for the conveyance of the forage, which, at various times, I have represented to you, in my semi-official letters, to be most urgently required for the army in the Crimea, you will engage hired vessels, either country or foreign ones, and send on all the chopped straw for which you can by any means procure freight. You will apply to the naval officer to have the vessels towed by steamers, and when this assistance cannot be afforded, you will give orders that they proceed to their destination without it. This army will in two days be totally without forage unless fresh supplies should arrive; some unusual measures must, therefore, be had recourse to forward chopped straw and hay with the utmost despatch. If you should have forwarded any vessels laden with forage since the 'Eveline', 'Gomeiza', and 'Conciliator', you will be so good as to state the names and dates. I have. &c. (Signed) William Filder, Commissary-General."

2058. Assistant Commissary-General Smith is not in England, is he?

- No.

2059. (Major-General Peel.) It was Assistant Commissary-General Smith who was examined before the Sebastopol Committee, was it not?

- Yes.

2060. (President.) There is this passage in Sir Charles Trevelyan's letter, at page 18,

"The only conclusions that can be drawn from them are that the difficulty of arranging for the conveyance of animals across the Black Sea, under the actual circumstances of the time, were so great as to prevent even the replacing of animals which had died."

Had you replaced them?

- I had a number down at Constantinople, but I was disappointed once or twice in my own applications for steamers to convey the animals. I got them as quickly as other demands would allow, at other times I was without them, occasionally. On making an application to the quartermaster-general for a steamer on 24th December, an order was given for one immediately, but there was not one available till the "Jason" had discharged her cargo on 29th December, a delay of five days; that was her second trip; and to those five days must be added the seven or eight days she was detained with sick on board at Constantinople, making twelve or thirteen days, whilst the transport animals in the Crimea were diminishing in number daily. It was at this time the transport was at the lowest point.

...

Adjourned to Monday at Eleven o'clock.