The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

THE COMMITTEE ON DOCKYARD PRO-

MOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS.
Yesterday, leave having been given by the House
of Lords for his Grace the Duke of Northumberland, late
First Lord of the Admiralty, to attend and be examined
before the committee, the committee room was crowded at
an early hour.
The noble duke arrived soon after 11 o'clock. Instead
' of occupying the witness seat, hie grace by some accident
found himself in a seat at the table of the committee, and
was by no means very audible, at intervals, in the delivery
of his evidence.
The Chairman (Lord Seymour), in addressing his lord-
ship, said—Will your grace atato to the committee what
was the date of your accession to office ?—I think it was on
the 2nd or 3rd of March, 11352.
Had you previously held any situation in any department
of any previous government ?—Never.
From the commencement of superintending the adminis-
tration of the Admiralty, were any arrangements made as
to the distribution 'of its patronage among the lords and
Secretary of the Admiralty ?—There was; and I believe it
has always been the custom among the different members
of the board and among the different lords. I, for my
own part, took all the naval and military patronage, and
gave up the civil patronage to the secretary.
You gave up all the civil patronage to the secretory?—
Yes, excepting the master-shipwrights, and one class of
memangere, which I reserved for deserving soldiers atd

marines.
Is your Grace aware whether it had been the custom
before to give up the appointment of the principal officers
in the dockyards to the secretary ?—I never inquired ; I
had no knowledge on• the subject either one way or the
the other. I may mention that Lord Ellecborougtt told me
he never knew anything about the private patronage, but I
only say that from hearsay.
Then the committee are to understand that it was with
your sanction Mr. Stafford had almost all the dockyard ap-
pointments?—The whole of them, except in cases where it
would be an honour conferred on a master shipwright that
be should receive the appointment from the head of the
establishment. I only reserved it for that reasen, that it
might be considered a degree of honour for a master ship-
wright so to receive it
It appears from the evidence that on April 2, 18.52, Mr.
Stafford wrote a letter to the Surveyor of the Navy, in
which he stated there seemed no alternative but to resume
the system that existed previous to September, 1819, and
pointing to cancelling the circular of Sir Francis Baring of
September, 1849. Now, I wish to ask your grace whether
you Lad given any directions to Mr. Stafford before he wrote
that letter ?—None. I may mention that Mr. Stafford at
various times had conversations with ma on the subject. I
do not know whether the committee would wish to know
what these representations were, but the letter was written
without my knowledge, and without my knowing anything
about it.
Then your lordship had not considered, either one way or
, the other, the expediency of cancelling the circular of Sep-
tember, 1849 ?—I had not.
Was it represented to you by Mr. Stafford in theta conver-
sations that the surveyor's department appeared to use in-
fluence in favour of any political party'--The conversations
were at various times, for many mornings, when he came to
me, and they were to the effi et that he was responsible for
all the patronage of the Admiralty—that he felt waifficulty
in doing his duty—that when celled upon by the govern-
ment or by the House of Commons to explain anything for
which he was responsible, he had not the means of answer-
ing, the whole of the aprointments end patronage being in
the surveyor's office. He told me also that the patronage
of the Admiralty was used against the government; and
lastly, the last time he spoke of it he said that he felt he
had not the power of doing his duty, and that he could
not retain his office under the circumstances, mention-
ing it only in conversation ; and he told me that his office
was of little value to him. I always refused to interfere,
for want of experience. I had not sufficient experience, and
therefore refused to interfere.
Hearing it stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty that
the patronage of the Admiralty was given to political ad-
versaries, did your grace institute any inquiry on the subject
at the time ?—None whatever; and I never, from the day
I was in office to the day I left it, inquired whether the
patronage was in the hands of the surveyor, or whether it
was in the hands of the secretary. I never knew anything
about it. It was never brought to my knowledge by the
parties. I knew nothing whatever about it.
Ilad your grace any reason that induced you to distrust
the surveyor of the navy in his department ?-1 hail only
the representation of the secretary, who was a member of
the government, and who was responsible to the House of
Commons. If he made representations, whatever the
representations may be, I supposed he had grounds for thou
representations, for I never inquired. I refused to interfere
because I had not sufficient experience.
Did not year grace consider it very prejudicial to the in-
terests of the service that there should be even an imputa-
tion against the surveyor's department of the exercise of
political favouritism ?-1: might be so against any depart-
ment. I have been now 50 years in the navy, and I never
heard but one story told of the same system of government
influence and jobbing, as it is called, in the dockyards having
always prevailed. It was a matter of common notoriety,
as
I far as I know.
Did your grace take into consideration the circular that
I had been isued by Lord Auckland, and written by Mr.
Ward, with a view to preventing jobbing in the dockyards ?
—lprd Aukisud's regulations were excellent—they wer •
xcellent ; and I miy mention that the effect of the minutes
was to return to Lord Auckland's regulations.
But Lord Auckland's regulations state that the good or
bad working of any system must depend in a great measure
on those entrusted wih the administration now, when it
was represented to your grace that the surveyor's office was
not properly carrying out that administration, did it appear
to you to be your duty to order an inquiry into it ? —I can-
not cmccive how I could have made any inquiry into the
matter. The means of inquiry would be by a committee.
I bad no means of inquiring into every individual case that
wes recommended. 1 only heard it generally from the
secret try as a confidential and responsible member of the
board, and as responsible to tho House "of Commons, that
such was the case. I had no reason to disbelieve it, and at
the same time I did not know that it was anythirg more
than what might have been going on as before. 1 believed
it might not have been the Surveyor of the Navy who did it,
but that it might have been some one under him.
Batas far as the interest of the service was cemeerned, if
political favouritism prevailed through persons in his depart-
meet to the injury of the service, it would be pretty nearly
the same as though it prevailed through the exercise of the
influence of the surveyor himself ?—lt appeared to me then,

$14.1 IL app.- ••• to ma now, that the only way of gettmg eta
of t favouritism and the influence of governineet, is by
telt, g aw..y tee votes from tha dot Muth There is nu
ott.• r way. Without that is done it always must prevail.
V. hen this won brought to your notice by the Seen tory
of the Atlmirelry, did your grace auth..riee the i-sue of the
circuler of the 19th April, 1152, which cancelled Sir Francis
Baring's circular of 18149?—Well, I sanctioned it. I was
cognisant of it.
But did you authorise it ; did you give directions to the
secretary to prepare the circular of the 19th April, 18,52 ?
I did not.
You did net ?—1 did not. I was cognisant of it, but 1
did not give those directions.
But hetwe it WAS issued war your grace cognisant 01d?...
Before it was issued I was cegnisent of it.
I wish to know, did your grace spptom of it ?—No; on
• every oceasioa when it was mentioned to me by Mr. Staf-
• ford in his repnreentations I objected to interfere. I would
sot interfere bemuse I had not sufficient expert :trice, but
he afterwards represented to me that Mr. Parker's circular
bad bee n written by him, ord that it was not a minute of
the board, and that he, as secretsry, had the same power as
Mr. I'a,ker had. lie said, also, that be would do so on
his own responsibility.
Did he beteg in before your grace the original circular of
Mr. l'arker, t., which be referred ?—No; he did not.
When he brought you the circular of the 19th of April,
1111, did your grace affix your signature or initials to it ?
lie did net bring it.
You did sot thou see the circular which bad been pre-
pared by Mr. Parker, so as to know whether or w.t Sir
Frauds Iltriog's initials were affixed to it ?—I did not.
If it had been brought to your grace's notice that the
circular of Septemh r, 1819, had affixed to it the initials of
the First Lard, should you have considered it necessary to
take some farther consideration before allowing that eir-
euiar to go forth—the circular of Mr. Stafford ?—I can
hardly answer what I might have done under the circum.
stances. Sir Francis Bartell's name would not make it a
legal document without the name of another Lord of the
Admiralty.
T 1 to Sir Frauds Baring's name being attached only
showed that it had the sanction of the First Lord ?—Yes.
But this circular, as 1 understand, went forward without
the sanction of any lord annexed to it?—Without the sanc-
tion of any lord annexed to it.
Now, on the list of April, a few days after this circular
bad been issued, Admiral Parker, in his examination, stated
to the committee that he placed in your grace's hands Sir
Ball win Walker's letter of resignation ?—I have looked very
carefully into that part of Admiral Parker's evidence, and 1
find he is very uncertain about his dates. I may mention at
once that, until November, when it was referred to in the
House of Commons, I did not know his letter of resignation
bail been sent in, or had exiated.
Admiral Parker, in his evidence, distinctly states that he
took Sir It tldwin Walker's letter, tendering his resignation,
to the Admiralty to the Duke of Northumberland on the
same day. Has your Grace any recollection of that ?
None whatever. I have referred to all the different points
in the evidence relating to Sir Baldwin Welker 's resigna-
tion, awl Capt. Milne 's evidence as to Sir Baldwin Walker
• having mentioned that he wrote the letter when Admiral
Porker and Captain Milne were is the room, and Captain
Milne is asked when it was, and says the 25th or 26th of
April.
hen you have no recollection of Admiral Parker having
either given you the letter or having related to you the pur-
port of that letter ?—lie never mentioned a word of the
letter. lie may have indirectly or indiscriminately have
discussed the purport of the letter, though he never men-
tioned that there was a letter.
Do you remember when be dimuseed first the purport of
the letter '—On the 26th of April, which was the first day I
heard of the order being out, and the minute of the 19th
April was brought to my knowledge on Monday, April 26,
by Admiral Parker himself making the complaint from Sir
Baldwin Walker.
Captain Richards has brought to the:notice of the commit-
tee a private letter written by Captain Pelham to Captain
Richards, the superintendent of Chatham Dockyard, in-
quiring whether any political influences were at work to
hold back Appointments for the promotion of men in the
mike in Chatham yard; now I wish to ask your grace
whether that inquiry was at all instituted by your grace's
command ?-11y no means ; I never knew of it.
In that letter, Captain Pelham, your private secretary,
mato., " My chief is for the best man for the public service,
and scorns a job;" and he writes to Captain Richards re-
specting the appointment of a man to the metal mills at
Chatham by Mr. Steifod, the man being reported unfit by
Captain Richards; and to this Captain Richards sent •
reply on the 24th April. Dues your grace remember
whether that reply was brought under your notice?—lt
was; the Meet complaint was from Sir Baldwin Walker
early in April, and Captain Richards came to me on the
12th or 13th April.
Captain Richards, in his letter, says he requested an in-
terview in order to disabuse your grace's mind upon the
question. It would appear, therefore, from his letter, that
he asked fur an interview after he had written one letter,
which it appears your grace granted. Now at that inter-
view did Captain Richards bring under your notice the
cams relating to Ridgway ?—Yes, he did.
lie showed how Ridgway had formerly applied to Sir F.
Bering for his intervention ?—Yes, he did.
And he entered fully into the cue, and showed that Ridg-
way had violated the spirit and words of the circular of 1847 ?
—Yes.
Aud then Captain Richards stated that he was satisfied
with the interview with your grace, and that you it:pressed
to him your conviction that he was doing his duty be.
neatly and honourably ?—Yes, as a matter of course, as
an officer, I was perfectly convinced that he was doing
his duty, and that he was right in not interfering wild
matters of political influence* The words I made use of hi
Captain Richards in parting were, " It you ever have any
isterferince in your duty, or if you ever have anycompMd
to make, come to me, and yowl may rely upon it I will sap
pert you."
it taco, any accusation was made against Captain
Richards that be interfered at all in politics, it would have
been a violation of the order, and I understand you to say
you quite acquit him of any lia imputation ?-1 had
a question about it, no such imputation ever came to me.
I only moieties my belief in the character of Captain
Richard" but there was a question.
la Captain Rickards' reply to Captain I'elham, he " begs
and entreats that the ease may be thoroughly sifted." Now
when this was brought to your grace's notice at the inter-
view, did you feel no satisfied, that you considered no in-
quiry amimary ?—1 knew nothing about the letter. I was
nut cognisant of the letter. Captain Richards had bees to
me to explain the matter in full, and he said eery millmaily
that he as influenced, u he was ordered art 10 Inks
any part in politics.
Captain Richards impression was that he had rose Me
letter to you t—lt might have been, but I was not swam of
it. It might have been.
Captain Richards in his evidence states that he asked
your MOB if he might have permission to read the letter
from Mr. Stafford to him ?-11s might have done so, and it
is !rely likely he aid.
Did you hear from Mr. Stafford any ground for suppos-
ing Captain Richards to be a political partisan ?At this
meanie I don't recollect my question, certainly, with re-
Spit to Cartel' Riabards.
Now was your grace aware that Sir Frederick Smith
bad applied gee the promotion of Ridgway ?—I never heard
one weed about Sir Fmderick Smith, or of any election con-
nected with any one of the dockyards, either directly or in-
ane*.
stith April it appears you saw the Surveyor of the
Navy, and you had seen him previously to your representing
to the Secretary of the Admiralty the annoyance the sur-
veyor brit in regard to the issue of the former circular ?—lf
I may explain, there is some little indistinetaess in the reeol'
tuition of Admiral Parker on that subject. It was on the
morning of Monday, 26th April, that Admiral Parker came
to me to say the Surveyor of the Navy was very much
annoyed and vexed at Mr. Stafford's cancelling the cir-
cular of 1849, that he considered it was a slur upon his
character, and Admiral Parker spoke very warmly end
justly on the subject, ae he was an officer who felt anything
like a slur, and he also said that it would lower him in this
estimation of the superintendenM and officers, and he dill
not think that if the slur remained on the yor's chair
ter that he would remain in his office I told Milled
Parker 1 we. quite confident Mr. Stafford never merit Mg
disrespect to the surveyor, and that I would send him We
Admiral Parker's room, where I understood the
was, to remove any impression from the surveyor'ss
that such was the case. It was an interview that MUM
five or Wx minutes, and it was very ardent on the part of
Admiral Parker, and very proper.
After the interview on the 26:h of April was a circular
submitted to your grace for approbation ?—I sent for Mr.
Stafford, and told him all the circumstances—all that Ad-
miral Parker had told me. 1 said it was considered by the
surveyor that this cancelling had cast a stigma oa the sur-
vey' or, and I am very much afraid he will resign his
office and if he did resign his office, 1 said, though
you, Mr. Stafford, may treat it lightly, it is a much more
serious thing than you seem to think ; for if the sur-
vc does resign his office, lam not prepared to propose
a ISOCOIMOY • .he has done his duty and good service, and I
thought that good service should continue. Upon that, Mr.
Stafford went to Admiral Parker's room, where the whole
of the circumstances, I believe, took place about the minute
that was agreed to. At the end of half an hour they came
into my room, Sir Baldwin Walker and Admiral Parker
together. SBaldwin Walker explained to me how very
much he we. annoyed, and explained to me the matter very
muck in the Name words as before, that he felt the circular
was a censure on him, and which I of course felt a wish to
remove. In a few minutes Mr. Stafford came in with a
minute, and mad it to Sir Baldwin Walker and Admiral
Parker in my hearing. Sir Baldwin Walker, when it was
read, said, "I am perfectly satisfied)" and Mr. Stafford
31:16Weled that it should be read to the board as a minute,
and they all went away. It does not quite agree with the
evidence already given, but that was the cue.
Then you bad read the circular before it was submitted
to the board ?—lt had been read in my room to the Sur-
veyor of the Navy and Admiral Parker, and I was pre-
sent, and that was the first day that I heard of the cir- !
cuter of the 19th of April having been issued. I did not
know when it was issued. I observe that in Captain
Milne's evidence it was brought to his notice by the sur- j
veyor also, and the surveyor's letter was read in Admiral
Parker's room to Admiral l'arker. Captain Milne does
nut quite fix on the date. Ile seems to think it was on the
24th, .9 Ih, or of April.
0 Then are the committee to understand that this was the
fine time your grace gave your sanction to the circular of
the 19th April ?-1. was cognisant of it before it was is-
sued, and I knew :bat I was responsible for it, but this
we. the first time it was brought before me, and thus we
knew it. It was a very sate point. I knew it. I fully
countenanced it, Admiral Parker fully countenanced it,
Captain Milne fully coantenaneed :no r.- true ayr--: tai
it, sad certainly were nspoalible for it from that eery mo-

u.ent. how tar t.ie 1.111.-1. .o members act ti.e Ii std wire
answerable I don't know.
In the circular of April 2fi, 1852, it is stated that the eir-
eu:.re of February' ;', V 417, will be strictly adherrd to, and
th it their lordships deemed it advisable to revert to the sys.
Gan then in force of having a:I communications addressed to
the Admiralty itt the first instance. As your grace by this
step sanctiohed the reversal of a system that had been •sys-
tem at the Admiralty for some years, may I ask your grace
upon what grounds this reversal was based ?—May I ask
what the matter is—what we cancelled was reverting to Lord
Auc'clsnd's original rrgulation for promotions in the
dockyard, which were these :—The master shipwright on a
vacancy named three person+, and sent them to the super-
intendent, who erased one name which he thought the least
worthy of promotion. The superintendent then sent these
two names to the secretary, who selected one, and that se-
lection was the whole of the patronage the secretary had in
promotions. The circular of 1849 made this alteration.
The superintendent sent these two names to the surveyor,
and the surveyor selected one name, and so had the pa
tronage. The question of patronage was one known to
Lord Auckland and his successor. It was reverting to Lord
Auckland's regulstion, and my opinion now and then was
that Lord Auckland was right.
'Does your grace mean that the surveyor had the absolute
choirs of one name, or that when the two names were sent
to him he forwarded them to the Admiralty with his
remarks ?—I do not think ho was justified by the circular
of 11549 in making the selection, but he always did, it was
a matter 1 never knew anything of, and of which I was
not cognisant. But, on reading attentively the circular of
1849, 1 do not think it justified the surveyor in taking the

pa.ronage.
The circular of 1819 merely, u I understand, ordered that
the correspondence from the superintendents should go
through the surveyor before it came to the Admiralty ?
So I understand. _

Alter some further questions, and the examination of
Commodore Eden and Captain Hamilton, the committee
adjourned to ti.is day.
PLYMOUTH.
The committee in this case met again yesterday
morning to resume the inquiry. Mr. Aglionby iu the
chair.

Serjeant Kinglike said it now became his duty to
state to the committee that since the sitting of the commit-
tee on Saturday, his learned friends with whom he acted in
this case and himself had taken into consideration the evi-
dence adduced before the committee ; and the deter-
mination to which they had all come was, that they
despaired certainly in the result of having a decision of
that committee in favour of the sitting member (Mr. Mare).
There was no doubt whatever that promises of places had
been made to voters in his interest at the last election, and
the hon. member was now aware of it, through persons for
whose acts he was responsible; but these persons appeared
to have laboured under is false impression in making those
promises, that there was no distinction in such cases be-
tween • member seated and a candidate soliciting the
suffrages of the voters; in other words, they thought
that as soon as a man had promised his vote, they might
legally extend to him any patronage they had it in
their power to bestow. That that was a mistake no
man could doubt, but still it would probably be held
as • justification, to some extent, of the conduct of the
particular iadividuals who entertained that erroneous
notion. He (Mr. &taint Kinglike) therefore, under
these circumstances, did not mean to perplex the case
by any further opposition on the port of the sitting mem-
ber, but he was anxious to call the h .nourable gentleman
to give the explanation to which he had referred. Before
he sat down he wished to state that the course which he
and his learned friends were now pursuing Emanated en-
tirely from themselves; it was • voluntary act, without
any semblance whatever of any arrangement between them
and the cuuosel on the opposite side.
After some cooversation between the committee and
counsel on both sides,
Mr. Mare was examined. Be denied having made any
promise to Koopman, and, in continuation said, with re.
gard to King I have no remembrance of him whatever. I
do not even recollect his name, and can only dismiss his
ease with this general remark, that I always declined to
nuke a3y promise to any voter. With regard to (leach, I
never made him any promise to procure a situation fur his
son in St. Katherine's Dock.
The Chairman : Did you ever receive a letter from (leach ?
—Mr. Mare: No, I dun't remember that I ever did. Of
course, alter the election, I had a number of letters every
day from Plymouth ; but it would have been perfectly im-
possible fur me, with my large business, to attend to open
all the letters that I receive. Mr. Churchward, therefore,
kindly undertook to open all the letters which came to me
' from Plymouth until I could get a private secretary, and
he was in the habit of forwarding to me such letters as
requked my personal attention. I never received any
letter of (leach from him, and I think if I had I should
have been led immediately to inquire what was the pro-
mile which I was there stated to have made. Mr. Church-
ward made no communication to me of any such letter.
The Chairman.—Do you think that if he had received
such a letter, he would have felt it his duty to communicate
it to you ?—Mr. Mare : Most certainly ; I think he would.
I think be would have asked me what was the promise
which I had made.

The Chairman.—When did you hear of this letter ?—Mr.
Mare : This morning for the first time.
The Chairman.—Have you communiaated with Mr.
Churchward on the subject I—Mr. Mare : No, I have not
had an opportunity of so doing.
Mr. Glyn.—Wee Mr. Churchward in your employment
at that time ?—Mr. Mare : Certainly not ; he never has
been. He simply went down with me
.to Plymouth to m-
ust me in the election.

ln answer to a question from the Marquis of Chandos,
Mr. Mare said—l do not remember the name of the man
Collins. I have nothing to do with the admission of persons
into my yard at Blackwell. I never interfere in the filling
up of vacancies there.
The Chairman—Hu Mr. Churchyard any authority to
fill up vacancies there !—Mr. Mare : Certainly not. It he
sent a letter of recommendation to the manager it would be
attended to just the same as a letter from any other person.'
I may say that instructions were given to employ any man
coming from Plymouth, without asking any questions as to
his politics, whether they were liberal or conservative. We
have employed men from Plymouth long before the elec.
Lion indeed, we have men in our employ from every dock-
yard in the kingdom.
Mr. Dunlop—Do you wish to make any statement as to
the instructions which you gave toMr. Churchyard?—Mr.
Mare—l stover gave Mr. Churcbward any instructions
directly. Ile was not instructed to make promises on my
behalf ; nor. on the other hand, did I give ham any instruc-
tions not to make promises. It was through Mr. Baldwin,
of the Morning Herald, who is a personal friend of mine,
that Mr. Churchyard went wi h me to Plymouth. Mr.
Churchward is stab-editor of that paper, and when there
was a question as to who should go with me to Plymouth,
Mr. Baldwin said, " Why not take Churchyard ?" He
was much more fitted to instruct me than I him in election
matters.

Mr. Mars then retired, but was recalled by Mr. K.
James, who said he had a question to put to Mr. Mare.
Mr. IL James—l am desired by those who instruct me,
to ask Mr. Mare whether he referred the applications
which were made to him to Mr. Churchward in all cases ?
Mr. Mare—When any parties tusked me a favour, I im-
mediately said, " I can bear nothing of the kind; it would
vitiate my election;" and I referred them to Mr. Church-
ward.

In answer to the chairman,
Mr. Mare said—l did not: think that any favour which
was asked after the vote had been promised was illegal, and
my impression was that mine was one of the purest elec-
tions which had ever been carried on. If a person had been
asked and granted conjointly with the promise of the vote,
I certainly should have considered that a bargain.
Mr. E. James having declined to crowexamine Mr. Mare
any further he withdrew, and the room being cleared, the
committee proceeded to deliberate ; but four o'clock arriv-
ing before their decision could be announced, they ad-
journed until eleven o'clock this day.

CORK (CITY).
This committee resumed yesterday morning, at
eleven o'clock.

Mr. Fitzsimons, cross.examined by Mr. James, deposed
that in his opinion the sheriff acted with partiality.
Colima Bell commanded the first division of the Royals,
and was on duty at the last election. It was his opinion
that persons voting for Colonel Chatterton were exposed to
great danger, and that the civil authorities did not exhibit
sufficient activity.
' Oeneral Manncell stated that he was the commander-in-
Chief of the Cork district. On the polling day at the last
election he had rescued Capt. White from a meb of people.
Colonel Chatterton's voters were in his opinion exposed to
considerable danger.
At the close of the examination of this witness the com-
mittee adjourned until this day.