THE LATE CAPTAIN CHRISTIE—EX- PLANATION. (Hansard, 21 May 1855)

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM

I do not know, Sir, that it will be quite regular for me, upon a mere notice of motion, to address the House; but I think that in a matter personally affecting one of its members the House will extend that courtesy to me which I now crave at its hands. The House will remember that on the motion for the adjournment on Friday last the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) made some comments in the most pointed manner alluding to myself. I had not the slightest intention of addressing the House upon that occasion, but the allusions were such that I thought it absolutely necessary to rise in my place. At that moment I had not in my hands any official documents, nor had I an opportunity of referring to dates, but without the least preparation addressed the House according to my recollection and impressions at the moment. If I remember aright I stated on that occasion what was my strong opinion, that considering the freedom of debate in this House it was absolutely necessary that the members exercising it should use the utmost caution with respect to the accuracy of their statements, and also 831 that it was incumbent upon them, when any error they have committed shall have been brought to their knowledge, to take the earliest opportunity of correcting it. I am still of that opinion, and I believe that unless the course I have stated be pursued by all the members of this House, the freedom of debate itself will be brought into disrepute. Now without any opportunity afforded to me by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, of offering him an explanation on this the first day after the debate to which I have referred, he thinks, and thinks rightly, that there was an error in the statement which I made on Friday last, and to my surprise the first intimation which I received of that error was reading this morning in one of the public papers a letter signed by the hon. Member—not giving to me in my place an opportunity of tendering any explanation upon any inquiry made by him. I stated also on Friday last, that when an explanation was required by any Member with reference to an error in his statement, I did not think that want of courtesy in the mode of asking it formed any justification for refusing it; and, acting upon that principle, I am now about to tender to the House an explanation of the error into which I fell on Friday night, and which has been commented on by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. On that occasion I was strongly impressed with the opinion that the speech made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury with reference to Captain Christie had been delivered in the Session before Christmas. I had no opportunity of looking to the authoritative record of what took place, and made my statement simply under a strong impression to the effect I have stated. But the hon. Member in the document to which I have referred, calling for an explanation, has stated two things. In the first place, he refers to my speech on Friday last, and quotes the following passage:— I believe the first serious question raised with respect to his competency was raised in this House by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I then went on to say, 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. There is, Sir, an inaccuracy in that statement. I am now aware that the order to inquire into the conduct and efficiency of 832 Captain Christie was issued before, and not after, the debate in which the hon. Member for Aylesbury spoke of that officer, and that it was not in consequence of the debate to which I have alluded that Captain Christie was removed by the Admiral from the command which he held in the Black Sea. Fortunately I am in a condition to show that the error was perfectly unintentional on my part, for before the Committee, over which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) presides, I produced the original document from the Admiralty, in which the order was given to inquire into the conduct of Captain Christie. That document is dated the 28th of December, 1854, and the order having been produced before the Sebastopol Committee, with the permission of the First Lord of the Treasury, I think I may venture to read it to the House. It is to the following effect:— I have to call your particular attention to the grave error committed by Captain Christie, in sending certain Turkish troops to Balaklava instead of Eupatoria, as adverted to by Lord Raglan in his despatch of the 8th instant, and with reference to the general conduct of the transport service in the Black Sea, their Lordships wish to be furnished, as speedily as circumstances will permit, with your opinion and report as to the manner in which those duties have been discharged by Captain Christie, and as to the perfect competency of that officer to carry out the intentions of the Government, and his capability to fulfil the duties devolving upon an officer holding so important a post. That is the order dated the 28th of December, 1854, which I produced before the Sebastopol Committee. It is perfectly correct as stated by the hon. Member for Aylesbury in his letter, that my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) on the 23rd of February, referred to an order that had been issued by the Admiralty antecedent to the statement of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, on the 19th of the same month. After I sat down on Friday evening that debate was called to my recollection, and I had reason at once to believe that I had made an incorrect statement. On Saturday morning I wrote to the first Lord of the Admiralty, and asked him to furnish me with copies of the official documents. I have not yet received those copies, but referring to the document which, as I have stated, I produced before the Sebastopol Committee, looking at its date, and remembering also a further despatch addressed to Sir Edmund Lyons on his assuming the command of the fleet 833 in the Black Sea, that he was to exercise the largest powers, extending even to the dismissal of any officers whose removal from their several posts he should think advantageous to the public service, which despatch was dated the 3rd of January, 1855. I have no doubt, though I have not seen the official answer to these orders, that the removal of Captain Christie did take place in consequence of them. I have now stated exactly to the House the error I committed and the cause of it. But there is a further point with respect to the trial of Captain Christie by court-martial to which I must for a moment allude. Here, again, I have to state that I have not had the advantage of seeing the official documents, and am, therefore, obliged to state the circumstances from recollection only. Sir Edmund Lyons removed Captain Christie from his command, and appointed another officer as his successor. The Admiralty had reason to believe that Captain Christie was about to return to England; but they were of opinion that, under the circumstances, it would be better and fairer to him that he should have an opportunity of vindicating his conduct before a Court Martial on the spot; and accordingly they issued an order which reached him at Malta, that he should return to the Black Sea. That order was issued early in February—again before the appointment of the Sebastopol Committee. I had a strong opinion that the fairest and most just course to Captain Christie was, that his conduct should be submitted to trial by his brother officers, who would sympathise with his feelings, who were acquainted with his merits or demerits, and who could form the only proper tribunal for the prosecution of such an inquiry. Now, I have thought that the only reparation I could make to the hon. Member for Aylesbury for the error I committed was to take the earliest opportunity of offering this explanation. If what I stated inflicted any wrong upon the hon. Member, here, in my place, I express my regret, and acknowledge the error. The hon. Member has done that in a printed paper which he could not have done here. He has imputed motives to me; among others, a wish to screen myself, which are alien to every sentiment of my heart. Where or whence those suspicions arise I will not inquire; but the hon. Member has stated, adding a saving word, that I "ought" to have known that what I stated was a deliberate falsehood. I regret the 834 use of such language. I throw myself on the indulgence of the House, and ask, from the knowledge that the House entertains of my motives and conduct, after having sat thirty-seven years in it, whether I could for one moment venture to impose upon the House that which I knew to be a deliberate falsehood. I have now stated what I thought due to the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I am extremely sorry that, on an occasion when business of vast importance awaits the attention of the House, I should have been compelled to intrude myself upon your notice; but I know that the character and conduct of every one of its members is a matter which the House has always regarded with the utmost jealousy and concern.