HL Deb 23 June 1863 vol 171 cc1290-3
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

I rise, my Lords, to make a personal explanation, to which I am sure your Lordships will be disposed to listen. I have received a letter from Mr. Christie desiring me to explain some misapprehension, as he believes, contained in the speech I delivered on Friday last, and contradicting some of the statements which I made upon that occasion. Now, my Lords, I am always ready, if I fall into a mistake, to rectify it as soon as possible; and the best course perhaps I can now pursue is at once to read Mr Christie's letter. It is as follows:— Hillingdon, Uxbridge, June 21, 1863. My Lord,—I am sure that your Lordship has not wished to make mis-statements in the House of Lords about a public servant, of whose conduct, when he served under you as Minister in the River Plate, you expressed high approval, and in whose conciliatory character you had so much confidence in 1858 as to wish him to prolong his stay there for purposes of conciliation; and in the belief that you will desire to correct any such mis-statements as publicly as they have been made, I beg to call your Lordship's attention to some passages in the report in The Times of your speech in the House of Lords on the 19th. I am, of course, aware that it is possible that the report may not always be correct:— 1. You are reported to say that papers were sent to you about my difference with General Webb, which you suppose were sent by me as they were in my defence. I have sent you no papers, and am not aware of any such papers, beyond a statement which I published with Lord Russell's permission, and which appeared in The Times. 2. You are reported to say that I was not on good terms with the Brazilian Minister or with colleagues of mine; and you were good enough to add, as reported, 'It may not be his fault, but certainly it is a very great misfortune not only to him, but to his Sovereign.' I am happy to be able to assure you that I was on good terms with the Brazilian Minister and with the Brazilian Government generally, and was also on good terms with all my colleagues, except General Webb, and in free confidential communication with some of them on this grave public question. If you are not satisfied with my assurance on this point, which is a very important one, you can refer to Lord Russell. I am sure that it could only have been from inadvertence that Lord Russell failed to correct this particular mis-statement in answering you. 3. You are reported to say that I appear to have had no personal communications with the Brazilian Minister until just before I was going to make reprisals. This is a mistake; though it is true, that owing to the habits and wishes of the Brazilian Government, more business is done at Rio by note writing, and less in conversation, than in European Courts. The published papers mention seven interviews between May and September before the formal demands of satisfaction were made, and five in December before the reprisals were resorted to. There would be other interviews not mentioned in the papers, and at page 94 I make a general reference to verbal representations. In the public relation in which I am to Earl Russell, I think it right to furnish him with a copy of this letter to your Lordship.—I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient servant, W. D. CHRISTIE. The Earl of Malmesbury, G.C.B. Well, my Lords, with respect to the first part of that letter, in which Mr. Christie refers to transactions which took place in the year 1858 when I had the honour of being at the head of the Foreign Office, I have no hesitation in saying that I had no reason to be dissatisfied with anything that Mr. Christie did at that time. On the contrary, he appeared to me to do his duty as well as any other of Her Majesty's Ministers in foreign countries. But, at the same time, I am not sure that I urged him against his will to remain at his post; and I do not recollect, and I can find no indication in my notes, that there was at the time any difficulty in the River Plate which it required any measure of particular conciliation to arrange. I remember that Mr. Christie came home in the spring of 1859, and was anxious for promotion to another Court; but I was unable to comply with his request; and a few weeks afterwards my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Derby) went out of office, and I ceased to be Foreign Minister. I have nothing to say against Mr. Christie generally, and I am perfectly ready to state that he did his duty as well as anybody else when I was Foreign Secretary; but I have no recollection of pressing him, on account of his conciliatory disposition, to remain at his post. With respect to the papers in reference to his difference with General Webb, which he says were not forwarded by him, I have to state that they were sent to me anonymously, and I supposed that they came from him. I may add that I am the last man who would support the conduct of General Webb, as far as it can be ascertained from these papers. With regard to my statement that he was not on good terms with the Brazilian Minister and with some of his colleagues, I, of course, accept his statement. But, in justice to myself, I must observe that the authority upon which I made that statement was so strong, and apparently so much above suspicion, that I believe any one in my position would be prepared to accept it; and I am supported in that opinion by a statement made in another place by Mr. Layard, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who said that "Mr. Christie had a difference with only two of his colleagues." It appears, therefore, that it was believed at the Foreign Office that Mr. Christie had had differences with two of his colleagues; and I believe the noble Earl will not deny that he had some serious disputes and quarrels with some gentlemen attached to his mission. Those were the grounds on which I made my statement. I am perfectly ready to admit that in reading over the blue-book I ought to have paid attention to the fact that Mr. Christie appears to have had several personal conversations with the Brazilian Minister before the conversation to which I alluded. But your Lordships will see on looking over the blue-book that those conversations are marked out only by allusions and references to, and are not given in extenso; and that must be my excuse for my oversight. But all this does not appear to me to diminish or to alter in any way the gravamen of the charge which I made against Mr. Christie the other evening. The gravamen of that charge was, that after Mr. Christie had received from the noble Earl opposite permission to accept arbitration if it was offered, he did not directly at any interview, or indirectly through any third person, allow the Brazilian Minister to know that that loop-hole had been given for the settlement of the misunderstanding. The noble Earl excuses Mr. Christie by saying that he followed his instructions in that matter. So far he did, because the noble Earl did not expressly instruct him to make a communication to the Brazilian Government upon the subject. But I cannot help thinking that the excuse thus offered by the noble Earl is the result of his generosity rather than of his impartial judgment.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he must rise to order. The noble Earl had read a letter from Mr. Christie and had made observations upon it. He must put it to their Lordships whether, when the hour of commencing the ordinary debates was passed, the noble Earl ought to go into other points.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

I think it is rather discourteous of the noble Earl to interrupt me in a personal explanation; and this is, I believe, the first time I have offered such an explanation to your Lordships.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he only wished that the statement of the noble Earl should be confined to a personal explanation. But the noble Earl seemed to him to be making a new speech attacking Mr. Christie upon other points.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

said, that he was only explaining the meaning of what he had said the other evening, and stating the gravamen of the charge he then made against Mr. Christie.

THE MARQUESS OF SLIGO

said, he had unfortunately not heard the whole of the noble Earl's speech on Friday night, or he should have at once stated, from his own personal observation, that Mr. Christie was on good terms with the greater part of his colleagues. In fact, General Webb, he believed, was the only exception; and neither side of the House was inclined, he thought, to approve that gentleman's proceedings. When he was in Rio Janeiro he frequently met members of the corps diplomatique in Mr. Christie's company The English residents in Brazil, too, felt themselves perfectly safe in Mr. Christie's hands, and were grateful to him for the manner in which he discharged the duties of his mission.

EARL RUSSELL

I wish to state, my Lords, that though there was some small difference between Mr. Christie and some of his colleagues soon after his arrival in Rio, it was on a very trifling matter, was soon dispelled, and did not at all affect his personal relations with them.