The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-22 00:00:00

THE LATE CAPTAIN CHRISTIE.

Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice that to-morrow he should
move for copies of all papers relating to the conduct of
the late Captain Christie as commander of transports in
the Black Sea, and the date at which those papers were
received at the Admiralty ; also for copies of all letters
from Sir J. Graham, as First Lord of the Admiralty,
regarding an inquiry into the conduct of Capt. Christie,
and the date of those papers from the Admiralty ; also
copy of an order from Sir J. Graham ordering a court-
martial, and the date of the same order.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he knew not if it was quite re-
gular that he should address the house on a notice of
motion, but under the peculiar circumstances of the
case, and as it was a matter personally affecting one of
its members, he hoped the house would extend to him
that courtesy which he now claimed. (Hear, hear.)
The house would remember that, on the motion for ad-
journment on Friday last, the hon. member for Ayles-
bury (Mr. Layard) made some comments, and in a most
pointed manner alluded to him (Sir J. Graham). He
had not the slightest intention of addressing the house
on that occasion ; but the allusions were suph that he
thought it absolutely necessary he should rise in his
place. He had not had access to any official docu-
ments, and he had no opportunity of referring to
dates, and without the least premeditation he addressed
the house, according to his impression at the moment.
He stated what he strongly believed, that, considering
the freedom of debate in this house, that hon. members,
in exercising that freedom, should use the utmost caution
with respect to the accuracy of the statements they
make, and also that it was incumbent on them, when any
error in any statement they make should be brought to
their knowledge, they should take the earliest opportunity
of correcting it ; and he was of opinion that unless that
course be pursued by all hon. members that freedom of
debate would be brought into disrepute in that house.
Now, without any opportunity being offered him by.t e
hon.'member for Aylesbury in private, orany explanwathioicn,
and this being the very first day after the debate to
_rh
he referred that the house sat, the hon. member PI .
eLraryoraridn)
tthheousgtahtte,maenndt twhohuieghhtherig(shitrly.r,
.thaGraham)
wa s
made ah ne
on Friday last—to his surprise the first intimation
in
eomnbe e or! the publicn g
receiveda
letterw as
signedreading thhyi s
papers tinheorhnoinng.
ohpiipno(rStuirnjity. oGfrtaenhadmeringi na
nhisplacei explanation.n the
hHe e shousetated aiialsoany
that when any explanation should be required of any
hon. member with reference to any error he tu
impressedt
I haveh
been led into, he did not th;nk want of courtesy in ad-
dressing him was any excuse fosrtttinagatlydmeebmy the hon
not ac-
knowledgingtheepieien
thisha et r rtohre.
statement
member for Aylesbury Hehad been
was strongly
made
of ntlixoeoisieingsgioant•
before Christmas. He bad no opportunity
authoritative records at the time he made his statement.
[The right lion. bart. here read a portion of Mr. Layard's
letter on this subject, published in to-day's Times.] Now
e
fortunately for him (Sir J. Graham) he was i
tion to show that the error (pointed out that letter)
c
was perfectly unintentional on his part, if it were neces-
sary to give that assurance with proof ; but before the
Sebastopol Committee be w
be
which
produced the original document
from the Admiralty,
into the conduct of ch order was given to inquire
dated the 28th Captain
committed C Christie, which order was
December, 1854. (The right hon. baro-
net read the order, which alluded to the grave error
Captain Christie is heading some Turf it h
- - -

troops to Balaklava instead of to Eupatoria, and wit
reference to his general conduct.) That was the order
which he produced in the original before the committee.
After the conclusion of the debate on Friday he had
reason to believe he had made an incorrect statements
and he wrote to the First Lord of the Admiralty
asking him to furnish him (Sir James Graham)
with copies of the official documents, which, how-
ever, he had no!-, received, but, on referring to
the letter he had read before the Sebastopol
committee, and the despatch to Admiral Lyons on his
assuming the command of the fleet, and that his
power extended to the dismissal of any officer under
him, .he found it bore date the 3d of January ;
and though he had not seen the official answers to that
order, he had no doubt the removal of Capt. Christie did
take place in consequence of that order. He had now
stated to the house exactly the error he com-
mitted in that respect. With reference to the trial
ruert-tmhaertisael,basrta(t)phoelr
Ctohman.
mittee, he begged to say—and he spoke only from,
tohfatChapetasin
recollection—that Admiral Lyons having removed Cap-
houlCdhraips
tain Christie from his command, and appointed another
IPieea r bybe
officer as his successor, the Admiralty had reason to be-
Few) Captain Christie was about to call at Malta on his
return to England, and the Admiralty being of opinion
that, under the circumstances under which he had been
removed, it would be fairer to Captain Christie that
lie should have the opportunity of vindicating
his
conduct bebeforea Court-martial, issued the order for his.
return from Malta to 13ala1tlava early in February. Again
before the appointment of the Sebastopol Committee, be
(Sir James Graham) had the strongest opinion that
the fairest course to be adopted towards Captain
Christie was that his conduct should be submitted
to a trial by his brother ofneers, who would be able
committed,
pwaraastitoontahkee
to sympathise with his feelings,
and best understand
the real merits or demerits of his conduct, and that was
the only object he (Sir James Graham) had. He thought
the uly
outs
couldhee_ e(ahmrelaai error
ekrlet_fooaprnpdoarnitfuwniy t
o he he e
stat-
inghhaa that error to the hhad
stated bad inflicted any wrong on
these in his place he stated hisregr the hon. member,
et and acknowledged
his error. (Hear.) The hon. member had done that in
a printed paper which he could not do in the house : he
hadimputed motives to him (Sir James Graham)
to enable him to screen his conduct, which
he assured the house was quite alien' to his
feelings. The cause of the hon. member's conduct in
doing so he (Sir J. Graham) would not stop to inquire
into. It was to be regretted the hon. member should
have imputed deliberate falsehood to him, but he threw
himself on the indulgence of the house, after having had
the honour of a seat in it for 37 years, whether he could
for one moment.venture to impose on the house in the
manner the hon. member had imputed. (Hear.),