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

THE COMMITTEE ON DOCKYARD PRO-

MOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS.

At eleven o'clock yesterday the members of this
committee, Lord Seymour, Lord Mahan, Sir Benjamin
Ball, Sir Ferguson Davie, and Mr. Beckett, re-aweinbled.
The committee-room continued crowded throughout the
day, by representatives of the Admiralty, the dockyards
end members of the house.
Prior to the commencement of proceedings, Captain Bun-
combe, member of the late Board of Admiralty, applied for
copies of the evidence as printed for the use of the commit-
tee, both for himself individually and the late members of
the board. This application was quite irrespective of the
personal matters appertaining to Mr. Stafford, Captain
Buncombe appearing to meet the charges that had been
made against the late board, and wishing not to throw any
responsibility upon his shoulders upon those of others.
The noble chairman slid he would sec the Speaker on the
subject with a view to granting the request.
Mr. Stafford then made the following statement :—Sir B.
Walker's first statement has reference to a conversation he
had with my private secretary, Mr. Grant. I shall content
myself with stating that I did not send Mr. Grant there on
the errand Sir B. Walker describes, and shall lease Mr.
Grant to speak for himself as to what actually did occur at
the interview. The first circumstance referred to, which
bears a date, is my letter of the 2nd April, 18.52. I was in-
duced to write that letter,J have no hesitation in saying, in
consequence of the receipt of repeated cammusications that
the appointments and pi:emotions took a direction invariably
hostile to the existing government. I received a reply from
Sir B. Walker, as follows:
" Somerset-house, April 3, 1852.
" My dear Sir,—ln reply to your letter respecting the
great dissatisfaction which exists among your political
friends, as to the present arrangement of appointments and
promotions in the dockyards, I can only refer you to their
ordshie' circular of the,27th of November, 1847, by which
you will perceive that, Inner these regulations are with-
drawn, and fresh ones substituted, advancement on political
grounds is totally impossible, if the superintendents of the
dockyards perform their duty. It is needless for me to
disclaim having favoured any political party, for you will
clearly perceive, on reading the existing regulations, that
merit alone can obtain advancement. With reference to
that part of your letter in which you state that there
seems no alternative but to resume the system which ex-
isted previous to September, 1849, I have to observe that
it was only resuming a system which had always been in
force prior to 1845, and was then discontinued, I have
reason to believe, on personal grounds. It is for their
lordships to decide whether they will rescind the order of
September, 1849, which has been the means of causing an
amount of reduction in the wages of the dockyards of up.
wards of 10,0901., but if it is, of course the surveyor will
be deprived of that control which is so highly necessary,
and can no longer be held responsible for keeping the esta-
blishment under the estitnagp. I him now stated the case
frankly, and I beg you to Wham me,
" My dear sir, very faithfully yours,
BALDWIN WALKER.

" Aug. Stafford, Esq., M.P., ific."
The committee will observe that in that letter Rir Bald-
win Walker himself states that if the regulations of 1847
remain unaltered, advancement on political grounds is to-
tally impouible, if the superintendents of dockyards per-
form their dnty. I may mention that the officers to whom
Sir Baldwin Walker referred as controlling, in conjunction
with the 1847 regulations, the advancement of meet alone,
I had all been appointed by our political opponents. Sir B.
Walker is, I believe, correct in stating that he bad an
interview with me on April 6. He states that at that
interview I said, "There is no nee in blinking the ques-
tion ; I em so pressed by the government that I cannot
help spelt" Also at Q. 127, he adds, qualifying the word
government, that I mentioned the names of Lord Derby
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Upon that statement
I have observe, and the observation holds good with
regard is all lay evidence, that as I never kept any note or
Mmeleemedelim of any conversation on the subjects now
mar ermeideration of this committee, icis very difficult to
pledge myself to the precise accuracy, either affirmatively
ernegatimly, of and particular woi. I believed, and still
=OM ft 18 anal in official life to speak confi-
, Weans° confidentially, without reserve.
Mame maws mood at the Admiralty were not arranged
enffiffiellielly to affi parties, the board was the proper place,
7,0= 11, of appeal. Thu view, and, as you will see
, the apparently satisfactory cermilmition of the
MOSter, leave me unable to speak with certainty as to ace.
teat I have of course • thorough recollection of
reare'd Was at the time. There was no pressure put
mina ene Maine by Load Derby or the Chaneelloe of the
Enamel"; but what I believe I did state was, that
the prawn upon me from members of my own party
was very severe, and that the government of Lord
Derby and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
net, any more than any other government, pero'at
ell patronage to be in the hands of their pontical
opponents. I should desire, before Igo further ,ao explain
exactly to the committee the dockyard ovrit.of 1847, and the
circular of the 26th September, 1849. The first was a code
making advancement depend on merit alone. That has
never been interfered with by any subsequent circular,
and remained in operation during the whole of the time I
iwas in office. The 2nd of September, 1849, applied to the
transfer of control to the Surveyor, and it was to that
alone that the circular of 18.12 referred. The Auckland
code was left unaltered. I believe that documents exist in
Ithe Admiralty which show how that transfer of control
took place. On the 19th of April, 1852, the circular was
sent addressed publicly to the superintendents of each yard.
Observations have been made and &Undone in evidence by
the witnesses who have been examined, as to the i-sue of
that circular. Without any order or minute of the board,
I hare nu diffieul.z in dealing with that point. In
the first place, I put meow the board book of that date, by
which you will see that the circular of September, 1849,
was not issued by a board minute, and according to prece-
dent required no board minute for its cancelling. I put in
lalso the general minute-hook of the respective dates, by
which the commit.ee will see that the circular and its eau-
' calling were dealt with in a similar manner. This can-
celling circular was issued with the cognisance of the First
Lord, and Ire far to the opinions of the present First Lord
as to the official correctness of the course adopted. I now
come to the evidence with reference to Sir B. Walker's
letter of the 21st of April, which appears in the pariiemen-
tagy cetera. It seems that it was addressed to me • i Secre-
tary of the Aeimiralty. It was not, however, given to me.
sever saw it. In tact, I find it stated at questions 3,452
Chatham E., that Sir Baldwin gave it to Admiral l'.uecr,
not to me. It certainly never stadia' me. If there is any
complaint of its not reaching the board the fault does not
rest with me. Sir D. Walker states that Admiral Yankee
took the letter, after it hail been read in Captain Micee's
presence, and told Sir Baldwin that he (Admiral Porker)
would bring it before the baud. I had no COMMUnil.ktioll
with Bir Baldwin, or Admiral Parker, or Captain Milne,
and was shown no letter. Sir Baldwin says that he thinks
net the Bellowing de', which would be the 22ad, he was
asked by Admiral Parket to meet me on the subject. My
impreestou is, that the meeting did take plate on the 26th.
That, however, except '
, as there is no drab, that Et: Bald- ,