The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-19 00:00:00

here of this house, and both in the prqp.si4n ,f which
C sp+ain Christie was a r, and 1 will nn.!e, A:3 to
say that the ar.n who lo,ks tim young.st :f the two is five
years oiler than the other. Any number of members of
this house would take the younger man to be the elder of
the two. Such a mistake one of us might easily 'hake. The
hon. member for .ylesbury has seen Captain Christie,and
we have not, The hon. member's opinion was that Capt.
Christie was a man about 70 years of age. He made that
statement. He was making a speech in the house—he was
excited by what he had seen at Balaklava, and we were
excited by what we had heard from the seat of war. But
what was the conduct of the hon. gentleman afterwards ?
At the very moment when Le received a letter from Cap-
tain Christie he wrote to that officer's agent in the most
frank term% What would havetbeen thought of the hon.
member if he had come down to this house, and asked the
house to notice particularly the fact that he had said
an officer was 70 years of age, but had since had a letter
from that ofiller, stating that he was not more than 60?
There would have been laughter from both sides of
the house, and that, would be the end of the affair. (Hear.)
My, own opinion is, that the hon.. member for Aylesbury
has only done that which a, y man may do, and rightly do,
who feels that at the head of a public department is a man
who is incompetent to fulfil his duty. And when a man
does that —for no one charges the hon. member with hav-
ing personal hostility to Captain Christie—if he has made
his statement in fulfilment of his public duty, what is to
become of us members of this house if there is to be a
weekly, fortnightly, or monthly hunt in this house on a
motion for adjourning the debate. Every one after this
discussion will come to the conclusion that the house is
treating the hon. member with rather less of that genero7
sity and fairness which are the usual characteristics of the
house, and it is for that purpose I have risen to make these
few observations.

Sir J. GRAHAM—Sir, I am extremely anxious that this
discussion, which is of a most painful character, should
not be unnecessarily prolonged. But I must say it is not
the character alone of the hon. member for Aylesbury that
is concerned ; a debt of justice is due to the memory of a
gallant man. (Hear, hear.) 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 die-
cussing, for though it is no longer possible to render a
tribute of justice, which might soothe the feelings of a
gallant man now no more; still there is a debt of justice
due to those relatives who feel the greatest interest in all
that happens. Sir, I alone am responsible for the ori-
gival appointment of Captain Christie. He was unknown
to me except by reputation. He bore a high and spot-
less character in his gallant profession ; he had served
well and honourably, and he was recommended to me as
fully competent for the situation to which I appointed
him. I believe the first serious question raised with re-
spect to his competency was raised in this house by the
honourable member for Aylesbury. Certainly, sir, I
shall not attempt to give evidence as to the precise words
used by the honourable member on that occasion ; but
it will be in the recollection of the house that the
allusions to Captain Christie by the hon. member were
very disparaging—namely, that he was an old man, a
sickly man—(uo, and cheers)—and as such was unfit for
his duty. (No.) I certainly 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 2411 unfit person had been appointed at a crisis of
public affairs to fill a most important situation? I have
said this matter deeply grieved me. I had heard too
much clamour with regard to this officer, and I ordered
inquiry to bo instituted after that debate by the Com-
mander-in-Chief on the naval .station whether, in his
' opinion Captain Christie had effectually and well dis-
charged the duties of the station to, which he had been
appointed. Two faults, and only two, to the best of my
recollection, were alleged with respect to the manner
Captain Christie had conducted his duties. The first re-
lated to the discretion exercised by him with refer-
ence to the transports outside the harbour on the 14th
of November, the day of the heavy storm, and incidentally
another question arose, which the right hon. baronet
alluded to, 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 Ennatoria. Having received an
answer and an inquiry, instead of handing Capt. Christie
over to the committee on `which the hon. member sits, I
thought it more just, and on the whole better, to
submit the conduct of a gallant officer to the cn-
stitnted tribunal of his brother officers, that they should
investigate 113% charges and pronounce an opinion on
Captain Christie's conduct. This, I thought, would be
better than to submit Captain Christie to the ordeal the
hon. member wished him to susteio. For that I am respon-
sible. I did not wish Captain Chi istie to return to England
to be examined, but that he should be tried by court-
martial. Hero is the point. I had reason to believe that
the bitter and cruel suspense in which Capt. Christie was
placed—finding himself superseded and ordered to be tried
by court martial, coupled with the statement made in that
house so disparaging to him, broke the heart of a gallant
man ; and when in the committee I said I did believe that
Capt. Christie's death was in consequence of the circum-
stances I have stated The hon. member says when he re-
ceived a letter from Capt. Christie's brother, stating cir-
cumstances so minute as to prove the errors into which he
had fallen, that he had not answered that letter. And
what is his allegation ? Why, that when he received a
letter from Capt. Christie's brother, who was on the spot,
correcting two errors as contrary to fact, and injirious to
the character of an absent man—he found that letter
couched in terms so offensive as to preclude him from
doing justice to that absent man. Now, I appeal to this
house to say if that is not a dangerous doctrine to put
forward, coupled with the facts of the case. It is a
doctrine the honourable member on reflection will not,
I feel assured, adhere te. (Hear, hear.) With respect to
what fell from me on the committee, I sincerely thank
the right honourable gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) tor
doing me justice. I brought charges against no one. I felt
regret for what was demanded of me. I said, and looked
steadily at the hon. member, that Captain Christie died a
broken-hi arted man. I considered that what the hon. mem-
ber said in the house of Captain Christie was unjust to a
gentleman. I believe the statement had the worst effect on
the health of a gallant officer, and I do think that the lesson
ought not to be thrown away with reference to future
charges; that allegations against the character of absent
men ought not to be brought forward on light grounds,
and that when errors are proved to have been committed,
there will be no hesitation in frankly acknowledging them.
Mr. ROEBUCK—As chairman of the Sebastopol com-
mittee, I hope the house will excuse me if I say a few words
on the subject. I think there is something peculiar in the
expressions used by the right bon. gentleman the member
for Carlisle. The charge against the hon. member for Ayles-
bury is that in his opinion Captain Christie was about 70
years of age, and in his opinion incapable of performing his
duty. Hereupon the right hon. gentleman the member for
Carlisle thought it within the scope of his daty to desire
an inquiry by court-martial to be held into Capt. Christie's
conduct. During that inquiry two circumstances came to
the knowledge of the right hon. baronet, which caused him
to order a court-martial. These two circumstances were not
mentioned by the hon. member for Aylesbury. The first was,
that Capt. Christie by his conduct conduced to the less of
the Prince. The second was, that instead of sending troops
to Enpatoria he sent them to Balaklava. These two cir-
cumstances were, in the opinion of the right hon. baronet,
so grave that he superseded Capt. Christie and ordered a
court-martial. Then the right hon. baronet tells us that in
giving his evidence before the committee, he did fix his eye
on the hon. member for Aylesbury, proving thereby that
the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich is mis-
takee. Sitting there wholly unconcerned he thought, and
I thought, that the right hon. baronet was merely giving
effect to his statement of a fact, but the right hon. baronet
the member for Carlisle now says that he gave a siguficant
statement, and that he intended to convey to the hail,
member for Aylesbury that Captain Christie had died of a
broken heart in consequence of the conduct of the hon.
member for Aylesbury. If Captain Christie died of a
broken heart, what broke his heart? Because he was su-
perseded and ordered to be tried by'a court-martial. What
caused him to be superseded and to be tried by a court-
martial? The right hon. baronet has told us. The cir-
cumstances that led to his being superseded, and to his
trial, by court-martial, did not ails° out of the state-
ment of the hon. member for Aylesbury. The statement
was that he was an old man. I never heard that such
a statement could ever be considered a charge. If it
is a charge, it i 3 one to which I hope we nay all he
liable. But it is surely becoming the generosity of
the house, before' visiting any meffiber with its displea-
sure, to consider well the cause of displeasure. What is
the accusation against the hon. member for Aylesbury ?
He said that Captain Christie was 70 years old—
decrepid—or if he did not say decrepid, he implied it, and
that from his age ho was incapable of performing his'duty.
Judging of the man from his appearance, the hon. member
for Aylesbury said that he was 70 years old, and also, judg-
ing from appearances, that he was unfit to perform the
duties of the office imposed upon him. That is the sum
total of what the hon. member said. ' Then the hon. mem-
ber says that the hon. member for Aylesbury received let-
ters and did not answer them. He has told you that of
the letter from the sister of Captain Christie he is wholly
ignorant. (Cries of no.) The hon. member tells me so.
Of the letter which he received from the brother of Capt.
Christie he has told you that he conceived the opening sen-
tence of it to be so discourteous and disparaging that he
thought it (lid not merit an answer. To the letter of
Captain Christie himself • the hon. member did send an
answer, admitting that he had been inaccurate about the
age of Captain Christie, but that he was not prepared to
retract the opinion which he had formed of being in-
capable to perform his duty. Is this, then, a statement,
which calls on the house to visitthe hon. member with that
sort of displeasure which it has manifested to-night—a dis-
pleasure which could not have been more severe if the hen.
member had been guilty of some dishonourable act. Hon.
members may dissent from the opinion that a statement
about age is not dishonourable, but that'does not meet any
view of what is dishonourable. It appears to me that Capt.
Christie was deeply wounded from what occurred, but for
what occurred I hold the right hon. baronet the member
for Carlisle responsible, and not the hon. member for
Aylesbury. His being superseded, and being ordered to
be 'tried by a court-martial were the two events that cut
to the heart of Captain Christie, and for those two events
the sight hon. baronet is responsible. One point has been
omitted, but I think it due to the honourable member to
make the statement on his behalf. The right honourable
gentleman said that he was unwilling to subject Captain
Christie to the ordeal which the hon. member desired.
There have been both nobletnen and gentlemen before
that committee—the honourable member for Aylesbury
was brought into contact with them, I use that term—and.
carefully abstained from putting questions to those gentle-
men. The right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich
will bear me out when I say that the hon. gentleman need
not have been afraid of that ordeal. It is 'an ordeal which
the right hon. baronet has gone through himself, and I
think he has not suffered materially from it. (Hear.)
Admiral BERKELEY thought he might be considered
as good a judge of the character of Captain Christie and of
his professional abilities as the hon. gentleman ; and he
felt bound to say, though the right hen letronet the mem-
ber for Carlisle had taken the responsibility of the appoint-
ment, that he shared the responsibility, for the right. hon.
baronet had consulted the board before making it. No
than more desired a court-martial than Captain Christie
himself. It ought not-to be said that the right hod. ba-
ronet, in carrying out the rules of the service, was in any
way thecense of the death of the gallant officer in questi n. •
Rather let it be said of those who malignantly attacked a
man behind his back. Why had not the hon. member, when
called upon by that touching letter of Captain Christie's
sister, done that which every honourable man would have
done, answered the letter- and relieved h(r mind ? The
efficiency of the service was what the Admiralty locked to
in their appointments, and he must say an unprejudiced
from the appearance of
cpearpsto,,ninweouhlriils
thiea,vtehsaatichl
ejun'adsgirnegther 45 than 70.
Mr OTWAY said he had no doubt the hon. !somber for
Aylesburyp t a in
Christie'! b
bad
duties,rivedh tendi3in h
fctruso wayAti orr
in w
as to the naturetbyet
ha
Ca
been performed, from military authorities on the spot. He
trusted the hon. member would not be deterred from ex-
posing the Monstrous abuses is our military system, fear lie