The Press.
London, England, 1853-05-28 00:00:00

P. 1.1

MAY 28, 1853

and labour in converting the bloeks of foreign
marble into the broad leaves. which are again
wrought for all domestic purposes.
But now the three-shilling tint y on foreign
marble slabs is to cease. And the result will be
that inasmuch KS the stone can be saWII by
water power at the quarries, and transported
cheaper in slabs than in blcks. the suppl y eren
the raw material is likely to cease altogether, and
England will henceforth import only the manu-
factured article. Again the public may, per-
haps. gain somewhat in the cheapness of their
fixture supply ; but meanwhile what is to com-
pensate the marble manufacturers of England
for their useless machinery, their idle estab-
lishments, and stranded industry?

THE DOCKYARD COMMITTEE REPORT.
Utirn. the whole of the evidence in this par-
tisan inquiry is officially published, we are
not (as we stated in our last number) in a po-
sition to do justice to the labours of the inqui-
sitors, and we must leave for a while their
judicial farce in the hands of its party managers
and its elagneues of the press. It will not be
long before we obtain au opportunity of dis-
posing, of our aceumulated arrears in this
behalf. The inquiry has wider bearings than
those assigned to it by premature malice in the
guise of precocious virtue; and while we hope,
in due course, to estimate these impartially,
we can, at the same time, do justice to the
merits of its conductors and critics. For the
present we content ourselves with the hum-
bler duty of analysing the Report and dis
posing of its principal statements.
The Report itself was not only presented
but read in the House on Monday last—an
unusual occurrence, which we owe to the zeal
of Sir G. PErucia. for the public service, a zeal
which has bespoken its reward in due season
The Report, commences with what professes
to be a resume of Lord AUCKLANDS circular of
dockyard regulations, whereby three names for
promotion are submitted to the Superinten-
dent. When he has redueed them to two, tO
quote the words of the report, " the report of
the Superintendent, containing his opinion of
the merits of the candidates, with the original
documents annexed, is then to be forwarded
to the Admiralty, and the Lords of the
Admiralty announce their intention to be
guided by these reports in the seleetion of
one front the two names submitted to till the
vacancy." This professes to be a fair state-
meta, of, if not an actual quotation from,
Lord AUCKLAND'S regulations. Let us now
tarn to the regulations themselves. These
are the words:—" The Superintendent having
reduced the list of candidates to two, by
omitting the one he thinks least qualified,
one of the names thus sent up be appointed by
board order to fill the vacant. y." Why could not
the Report have stated this? A discretion is
hcreby given to the Admiralty, and in the exer-
cise of that discretion either name may be
taken. Mr. STAFFORD'S offence is, not that
he passed over both names, but that in one
case out of six or eight, or even ten, he chose
the second name, as we believe Mr. Wmin had
done before him, and us every Admiralty under
the Auckland regulations had a perfect right to
do. We have quoted the very words themselves of
of the regulations—why did not the committee in
their Report do the same? The committee states
that, during the early part of the year 1849, as
well as some years previous, a practice had pre-
vailed of transmitting to the Surveyor of the
Navy the reports and reeommendations from
the Dockyard Superintendents. We must wait
for the evidence on this subject. All we know
at present is, that such a 'statement is in direct
contradiction to the declaration made in the
House of Commons on the 19th by Mr. Cum,

THE PRESS.

who had himself been Secretary to the Admi-
ralty for five years, who said " that it always
" was the practice for the Superintendents of
the Dockyards to make their report s. not to
" the Surveyor of the Navy, as was established
by the circular of INV, but to the Secretary
"of the Admiralty He was, therefore, anti-
•• tied to give to the statement of Sir B. WALKER
'• the most unqualified contradiction.'
We next come to the words attributed to
Mr. STAFFORD by Sir BALDWIN WALKER, and
denied by Mr. STAFFORD himself. Admiral
PARKER, who made no mention of these in his
own e vidence, was asserted by Sir BALDWIN
WALKER to have heard them, and Admiral
Berkeley, who was not present when the words
were alleged to have been spoken, was intro-
duced to confirm this assertion. To most
people the obvious plan would have been to
weal Admiral PARKER himself—according to
the rule of courts of law, that second-hand evi-
dence is not admissible while direct evi-
dence is procurable ; but, as Admiral PARKER
had already contradicted Sir BALDWIN WALKER
on another important subject at his first
examination, the connnittee probably took the
more prudent course hi not recalling him.
But here we may properly wait for the evidence.
In all the reports of the Duke Or NORTHUMIIER-
LASIis evidence the, appointment of Admiral
PARKER Was said to be essenti ally non-political ,
yet, here, wehavo mum, who had been Super-
intendent of a Dockyard, hearing an announce-
ment made by the Secretary to the Admiralty
that the leathers of his Government in both
Houses had determined un making the wheat,
navy subservient to political purposes, and
he not only does not resign or bring
the muter before the board, or resist the
circular of the 26th of April ; but he simply
does nothing. We are therefore reduced to
the dilemma of concluding that no such lan-
guage was uttered, or that Admiral PARKER, in
signal dereliction of his duty, took the com-
promising responsibility of vassing it over in
silence.
The Ridgway ease has been already debated
in the House of Commons. RIDGWAY was
twit in turn for promotion, and was accord-
ingly promoted on probation, not even for six
months, us is usual, but for no specified
time ; and Captain RICHARDS was told it
would be his duty to report of RtDuwAT
when found inefficient. Did Captain RICHARDS
report at the end of one month, or three, or
six? No; but, when rumours reached Chat-
ham of the appointment of a committee, then
the incompetency of poor RIDGWAY became
obvious at. once.

" Thum wretelici hang that jurymen may dine."

We may wait meanwhile to see by the evidence,
not whether Sir I'lm :ow SMITH applied in
behalf of RIDOWAY, but whether 114 l OWAY wars
either stated to have applied, or did apply
himself, to Sir FREDERIC SMITH.

The committee repeatedly asked Mr. STAF-
FORD to state any facts which had made him
desirous of cancelling the circular of 1 8 19, but
Mr. STAFFORD could not give facts without
names ; and names, under the existing system
of dockyard discipline, could wit be given
without injury to those who bad trusted him,
and with whom he had acted confidentially.
Mr. STAFFORD here laboured under the disad-
vantage of respect for that code which has
still some cogency with gentlemen, anti may
naturally have considered that the number of
base betrayals of confidence and cowardly
evasi4 MS 4if reSIIOUSiI Alit y bel, ore the eommittee
was amply sufficient without contribution from
him.

75

With regard to the letter of resignation, as
Mr. STAFFORD is said to be " in no way remain
sible," we presume whatever responsibility
exists is to be borne by AdDural PARKER. Sir
BALDWIN WALKER states confidently that the
Duke is in error, &e. ; but then, as it seems to
us, Sir Miami% WALKER eontratlicts everybody
except Mr. WALTER EDEN.
The Letter of the 10th of May can only be
judged of when tile evidenee appears. The
committee do not allude to the tinaneial part
of it, but we cannot doubt for a moment that
Sir BALDWIN WALKER has fully explained it to
them—though we have not yet met with any
other person who could pretend to a like
facility.
" Apprehension," -humiliation," " dismay,"
and " disgust" are the terms in which several
officers are reported to have observed upon the
course of promotion in the doiskyards during
last sunmier ; and " one officer of high stand-
ing in the navy. and supreme at the Admi-
ralty, hail power to cheek these proceedings."
What proceedings, we ask? If, when
the evidence is printed, it should appear
that the regulatimis of lt.l-17 were nut
infringed—that the question of first entries
was maintained, as in justice it ought to be—
that the establishments were not inereased
beyond the legitimate requirements of the
serviee—and that the wages vote was never in
the slightest danger of being exeeeded—then
nothing remains of these two paragraphs but
a piece of fine writing on the part of a civilian
committee, and some highly nautieal terms on
the part of the Superintendents, and of out'
iiTemoveable Sail friend, Admiral PARKER,
whose eomments, we conceive, were not in-
tended to apply when, they would tell with
most point—to the ease Of the FIRMIRAND.
Mr. Groom.: Carsemp, was not named through
political influenee ; fur, as the report itself
stated, he made all application IlilllSelf in the
spring of itce.t, which was forwarded officially,
and he therefore had a right to name the subs
.feet afterwards as he did. Every reason was
in his favour: his great abilities, his long ser-
vice, his excellent character, his high testimo-
nials ; when his was appointed, the Board of
Admiralty were in utter ignorance of any com-
munication whatever having been made to Mr.
WELLS. True it is that Mr. Comm.'. presumed
to entertain political opinions at variance with
those of Admiral STIIII.INo. Mr. Collo:Ws fate,
therefore, will be a salutary warning, in a
Liberal or, rather, a Coalition sense, to every
i employe at Chatham or elsewhere.
In regard to being accompanied by candi-
dates at Chatham, Deptfrd, and BOVOllllort,
turd in regard to having invited six political
gentlemen to dine at the latter place, Mr.
STAFFORD has admitted that his conduct may
have been imprudent in comng political
partisans, in any proportion, with the guests
whom he may have been expected to invite
officially, although no political objects were
promoted thereby, and no political topies
were discussed upon the occasion. We hope
Mr. T UFNEI.I. Was equally contrite about " the
pew," the time and place appearing to us to
render such contrition necessary.
As far as we have gone, then, we have ex.
pressed our opinion upon all the statements
of the Committee's ItepOrt. It is another
question, which we shall hereafter return to,
why those statements 11113 ItollfillVll to the 'pro-
ceedings of the late Hoard of Admiralty, and
have so eonveniently stopped short of !malted-
ings more instrnetive and revelations more pi-
quant. Why would they iiiii receive the whole itf Mr.
Beer'x evidence ! As the ChANcm.i.oh of the
EXCHEQUER relllarked on Monday night, in
answer to Colonel DuNxE,—" Of course, if in
" a matter I,t' figures all the items on one side
" were struck out, you might come to any
" result you desired." The Committee, MI
doubt, have roue to the result they desired, as
far as their combined courage and inelinutipsio
would permit ; and they have done so by s
similar process to that of Colonel DUNNK, with
out the benefit of a similar criticism from tie