He was continually in correspondence with the three great gunnery firms — Lancaster, Whitworth, and Armstrong — to each of whose systems he gave an impartial hearing, though none was approved for adoption in the service during his lifetime.
It is now necessary to note the purport of Lord Hardinge's general evidence before the Sebastopol Committee, presided over by Mr. Roebuck, as some might lay at his door to a certain extent the shortcomings of our military administration during the Crimean War. His position was that of every Commander-in-Chief when an army is sent abroad on active service. He was of course not responsible for the policy of the war, nor was he responsible for the results of the operations. In reply to the Committee for a detailed statement of his duties as Commander-in-Chief, he said that he was responsible for the discipline of the army; that he merely recommended officers for regimental and staff situations, while all first appointments were made by him subject to the Queen's pleasure. He also stated that he had given to Lord Raglan the selection for all the appointments in the Crimean army as they became vacant, although these appointments theoretically rested upon his own recommendation, this being done on the principle that a General in the field should select his own officers. He entirely approved of the Letter of Service, by which Lord Raglan was authorised to correspond directly with the Secretary at War, and was of opinion that the practice should be followed on all similar
