HC Deb 18 May 1855 vol 138 cc769-86
MR. FERGUS

said, he would beg to take that opportunity of making a brief statement in vindication of the character of a gallant officer recently deceased, who had been subjected to a great amount of unmerited obloquy. A statement was publicly made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) to the effect that "the command of the harbour of Balaklava was entrusted to Captain Christie, an old gentleman of seventy years of age—a gallant gentleman perhaps, but one unable from infirmity to leave his ship often for six or eight days together without risk of illness, which might endanger his health;" and then the hon. Member for Aylesbury proceeded to ask "whether, when such a person was in command of the harbour of Balaklava, it was wonderful that the state of things there was such as we knew it unfortunately to be?" Now, with respect to the facts of the case, he (Mr. Fergus) begged to say that he had had the honour of Captain Christie's acquaintance for a great number of years, and they had lived for a long time in the same neighbourhood. He had never known Captain Christie in his life to be troubled with any complaint, and when he left this country for the East he was in the fifty-seventh year of his age. Irrespective of age he was a man of the most athletic and vigorous constitution. With respect to the harbour of Balaklava, Captain Christie was never appointed to the command there. He never at any time had the charge of that harbour. His orders would not have been obeyed in the harbour. The sphere of his duty was outside the harbour. He commanded the transport service, and where his duty was, there he was. He (Mr. Fergus) thought that every allowance ought to be made for a gentleman whose only object was the good of the country, when he received false information with respect to the manner in which public duties were discharged. But no doubt when such a gentleman made a public charge against the character of a public servant, and the incorrectness of his statement was pointed out to him, he ought to give to his charge a contradiction as public as the charge which he had erroneously made. Now, the statement to which he referred was made, he believed, in the month of February last. Within four or five days after the statement reached the ears of Captain Christie's relatives, to whom it caused the deepest pain, a letter which, with the permission of the House, he would read, was written to the hon. Member for Aylesbury. The letter was as follows— Kingcaussie, Aberdeen, February 26, 1855. Sir,—I read with much regret your statement with regard to Captain Christie. A reference to the Admiralty books will easily show you that Captain Christie entered the service in 1810, being then twelve years old. I shall not trouble you with the details of his services, but you will find that he was always regarded as an energetic and painstaking officer. His duty lay outside of the harbour of Balaklava; he had the command of the transport service, and on the 14th of November he saved the ship Melbourne in which he was, through his own exertions, by cutting away the mast. He sent a suggestion three times to the officer in charge of the harbour of Balaklava, that the Prince, transport, could not go into the harbour as she had only one anchor, but no notice was taken of the suggestion, and the Prince was lost. You will thus perceive, Sir, that your statement has placed an active and meritorious officer, of fifty-seven years of age, in the eyes of the country in the position of an imbecile dotard. Trusting to your generous character, I cannot doubt that you will publicly correct a statement so publicly made. I am sure you will excuse the feelings of a sister in trespassing on your time on behalf of an absent brother. I have the honour to be your obedient servant,

"M. IRVINE BOSWELL."

The statement in that letter, with regard to the Prince, was one which he (Mr. Fergus) believed was perfectly correct, and would have been corroborated by the unfortunate officer had he survived to take his trial for the loss of the Prince. He believed that it would also be confirmed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) the late First Lord of the Admiralty. Now, that was not the only letter which had been written to the hon. Member for Aylesbury on the subject. Another letter to a similar effect was written to the hon. Member—and he presumed it reached him—by a brother of the gallant officer in the Crimea. A letter was also written to him by the gallant officer himself, couched in language which bore truth on the very face of it. It was one of the most courteous and gentlemanly letters that could have been written by any man under such painful circumstances. Well, those letters had been in the possession of the hon. Gentleman for more than two months—for nearly ten weeks. It was an interval of anxious suspense to the relatives of the gallant officer; but, to the gallant officer himself, it was an interval, not of suspense, but of anguish. That gallant officer was keenly alive to his own professional position. He (Mr. Fergus) used no exaggerated expression when he used the common one with regard to the late Captain Christie—that his professional reputation was dearer to him than his life. The statement of the hon. Member for Aylesbury had caused anguish and suffering in the mind of that gallant officer which years of arduous service could not have inflicted. His health broke down, and he was now where neither the slander nor the praise of this world could reach him. He now would, therefore, beg leave to ask the hon. Member for Aylesbury whether he received the letters from Captain Christie's relatives, and from the gallant officer himself, and what answer he had to give to them?

MR. LAYARD

I really, Sir, feel ashamed, at a moment like this, when great interests are at stake, and when the excitement of the country in regard of this war is at its pitch, on account of what has taken place in the East, that this House should be taken up with questions of this kind, involving mere personal matters. I ask hon. Gentlemen, and perhaps I should say one hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, whether it is intended to renew tonight the unseemly scene which took place the other night? [Oh, oh!] Sir, these hon. Gentlemen are bringing upon this House great discredit. There is a feeling gaining ground in this country—[Cries of "Question, question."] The question is the adjournment of this House, I believe. [" Oh, oh!] I say a feeling is rising up in this country that the time of this House is trifled with, and that this House is being made the arena of personal Altercations. That feeling is gaining ground, and I warn hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite that that feeling may make a more rapid and wide progress than they perhaps imagine. I will now, Sir, answer the question which the hon. Member has put to me, although, perhaps, that is not a regular proceeding in this House, for, if the hon. Member had spoken to me before he raised this question, I would have given him such information as would have enabled him to place that question before you in different terms. In the first place, he has, I have no doubt, unintentionally misquoted my speech altogether. I have referred to three or four newspapers—if I may be allowed to speak of newspapers in this House—and I have compared their reports. I do not pretend exactly to recollect the words I used, but in that paper which has attacked me the most (The Morning Herald), I am stated to have said— At its head was Captain Christie, a gentleman about seventy years of age, whose health was so impaired that he could not leave his ship after nightfall without getting a catarrh, and who was often five or six days without being able to land at Balaklava. I will now read what I am reported in The Times to have said:— Who is at the head of the transports at Balaklava? Captain Christie, an old gentleman upwards of seventy years of age; a gallant gentleman, no doubt, but he cannot leave his ship after dark for fear of catarrh, which might endanger his existence. I know that he is often five or six days without being able to land at Balaklava. Are you surprised, then, that Balaklava harbour should be in the state it was? During the time I was living on board the Agamemnon, I had almost daily opportunities of seeing Captain Christie. Against his private character I have nothing whatever to say, but he appeared to me to be a man about seventy years of age, and I frequently heard on high authority that he was not a man competent to fill the position he held. That opinion I formed myself very strongly, and I had a free right to form it. At that time the existence of thousands was dependent upon those who were at the head of the departments, and, therefore, as a Member of Parliament and as an Englishman, I had a right to state my opinion as to the competency of any man at the head of any of the departments. I believe no impartial man, or one not wishing to make political capital out of such a matter, would venture to say that anything more was to be inferred from those remarks than that Captain Christie was an old man, too old to be at the head of the department over which he was placed. I did not know whether he was sixty or seventy years of age; but by his appearance I was justified in saying that he was about that age (as I might express my opinion of the age of any Gentleman in this House, though I might be mistaken). A few days after I received a letter from Captain Christie's brother, and I hope no man in this House is more ready to atone for an error, if I believed it to be an error, than I am; but when a gentleman out of doors addresses a Member of Parliament in an unseemly and unbecoming letter, and when he afterwards publishes that letter in a newspaper I apprehend that the duties of a Member of Parliament in the matter cease. Now, what was the letter? It opens with a statement which is contrary to the fact— If your speech has been correctly reported, I have to inform you that you have stated what is contrary to fact, and have thereby done what you can to injure an absent man. It may be in the recollection of the House that at that time there was a change of Ministry going on, and there was great excitement in the country, and I had not an opportunity of making a statement in the House, although, after receiving such a letter, couched in such terms, I very much doubt whether I should have made any statement; and then, when I saw that letter afterwards published in the newspapers, I might fairly believe myself absolved from any further notice of it. I believe I did afterwards receive a letter, whether from that same gentleman or from another I cannot say; but I remember writing an answer to it, and receiving a reply from the gentleman addressed to, saying that he was not the person who had written it. I have looked among my papers for that letter, and I am sorry to say I cannot find it. Some time after I received a letter from Captain Christie. That letter was evidently written under a misconception of facts. I have no doubt he was informed that I said he was seventy years of age. I never said it. The only thing I said was that he was unable, from the state of his health, to undergo exposure. The moment I received that letter, I believe the very day after, I wrote a reply, directed to the address of his agents, as he requested me to do, in these terms:— 9, Little Ryder-street, April 17, 1855. Sir—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your note, dated Balaklava, 26th March. I had already received a communication from your brother on the subject of your age. Had that communication been worded in a becoming manner, I should at once have acknowledged my error in the House of Commons; but, as it was not so worded, and as your brother thought fit to publish it in a newspaper, I did not consider it incumbent upon me to take any notice of it. With regard to your suffering from disease—such a statement was not made by me. I argued that a man of your age could not perform the duties imposed upon an officer in your position, without running the risk of injury to his health. With regard to your management of the harbour and the shipping in it, that is now the subject of Parliamentary inquiry, and I have no doubt that if you will inform Mr. Roebuck of your arrival in England, he will summon you before the committee, and you will then have an opportunity of clearing yourself from any imputation that may have been thrown upon you.

"I am sir, your obedient servant.

"A. H. LAYARD.

"Captain Christie."

What has become of that letter I do not know. I sent it to the address in question, but whether it was forwarded to Captain Christie or not I am unable to say. Now, Sir, with regard to Captain Christie's position in the harbour of Balaklava, I may perhaps refer to the evidence taken before the Committee upstairs now that it has been laid on the table of the House. There is considerable doubt on that subject; the evidence of the witnesses clash with regard to Captain Christie's powers—I myself formed an opinion from what I saw, and I had a right to do so, and to express that opinion. I will refrain from giving any personal opinion upon that evidence, but will leave the matter to the Committee. But if I can ask hon. Gentlemen for any justice or fair play, I will ask them whether there is one word in that extract which authorised a court-martial to be held upon Captain Christie? Because I said a man was about seventy years of age, is that a reason for trying him by a court-martial? And now I actually find myself charged with the murder of Captain Christie! The right hon. Gentleman who sits behind me (Sir J. Graham) when in the Committee-Room the other day, in a tone and manner that no one could mistake, and I appeal to the other members of the Committee to confirm me, when answering a question put to him, turned to me, and said, "Captain Christie is dead—a broken-hearted man." Yes, it has been well said by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, "If you want to trust a bad case to good hands, go there" [pointing to Sir J. Graham]. Now, Sir, who is responsible for Captain Christie's trial? What did the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee Captain Christie was put on his trial for? Because I had said he was an old man? No; but because the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty thought that he might be thought guilty of having been the cause of the loss of the Prince, and of having landed Turkish troops at Balaklava which he ought to have landed at Eupatoria. What have I said on these two points? With regard to the loss of the Prince, I always felt convinced that Captain Christie had nothing to do with it. I was there the day after the loss of the Prince, and I was told by everybody that the Prince could not come into Balaklava. With regard to the landing of the Turks at Balaklava instead of at Eupatoria, till the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) stated it before the Committee I never heard a word of it. Captain Christie was sent to be tried on those two issues. Did I raise them? If Captain Christie has been an ill-treated man, who ill-treated him? It was the First Lord of the Admiralty who listened to those matters, which must have come from another source, and which were not imputations that I had cast upon Captain Christie. I may have made a mistake about Captain Christie's age. But I remember a very remarkable mistake about the age of a much more important man than Captain Christie, and I will appeal to the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who corrected that mistake. In 1843, when a revolution took place in Servia, Lord Aberdeen, who was then Minister for Foreign Affairs, justified to a certain extent the non-interference of this country and the carrying out of the Russian policy in Servia, on the ground that the prince who was then upon the throne was a young man who had been taken from obscurity and had no claim to the position he held. The right hon. Gentleman then pointed out that that young prince was somewhere about forty years of age. That was a question involving great interests, but was Lord Aberdeen attacked, or was he ever accused as I have been for party purposes. But when I made a mistake, at once you attack me upon such a matter. I admit my mistake about the age; but if you think that by crushing me—crush me you may, for I am a poor man, and have no weight in this House—you may succeed in that, but you will not crush the cause with which I am identified. You are here and shout me down because I attack a system, by which you, hon. and gallant Members, rise in the ranks of the army and sit in the House of Commons without encounter- ing the dangers and fighting the battles of your country [Oh, oh!]. You may hunt me down, but the country will not stand it [Oh, oh!]. Hon. Gentlemen may repeat their cries, but I warn them again, that sooner or later [loud ironical cheers, in which the end of the hon. Gentleman's sentence was lost.] Now, again, Sir with regard to Captain Christie. No man can be more grieved than I am at Captain Christie's death. If I could have given anything or done anything to save him, I should have done it quite as readily as if he had been my nearest relative, but I contend that as a Member of Parliament I had a right to say he was incompetent to hold his position if I thought so; but I also say that a Member of Parliament has no right to be exposed to those attacks which have been made upon me now more than once in this House, and which the country believe to have been made for party purposes.

MR. FERGUS

said, he must beg to explain that the hon. Gentleman had totally misunderstood his question. The letter referred to was not one from Captain Christie, but from Captain Christie's sister, Mrs. Boswell, which was forwarded by himself to the hon. Member on the 28th of February.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

Sir, as a Member of the Sebastopol Committee, I feel bound to take some notice of the evidence given before that Committee by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham). I must say I never heard a more unfair representation of that evidence than that which has been given by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard). The hon. Member had heard the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) allude to the then supposed death of Captain Christie, for it had not yet been ascertained, and the right hon. Gentleman, with a depth of feeling which I think did him honour, said that he believed at that moment that Captain Christie was a dead man from a broken heart. I heard no more from the right hon. Gentleman than I what a man of good feeling would have said, who was giving evidence with reference to Captain Christie at a moment of such melancholy interest. I cannot refrain from adding my very deep regret at the course which the hon. Member for Aylesbury has taken upon this subject. The hon. Member says this matter is brought forward for party purposes, and that there is an endeavour to crush him. Let me, however, tell him that if he is crushed, he will have crushed himself. He will crush himself, as any man will crush himself, who brings forward these loose charges against public servants, under circumstances which prevent his substantiating those charges. The hon. Gentleman is a man of great ability. He is a man able to do good service, and I hope he will do good service; but if anything will prevent his rendering good service, it will be the want of precision and the want of care with which he ventures upon these charges. How does this matter stand now about Captain Christie? To an officer, his professional character is everything. The hon. Gentleman comes down and says, in reference to one officer, that he is seventy years of age, and too old for service, being unable to leave his vessel for six or seven days at a time for fear of catching a catarrh, and that he is unable to perform public service. The hon. Gentleman then receives letters both from the sister and from the brother of Captain Christie. He receives that touching letter from Mrs. Boswell which has been read by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Fife (Mr. Fergus), who so ably brought forward this matter. He receives a letter also from the brother. Last of all, he receives a letter from Captain Christie himself, after receiving which I confess I should have thought that no man of honour could have done less than acknowledge his error. I regret the hon. Gentleman did not feel, after receiving that letter, pointing out and correcting the errors into which he had fallen, that his only course was to have frankly acknowledged in the House the errors into which he had fallen. I take the course I am now taking with great regret; I speak without any hostile feelings in the matter; but I am sure the hon. Gentleman's best friends will agree with me in saying, that the hon. Member will best consult his own public character by not making charges which he cannot substantiate.

MR. BRIGHT

I am afraid, Sir, the unpleasantness which took place a week or two ago has very much tinged the character of the discussion to-night. I have now been a Member of this House a considerable number of years, and have seen many personal altercations occur in it; but I must say that I have never before to-night witnessed anything which bore the character of the ungenerous treatment of one of its Members. ["No, no!"] Well, I hope and believe that no Member of this House really wishes to lay himself open to the charge to which I am referring. But the hon. Member below me (Mr. Layard), to my mind—and, I think, if other hon. Members will look at the facts apart from any previous matters, they will come to the same conclusion—has committed, in the first place, no fault, I and in the subsequent part of these transactions has just done what any one of us would, probably, have done under the same circumstances. ["No, no!"] Well, let us see whether it be so or not. I want to ask whether any Member of this House is to be charged with some grave offence if he states here that a certain person at the head of an important public department is about seventy years of age, and appears to be much too old for such a position? Why, I could point to two Members of this House in the same profession, I believe, as that to which Captain Christie belonged, and I undertake to say that any Gentleman who merely looks at them will think that the younger of the two is at least five years older than the other. Therefore, I say that a mistake as to age is one that any man may make. Besides, the hon. Member for Aylesbury had seen Captain Christie, and we have not, and he thought him a man of about seventy; and, therefore, in a speech which he made in this House, when he was excited by what he had witnessed at Balaklava, and when we also were excited by the news we had heard from the Crimea, he expressed this opinion as to Captain Christie's time of life. But now, what was the hon. Gentleman's conduct afterwards? The very moment he received a letter from Captain Christie himself he wrote to his agent, according to that officer's request, in language of a very frank and open character. Now, what would have been thought of the hon. Member for Aylesbury if he had come down to the House the very day after he received this letter, and begged it to note that, whereas he had some time before made a statement representing an officer's age to be about seventy, he found, by a letter from the officer himself, that he was only sixty? Why, he would have been met with a universal laugh, and the whole thing would have been at an end. I consider that the hon. Gentleman, in the whole of this matter, has only done what any man may rightly do if he really thinks that the head of a public department is a man who is incompetent for the discharge of his duty. Nobody charges the hon. Member with having a personal hostility to Captain Christie—nobody either here of out of doors has dared to make any such imputation, and, therefore, when hon. Gentlemen make statements from what they believe to be their public duty, what is to become of every Member of this House if there is to be a weekly hunt, regularly every Friday evening, upon the Motion that the House adjourn till Monday? I believe that the House, if it reflects for a moment, will come to the conclusion that it has treated the hon. Member for Aylesbury with rather less than its characteristic generosity and fairness; and, for that reason, I have risen on this occasion, however reluctantly, to say a word on behalf of my hon. Friend.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

I am, Sir, extremely anxious that this discussion, which is of a most painful character, should not be unnecessarily prolonged. But I must say that it is not the character of the hon. Member for Aylesbury which is now at stake, but a debt of justice which is due to the memory of a gallant man. And, Sir, I beg leave to state that no transaction has for a long time given me such acute and deep pain as this very transaction we are now discussing, for it is no longer possible to render a tribute of justice which might soothe the feelings of a gallant man now no more; but still there is a debt of justice due to his relatives, who feel the greatest interest in all that happens. I, Sir, am responsible, and alone responsible for the original appointment of Captain Christie. He was unknown to me except by reputation. He bore a high and spotless character in his own gallant profession. He had served well and honourably, and he was recommended to me as competent for the situation to which I appointed him. I believe the first serious question raised with respect to his competency was raised in this House by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. Certainly, Sir, I shall not attempt to give evidence as to the precise words used by the hon. Member on that occasion; but it will be in the recollection of the House that the allusions to Captain Christie were very disparaging—that he was an old man, and a sickly man. ["No, no!"] I understood the hon. Member to say he was so liable to catarrh as to be unable to leave his ship for many days consecutively, and I leave it to the House to judge whether the tone and substance of what the hon. Member said did not leave an impression that an unfit person had been appointed, at a crisis of public affairs, to fill a most important situation. I have said, Sir, that this matter deeply grieved me. My only fear is, that I have yielded somewhat too much to clamour with regard to this officer. I ordered an inquiry to be instituted—after that debate to which I have alluded—by the Commander in Chief on the naval station, as to whether, in his opinion, Captain Christie had effectively and well discharged the duties of the station to which he had been appointed. Two faults were alleged against him, and only two, to the best of my recollection, with respect to the manner in which he had performed his duties. The first related to the discretion exercised by him with reference to the transports outside the harbour, on the day of the heavy storm, on the 14th of November; and incidentally another question arose, whether Captain Christie had not made a serious mistake with reference to ordering a portion of the Turkish troops, bound from Varna to the Crimea, to go to Balaklava instead of Eupatoria. Having received that answer to my inquiry, instead of handing over Captain Christie to the Committee on which the hon. Gentleman sits, and over which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) presides, I thought that it was more just, and on the whole infinitely better, to submit the conduct of the gallant officer to the constituted tribunal of his brother officers; and that they should investigate the charges, and pronounce an opinion upon his professional conduct, rather than it should be submitted to the ordeal desired by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. To that extent, Sir, I am responsible. I did order Captain Christie not to return to England, but that he should be tried by the court-martial to which I have referred. And here, Sir, is a point which deeply grieves me. I had reason to believe that the circumstance of being superseded, and being ordered to be tried, coupled with the accusations which had been made in this House so disparaging to the character of Captain Christie, really, as I said before the Committee, broke the heart of that gallant man, and I do believe that his death has been the consequence of the circumstances to which I have already adverted. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for Aylesbury says that when he receives a letter from the brother of an absent officer, stating the circumstances very mi- nutely about the age of that officer—that when he receives a letter from a brother, stating that assertions made by the hon. Member were contrary to the fact, and were injurious to the character of an absent man, if he considers that the terms of that letter are offensive, he is thereby relieved from the duty of doing justice to the party accused. I appeal, Sir, to the House whether that is not a most dangerous doctrine. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman upon reflection will adhere to it. Then with respect to what fell from me before the Committee. I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) for doing me justice with respect to my conduct before the Sebastopol Committee. I brought charges against no one. I have already told the House what my feelings were with reference to Captain Christie. I certainly did look the hon. Member for Aylesbury steadily in the face when I gave the answer that I did, and I still believe that what that hon. Member said in this House was unjust to that gentleman, and was inaccurate. I believe it has had the worst effect, both upon the health of that gallant officer and upon his feelings while he was yet alive; and I think that the lesson ought not to be thrown away with reference to future charges and future conduct, but that in future allegations deeply affecting the honour and character of absent men shall not be brought forward upon light grounds, and that when inaccuracies shall have been proved, there shall be no hesitation in acknowledging them.

MR. ROEBUCK

Sir, as the Chairman of the Sebastopol Committee, and as this matter is one to which I have paid a good deal of attention, I trust the House will excuse me if I venture to make a few observations with reference to it. I think there is something which calls for remark in what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham). The right hon. Gentleman says that the first time he heard any imputation against Captain Christie was when the charge was made in this House by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. The word "charge" has been used. The statement was that Captain Christie was a man, in the belief of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, about seventy years of age, and that he was incapable, therefore, as the hon. Member knew him and saw him, of adequately performing his duty. Hereupon, as the hon. Member says, the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to desire an inquiry, and the right hon. Gentleman himself says he desired an inquiry to take place into the conduct of Captain Christie. In consequence of this inquiry, two circumstances came to his knowledge, which he considered of so grave a character that he ordered Captain Christie to be superseded and tried by a court-martial. These two circumstances were not mentioned by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. Now, the first charge is, that Captain Christie, by his misconduct, conduced—that, I believe, is the word—to the loss of the Prince; and the second is, that instead of sending the Turkish troops to Eupatoria, he sent them to Balaklava. These two circumstances, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, were of so grave a character that he thereupon superseded Captain Christie, and ordered a court-martial to be held upon his conduct. Then, says the right hon. Baronet, when I gave my evidence before the Sebastopol Committee, I did fix my eye upon the hon. Member for Aylesbury. However, he proves distinctly that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) was mistaken. The right hon. Baronet thought as I thought, being wholly unconnected with the matter, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) was merely giving an effective statement of a fact; but the right hon. Gentleman himself says he was giving a significant statement—that he intended to communicate to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury his opinion on the subject. That opinion was, that Captain Christie had died of a broken heart in consequence of the conduct of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. Now, what did the right hon. Gentleman say? That Captain Christie died of a broken heart. Why did he die of a broken heart? Because he was superseded in order to be tried by a court-martial. Who was the cause of his supercession? and who ordered him to be tried by a court-martial? That circumstance did not arise out of the statement of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. The hon. Member's statement was, that he was an old man. Now, I never heard that such a statement was considered a charge. That is a condition to which we are all hastening. Surely, it becomes the generosity of this House, before it visits its displeasure on the head of any one person, duly to consider the case. What is the case? What is the imputation against the hon. Member for Aylesbury? Why, that he has said Captain Christie was seventy years old, and that he was decrepit. ["No, no!"] He did not use that word, but I think he implied that from his age he was incapable of discharging his duties. Judging the man from his appearance, he said, "I think that man is unfit to perform the heavy duties of his office." This is the sum total of the statement of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. It is then said that he received letters which he did not answer. The hon. Member for Aylesbury says that he is wholly ignorant of a letter from the sister of Captain Christie. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member tells me so. He received a letter from the brother of Captain Christie, but he says that he considered the opening statement in that letter so disparaging that, seeing it in print, he did not think that it called for any answer. To the letter of Captain Christie he says that he did send an answer. All that he was called upon to retract was, that he made a statement of the age of Captain Christie which was incorrect. It is surely not for the House to visit the hon. Member with the sort of displeasure which it has manifested. That displeasure would not be more severe if the hon. Member had done something which called for censure as a dishonourable act. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen may dissent from me in this matter, but if a statement respecting age is considered a dishonourable act, it certainly does not meet my view of a dishonourable act. I think Captain Christie was deeply wounded by that which has occurred, but for that which has occurred I hold the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle responsible, and not the hon. Member for Aylesbury. The fact of his having been superseded and called to a court-martial struck deeply into the heart of Captain Christie, and for those acts I hold the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle responsible. There is one other subject which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I think it my duty to make this statement on behalf of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. The right hon. Gentleman said he was unwilling to subject Captain Christie to the ordeal which the hon. Member for Aylesbury desired. Now, there have been noble Lords and others examined before the Committee with whom the hon. Member for Aylesbury has been brought into contact—I will use that mode of expression—and the hon. Member for Aylesbury has carefully abstained from putting a ques- tion to them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will bear me out in this statement. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: Hear, hear!] On this account I think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) need not have been afraid of submitting Captain Christie to that ordeal of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has himself passed through that ordeal, and I do not think he has suffered much from it.

ADMIRAL BERKELEY

said, he hoped the House would allow him to do justice, in a few words, to the memory of a gallant officer. The hon. Member for Aylesbury, as a Member of Parliament, claimed to be a judge of the qualifications of naval officers to command in responsible situations such as that which Captain Christie had filled. He (Admiral Berkeley) had, not only in common with that hon. Member, the character of a Member of Parliament, and an Englishman, but he had also the character of a man who had served his country in the naval profession for a great number of years, and might be allowed, therefore, to be as good a judge of the qualifications of naval officers as the hon. Member for Aylesbury. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had taken the responsibility of the appointment of Captain Christie on himself—as he presided over the Board he could have put his veto on the appointment, or not—but the right hon. Baronet had appealed to every member of the Board before appointing Captain Christie, and had reminded them in the strongest terms of the station to which they were about to appoint that officer, and said that they would be answerable if they received for it an unfit person; and he (Admiral Berkeley) was willing to share any responsibility which might attach to the Board of Admiralty for the appointment of Captain Christie. There was no man more anxious or more desirous of the court-martial than was Captain Christie himself. Then let it not be said that in a case where blame was cast upon an officer that the right hon. Baronet, in following the rules of the service, was in any sort of way the cause of the death of Captain Christie, but rather let those who had maligned him behind his back look upon themselves as the cause. The question before the House was, why did not the hon. Member for Aylesbury, when called upon by the touching letter from the sister of Captain Christie, do that which every hon. Member would have done—sent an immediate answer and relieved her mind. He could only say, that with regard to all naval appointments, the greatest care had been taken by the Board of Admiralty that none but efficient officers should be sent out, and he was sure that if any man, not prejudiced or determined to condemn, had looked at Captain Christie, that he would have rather thought him to be forty-five than seventy years of age.

MR. OTWAY

said, that during the debate two facts had come out, the first was, that the hon. Member for Aylesbury had never made a charge of any kind against Captain Christie; and the second was, that when the hon. Member had, as had been said, spoken of that officer in a depreciating tone, the First Lord of the Admiralty, who believed him competent, had never had the proper feeling on that occasion to defend that officer. So far from doing this, he took credit to himself, as did also the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), that they were about to supersede Captain Christie and to subject him to the ordeal of a court-martial. He regretted that on a former occasion the hon. Member for Aylesbury, relying no doubt on information received on military authority, had fallen into some inaccuracies; and, had he been aware of what the hon. Member was about to have stated on that occasion, he could have told him that in the case of one of those officers the rules of the service had been complied with. He hoped his hon. Friend would not be deterred from the course he was pursuing in exposing the monstrous abuses of our military system by sneers and clamour, for he might be assured that if he persisted in it he would be supported by the country. Having had a notice upon the paper for two successive weeks, he would take this opportunity of calling the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to the subject to which it referred—it was, indeed, principally for this purpose that he had risen. A short time since 300 or 400 Poles had sailed in our transports from one of our harbours, armed and equipped for service against Russia. He wished to know whether those Poles were to be incorporated in the Foreign Legion now being raised in Turkey, or whether they were to form a separate legion, and to be commanded by their own officers? He had already strongly advocated the latter course, for the moment the Polish standard was raised in the Crimea it would no doubt be joined by a large number of the Poles now in the ser- vice of Russia. It was important that a decision should at once be arrived at with regard to the footing upon which these Poles were to be placed.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that the state of the question was this—a certain number of Polish and Russian prisoners had been taken in the course of the war. The Polish prisoners expressed a strong desire to join a legion of Poles that was being formed under a Polish commander named Czartoryski, to act in the Turkish service. They were sent out at the expense of the British Government, and were at the same furnished with arms. They were to be enrolled in the Turkish service as a corps called by a name which certainly did not convey the idea of any distinct nationality. Their banner was to be the Cross and the Crescent, to mark the combination of the arms of the two countries. With those Polish prisoners there also went out a certain number of Polish emigrants from this country, who were desirous to enter into the same service. Every man went of his own accord; and, as they would all be engaged in the Turkish service, it would rest with the Turkish Government to determine how and where they were to be employed.

Subject dropped.