The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-03 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 3, 1853.

win, Admiral Parker, and I did meet, and at that meet-
ing the circular of April 19 was disrassed. On that
occasion I was shown no letter. I am clear as to
that; indeed, I am confirm d as to that view by the evi-
dence of both Sir Baldwin and Admiral Parker. Sir
Baldwin says—" Admiral Parker had my letter in his
hand during the interview." Admiral Parker says—
" I did not reed the letter en that occasion." Sir
Baldwin Walker complained of the circular of April 19
as a personal reflection. I assured him that nothing of the
kindwae Intended, and offered to write any private letter
he pleased, deeming at the moment that that was all he
required. When, however, he answered that as the cir-
cular was public any document removing the imputation
on himself should also be public, I directly replied that
there could be no possible objection. A draft of a further
circular was made and read to Sir Baldwin Walker, and
after come modification to his satisfaction was assented to
by him. The draft I refer to is that of the circular of
April 26.—(These and the other extracts have already
appeared in print.)—lt is material to notice here, in con-
firmation of my former statement, that the Auckland
regulations have never been proposed to be interfered
with; and that in Shia nimbler, toned to tali* Bit I
Baldwin, it is expressly set out that no inch intention
had existed. My „impression of the whole affair was,
that Sir Baldwin had felt that the circular of April 19
had conveyed a personal imputation' which he desired to
have removed, and which, as it never had been intended, I
desired should be removed, and about which he was satisfied
by the circular of the 2Gth. That impression seems to have
been entirely shared by Admiral Parker, as I gather from
his letter of April 11, 1853, which I read in the House of
Commons. I never thought more of it. Sit Baldwin,
however, fulthtt states, with regard to that interview,
that I repeated thou observations, which he states I made
at the interview of April sth, that it was of no use
" bliaking the question, '&e. I observe that Admiral Par-
ker's evidence is silent on that point. For myself, I can only
repeat the remark I made before, on the other occa-
sion on which I am stated to have used ;these
words. So far as my knowledge or thought about
the matter went, things remained thus until Novem-
ber, on the 21st of which I received a notice of questions
from Admiral Berkeley, and on November 23 Admiral
Berkeley and Sir George Pechell put the two questions to
me—slat, whether there was any correspondence on the
I subject, and second, whether Sir B. Walker had tendered
his resignation. On the 222nd, the day previous, I wrote a
private letter to Sir B. Walker, sending him a copy of
I Admiral Berkeley's notice, and asking to what cores-
' spondence it referred. Sir B. Walker states that he could
I not find the copies at Somerset House, but they were pro-
bably at Whitehall. On the receipt of that nom, or pre-
viously, I made every search, and found no letter, or
traces of any ; consequently, the following evening, in the
House of Commons,l answered " No " to both questions.
I have before stated that I had never seen or been told of
Sir Baldwin's letter of resignation. Admiral Parker has
told the committee that he did not show it to me, or read
it to me. He has also told the committee that he de-
stroyed it. That evidence gives the reason both why I
did not know of it, and also why it could not be found
when I searched on the 22nd of November, as, in fact, it did
not exist. Sir Baldwin states at question 660, that he found
the copies in a despatch box at home. He does not say
when—if it was that night or the following morning. lie
might have supplied me with them before the evening
of the 23rd, when I was called upon to give the two
anmen. Sir Baldwin states, quite truly, that on the
25th of November, two days after my answers in the
House of Commons, he wrote the letter to myself, as secre-
tary, referring to his letters of April 21 and May 10 :
I mention the latter now for the first time, as the committee
may observe. All that I know or knew of that letter was
this :—the Duke of Northumberland showed it me in the

strictest confidence. I need not mention to the committee
the regret which I feel, in my desire to lay all the facts
before them, in referring them to a letter which I am
obliged to say in the same breath was shown me in the
strictest confidence. I read it, however, and returned it to
the duke. Sir B. Walker further states, that calling at the
Admiralty on that day he was informed 1 wished to see him,
and that I began a conversation by naming his letter, and
stating the answers I had given in the House of Commons:
All I can say of that statement is that Sir Baldwin is more
accurate in his answer to question 198 than he is in the earlier
part of his evidence. The committee will see that the only
letter to which Sir Baldwin, either at page 4 ur question 198,
can have referred, was the letter of the 10th May, to which
I have before adverted, as Admiral Parker has told yen
that he had not only not given the letter of resignation to
me, but that he had destroyed it. The letter of the 10th of
May, which is now in the parliamentary return, was treated
by me confidentially, as it had been treated by the duke;
and having been so treated, did not exist in the record•
office. I must also remark that if such a conversation
and these facts as stated by Sir B. Walker occurred, it is
remarkable that I should Lave written the next day, Nov.
26, the letter in page 11 of the return asking for copies in
reply to Sir Baldwin's letter of the 26th. The committee
will observe that the next document in date is a letter from
Sir Baldwin to myself, dated Nov. 29. I had asked for
copies of the correspondence by my letter of the 26th. Sir
Baldwin has stated that he wrote a letter on the 27th,
which enclosed eopies; that it was late when he reached
Whitehall; that the members had left; that he took it
hems, meaning to send it on Monday ; that on Sunday, the
28th, he received a letter from me requesting him to call on
Monday; that he did so call, and that I stated to him
that I had "hit upon a plan" of settling the affair. Bir
Baldwin certainly did come to me. I told him that there
was no trace of the letter in the Record-office, and that
it seemed to me the only plan for him to adopt was
to write a letter, the general terms of which I sug-
gested, and which were practically the terms of the letter
which Sir B. Walker did write on that day. I believe I
did state to him that on all occasions I should regret if we
were on any other terms than those of co-operation. He
said, as I understood, that he should go and consult Ad-
miral Parker, and he left for that purpose. He returned
to me in my office, in a state of considerable excitement,
with a draft of the letter in his hand. I read it, and
proposed to him to write it, that I might brine it before
the board. He declined, and said he should prefer sending
it from Somerset-house. Before he left he informed me of
what had occurred in his interview with Admiral rarker, and
the observations of the duke there I considered to be the
cause of his excitement. He then left the room. I be-
lieve that I have correctly stated the circumstances of those
interviews. I did not mean Sir Baldwin Walker to suppress
the copies. I have no recollection of his stating that he
must send them in. I remember that I repeated immediately
the substance of what passed to a Mr. Briggs, a gentleman
in the office. I have ascertained his recollection of that
statement, and it is in accordance with that which I have
now stated. I was surprised when I heard that portion of
Sir Baldwin's statement. I have further to notice the
answers 622 and 649 of the evidence of Captain Milne. I
I quite assent to Captain Milne's statement that I requested
him, and it was immediately after my conversation with
Mr. Briggs, to " smooth matters over" with Sir Baldwin.
I adopt Captain Milne's expression. I cannot, however,
adopt Captain Milne's word " mediate," if it be in-
tended to imply that such mediation was between Sir
Baldwin and myself, or that it was to induce Sir Baldwin
to suppresi the copies. I think in the latter portion of
his answer, 622, Captain Milne has precisely appreciated
and correctly expressed the nature of his interference.
The hon. gentleman was examined at great length by the
committee upon this his statement in chief. Mr. Grant, his
private secretary, was also questioned upon various points
in detail, and at 4 o'clock the committee adjourned, inti-
mating that they would examine Mr. Stafford on the Wells
case on their re-assembling at 11 this day.
The following letter from the Hon. Mr. Talbot, private
secretary to and on behalf of the Earl of Derby, was read
to the committee: _ .

418i03, Reuss of Commons Committee-room.
"My Lord,-1 have been desired by Lord Derby to at-
tend the committee this day, and to inform you, as chair-
man, that unless the committee be perfectly satisfied that
his lordship brought no undue influence to bear upon Mr.
Stafford with re scene. to the dockyard appointments, he
would wish to be called upon to give evidence before the
committee. It would probably be right that this should be
made public, but I will not do so without your permission.
" I am, my lord, your obedient servant,
"the Lord Seymour." " W. P. TALBOT.

BOLTON.
YR. CROWL LIM U. DAIINZS ELECTED.

till:committee met again yesterday morning at
o'clock, Lord R. Grosvenor in the chair.
Mr. James Hudswith, the proprietor of the Bolton
Chronicle, stated that his publishing offices adjoin the
Reform News room in Bolton, which was occupied as a
committee room of the sitting memhers. Richard Stock-
dale brought him a manuscript advertisement, which was
hurtled in the Holton . Chronicle on the 20th March. That
advertisement contained the names of the joint
committee of the sitting members. Had seen Stock-
dale go in and out of the Reform News-room during
the election. Witness also received an advertisement
from Dauiel Nett for insertion in the ehronick
on the 17th of March, containing a resolution agreed to at
• public meeting, that Mr. Joseph Crook was a St and pro-
per person to represent the liberal electors of Balton in par-
' Bement. rhat was also inserted in the 31orning Chronicle
of the 20th of March. Had made out an account for those
advertisements, addressed to Mr. Joseph Crook, and
others, and the money was paid by Daniel Nott. The
election was held in Nelson-square. Witness observed
, stones thrown at Mr. Blair, one of the candidates, on the
! day of the election.
I On cross-examination witness stated that he had received
a little mere than 301. for the advertisements in question.
Soule other witnesses having been examined,
John Ainscow was called to prove direct bribery on the
part of Mr. Crook, but entirely denied it.
Mr. Cross then stated that, finding that the evidenoe
given by the witnesses whom he had called differed from
! 1 that which they had before tendered, he was at some loss
bow to proceed, inasmuch as in the absence of the leading
; counsel he did not venture to incur the responsibility of
withdrawing from the petition.
Upon the suggestion of the c!.airman, however, the
learned counsel withdrew from the support of the petition.
The room was then cleared, and on the roadmissinn of
the parties the chairman said t at the committee had unaui-
measly resolved—" That J. Crock, Esq., and J. Barnes,
Req., were duly elected to serve in the present parliament
for the borough of Bolton. That the petition of °Nog°
Greenhalgh was frivolous and vexatious."

TOTNES.
R. MILLISDyLY WACTXD.

Thin committee, which it will be remembered ad-
journed early on Saturday, in consequence of the &soma
of a material witness, resumed yesterday morning at 11
o'clock.
Mr. &leant Wiliam, after opening the case for the peti-