The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-20 00:00:00

eight hours after the circular was tuned he i
therefore sent the following letter to Mr. Stafford:
" Somerset-house, April 21, 1852.—Sir,—You having been
pleased to inform me that great dissatisfaction existed
among your political friers is at the manner in which the
promotions, &c., were made in the dockyards, and that it
was your intention, in consequence, to cancel their lord-
ships'
circular of the 29th September, 1849, which directs
that all papers respecting vacancies and promotions should '
' be sent through the surveyor to their lordships; and as the
cancelling of this circular is the only step taken to remedy
the evil you were pleased to state existed, it can bear no
other construction th.m that of a censure on my conduct.
I must therefore beg to tender to their lordships my resig-
nation; for I can no longer continuo to hold the appoint-
ment of Surveyor of the Navy with such an imputation on my
character as that of allowing political motives to influencemy
submissions to the board.-1 have, &c. (signed) B.W.Walker.'
11 Now, if ever there was a tender of a resignation in plain
and simple terms, it was this. What became of it they
must presently inquire ; but it certainly caused some
commotion at the Board of Admiralty, anti it was found
necessary to issue another circul ir, namely, to this effect :
"Admiralty, 26th April, 1532.—Misconstruction having
arisen with reference to their lordships' circular issued on
the 19th instant, I am to acquaint you that no imputation is
intended to be cast thereby upon the Surveyor of BA Navy.
The arrangements with regard to the dockyard promotions,
as laid down by their lordships' circular of the 27th Feb-
ruary, 1517, will be strictly adhered to ; and they deem it
desirable to revert to the system then in force of having
all communications on the subject addressed to this
1 office in the first instance.—l am, &e., Aug. Stafford."
, If the circular of the 19th was not intended to cast an in-
utatiou; why had toe previous order been cancelled by the
stroke of the honourable gentleman's pen ? liea-,
bear.) At all events, he should be able to show
I that the previous one had been departed from materially.
He would refer first to Devenport. The number of persons
lentered in that yard in January,lS /2, was three; February,
three ; Burch, one; April, up to the 19th (the date of the
caw order), two; total, nine. Now, what took place after
the order? From April 10th to June there were 57 per-
suns entered. (Cheers.) From July Ist to October there
were 23, and from October to December 23, makiog in all
112. (Cheers.) And now what took place when the pre-
sent First Lord came back into office, and restored the old
system. In the month of February only one person was
entered, and in March only one more. If this was to be
a sample el what took place elsewhere, he was sure the
house would admit that he (Sir B. Hall) was
perfectly justified in bringing forward the case. (Hear.)
Ile bad • list of men who were extra-sawyers, and pail as
such, and who were removed in April, 1552, to make room
for others, for no fault as regarded their conduct in the
yard. There were eleven of those men ; one had been in
the yard between two and three years; the other ten several
months each ; and yet they had been discharged, as he was
informed, for no reason, except that it was convenient to
make room for others. Of these that came in, John Smith
and James Abbott, both Plymouth voters, were admitted
to the sawyerd through the influence of the conservatives in
that borough. Two others were admitted through the in-
fluence of the conservative candidates. His informant stated
that neither of the above Clue persons had ever been in the
yard before, so that great injustice had been done to the
men who bad been reduced. (Hear, hear.) Previous to
the cancelling of the circular iu February, March, and
April,only three persons had been entered in Plymouth-yard.
The dissolution took place at the end of J true, and the el.e-
tion for that borough about the first week in July. What
effect had that produced on the admission of persona to the
yard? From the 14th Juue to the 17th July, no less than
nineteen persons hail been entered—the election taking
place about the 11th of July. Of course, the effect of ap-
pointments of that kind in intlueucing the votes given at
elections for that place, was well known. (Hear, hear.)
But it appeared that Sir Baldwin Walker could not Tel),
well stand this sort of proceeding in the dockyards of
which he was the surveyor, and he wrote a fetter to
the Duke of Northumberland, which contained all the
charges against the late secretary of the board—for he
' Sir B. Hall) made none. Fourteen days after their
' lordships' order of 1849 was cancelled, and twelve days
' after the circular of the secretary,. Sir B. Walker
wroto thus to the Duke of Northumberland :
. ,I

, May 10, 1852.—My Lord Duke,—l feel
that I should be neglecting my duty were I not to point out
to your Greco the evil system which has been pursued of ,
late, not only with respect to my position as Surveyor of
the Navy, but also with reference to the appointments and
promotions in the dockyards. Your Grace is aware that
the Secretary of the Admiralty thought proper to cancel,
without the knowledge of the board, their lordships' circu-
lar of September 29, 1819, which directs that all papers
reepeoting promotions and vacancies in the duckyards
should be sent through the surveyor to their lordships;
this order of 1819 was only reverting to a system which
Lad always been in force prier to 1815, and which was then
discontinued, I have reason to believe, on personal grounds.
The abolition of a system which was found to work well
fat upwards of three years, causing an annual saving of
130,0001. in the wages of the artificers ef the dockyards, in-
dependent of upwards of 60,0001. in the ream factories,
without impairing the efficiency of those establishments,
must be prejudicel to the public interest, and has tended
much to lower the position of the surveyor. Now there is
no one to control the establishments, and the surveyor can
no longer be held responsible fur the estimates not being ex-
ceeded, or can he be answerable fur the efficiency of those
establishments; fir the board's admirable circular of Feb-
ruary, 1817, welch directs that all advancement in the
dockyards shall be for merit alone,has been virtually thrown
aside; vacancies have been filled up which were not acres-
I eery, and men advanced, not for merit, but by political
effluence ; and in one iestance a person has been promoted
who is not competent to fill the situation to which he has
been appointed; and that was done without any reference
having been male tu the superintendent of the yard. Hav-
ing stated thus much, I think it right to inform your
Grace that I attribute the inconsiderate manner in which I
have beeu put aside by the Secretary of the Admiralty to
my unqualified refusal to depart from their lordships' cir-
cular of February, 1817, by lending myself to recommend
me for advancement oa political grounds. In conclusion,
1 beg to assure you, my lord duke, that I have mai° this
statement from no personal motives, my only wish being the
public geed, and that your Grace's administration should
not be tarnished.—l have, &c., (signed) B. W. Walker.'
(Cheers.) That letter did honour to the man who wrote
it. (Cheers.) Sir B. Walker said that the Secretary of
the Admiralty had thought proper to cancel the order A ith-
out their lordships' approval, and yet his letter pur-
ported to be signed "By their lordships' command."
(Hear, hear.) This letter seemed, as far as the records of
the Admiralty were concerned, not to have been noticed.
(Hear, hear.) It wee true it might not, in strict official
routine, be an official letter, but it looked very much like
it. This was a letter from the most important officer in the
naval department addressed to the first minister of that de-
partment, calling his attention to what the writer °end-
dered a grievance and an imposition en the public ; and at
all events it deserved notice, and an answer of some kind.
On the 23rd of November last some questions were
put to the honourable gentleman (Mr. Stafford) by
Admiral Berkeley and Sir G. Pechell. On referring
to Bantered 'of that date, he found that Admiral
Berkeley put three questions, the second of which, as
connected with this suijeet, he would read, with the hon.
gentleman's answer. The question was as fellows:—
" Whether the present Board of Admiralty, soon after their
accession to office, gave directions that the names of the
workmen and art fleets, recommended for promotion, were
to be sent direct to the Secretary to the Admiralty instead
of being first submitted to the Surveyor of the Navy, as had
been previously the rule ? Whether any correspondence
took place with the Surveyor in cons. quence of such order,
and whether such order is still in force ?" " Mr. Stafford
said he had to state that he supposed the hon. and gallant
gentleman alluded, in the wording of his question, to the
arrangenient made by Mr. Ward, in 1847. The arrange-
ment, which was first made when the Navy Pay-office was
consolidated with the Board of Admiralty, in 1813, con-
firmed in 1844, and assumed to be in existence in 1847,
when Mr. Ward issued his last regulatioa, was still in force,
and had not been at all disturbed by the present Board of
Admiralty. There was no correspondence with the Sur-
veyor of the Navy on the subject." Immediately after that
Sir G. Pechell put another question, which was not to be
found in Hansard, though many hon. members would re-
collect its being put. It was very similar in all the morning
papers ; he would take it from one which was more espe-
cially the organ of the opinions of the hon. gentleman :
" Sir G. Peettell wished to know whether or not it was
truo that the Surveyor of the Navy had tendered
his resignation to the Board ?" " Mr. Stafford
replied that he had not tendered his resignation."
Now, he wanted to clear up what seemed to be a mystery
, or discrepancy of acme kind. Sir Baldwin Walker, in has'
; letter of the `2lst April, used these words:—" 1 must there-
; fere beg to tender to their lordships my resignation." This
letter was addressed to the secretary, though it was not to
be found in the records of the Admiralty. The evidence
before the Chatham election committee contained a refer-
ence to this subject. The Surveyor of the Navy was eel-
, mined, and ho stated that, in consequenco of the circular
issued on the 19th of April, 1852, he wrote the letter of
the 21st of April-48 hours afterwards—and gave it into
; the hands of Admiral Parker, then and now' Lord of the
Admiralty, and that he had no conception whatever that
that letter had not been laid bane the board, until he saw
by the public papers that a question had been put in the
, House of Commons, and an answer given which showed
that no correspondence had taken place between him and
i the Huard of Admiralty, and that no resignation hail been
• tendered oil his part. Ile (Sir B. Hall) would nut cour-
t tilted on this pert of the subject; he wished not to pre-
. jetties the question, but merely to have a candid explana-
' dun of the whole. lie stood not there to make charges, but
to ask the house that on inquiry should take place. But
• he might ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stafford) whether
i this letter of Sir Baldwin Walker did reach the board—
; whether the hon. gentleman recollected ever seeing it or
t hearing its contents; and, if so, if that was before the 23rd
• of November. If he had no knowledge of its existence or
contents, ho would further sole him whatever induced the
• Board of Admiralty, on the 26th April, 18.52, a very few
• days after the receipt of this letter of Sir Baldwin Walker,
to issue the circular bearing Mr. Stafford's signature, and
, which said that no imputation whatever was intended to be
cast upon the Surveyor of the Navy. (Hear, hear.) Ile
now came to the ease of cancelling the appointment of
• Wells, and the appointment of Mr. Cetsell in his place.
t Sir B. Walker stated, in hi• evidence before the Chatham
, Election Committee, that it hal been di•terrnined in August
i last that the vacancy for a mister smith at Portsmouth
I should be tilled by the appointment of a competent person
t from the private trade; and he writes a letter of the 9th
. e 1 S ptemher to the hen gi ntleertn, in which he s iye :
• With ref retire to the accompeueing letter from th .14-
I miral superintendent at Portemoutli, and to their lord-hips'
decision that an experienced master smith be appointed to
• Portsmouth yard from tho private tunic, I beg to state that