The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TRURSD►AY EVENING, MAY 26: 1853,

not, any more than any. other Government, permit all the
patronage to bo in the hands of their political opponents.
" Sir B. Walker asserts that the expressions, as cited by
himself, were used a second time by Mr. Stafford, in the
presence of Admiral Hyde Parker ; and that, upon his
reading this portion of his evidence to Admiral 11. Parker
while Admiral Berkeley was present, Admiral Parker
admitted having heard the expression as cited by Sir B.
Walker. Admiral Berkeley confirmed this fact before your
committee.
" A rumour of this evidence having reached Lord Derby.
and Mr. Disraeli, they attended a meeting of your com-
mittee, and denied having either pressed Mr. Stafford, or
used language which could afford any ground for such a
statement.
" There is a materiral difference between the assertions
of Sir B. Walker on the one hand, and Mr. Stafford on
other, in reference to the precise words spoken at this
interview ; but, as regards one material point, it is agreed
on both sides that the names of the two most influential
members of the Government were introduced in an argu-
ment, wherein the Secretary of the Admiralty endeavoured
to constrain the Surveyor of the Navy to consent to an
alteration of the system under which promotions were
regulated.
On the sth of April, the day when this interview
occurred, a promotion was authorised by the Admiralty,
which gave rise to serious remonstrances, and brought
again to Mr. Stafford's notice the danger of any hasty exer-
cise of patronage among men in the dockyards. Captain
Richards, the Superintendent of Chatham Dockyard, stated
that on the Ist of March, 1852, in his monthly report to
the Admiralty, he informed the board that there was a
vacancy for a leading man in the metal mills, and that, as
the inferior leading men were not competent for such a po-
sition, he recommended an entry of a man from private
trade. This suggestion was not approved, and on the sth
of April, 1852, a letter was sent from the Admiralty, ap-
pointing Joseph Ridgway, a second class man in the metal
mills, to this vacancy.
" Upon receiving this appointment which Captain
Richards says seemed to him a violation of the orders of
1847—he thought it best to write a private letter to Mr.
Stafford.
" Accordingly, on the Bth of April, he related fully, by
letter, the circumstances of Ridgway's case. He informed
Mr. Stafford that Ridgway had in a former year attempted
to obtain this promotion from Sir Francis Baring by poli-
tical influence, through some friends at Portsmouth ; and
he sent some extracts of the letters, showing that Ridg-
way had been then reprimanded for transgressing the orders
of 1847, and warned that a repetition of his conduct would
be followed by dismissal. Capt. Richards further repre-
sented, in explicit but respectful language, the ill effects
which such a promotion must have in the dockyards, and
ho added that he brought all these facts to Mr. Stafford's
notice before putting in force the order for Ridgway's pro-
motion.
" On the 9th of April Capt. Richards also wrote to Sir
B. Walker on the subject, expressing his fears that the
system of promotion established in 1847 was about to be
entirely set aside.
" On the 11th of April Mr. Stafford replied to Captain
Richards, that the appointment of Ridgway must go for-
ward.

" Your committee inquired by whom Ridgway had been
recommended, and were informed that Sir F. Smith, then
a candidate for the borough of Chatham, represented to
Mr. Stafford, or to Mr. Grant, his private secretary, that
Ridgway was kept out of his just promotion on account of
his political opinions, and that for this reason Capt. Rich-
ards proposed to select a man from the private trade.
" On the 11th of April, when Mr. Stafford persisted in
making.this appintment, he knew the facts of this case ;
he was aware that Sir F. Smith had applied to him for
Ridgway, and that, according to the circular of 1847, any
attempt to obtain promotion through political influence had
been strictly forbidden; he had been told that after the re-
port of the superintendent, the promotion of Ridgway
would be viewed in the yard as the supervision of the sys-
tem of 1847, and that such a step must produce an influence
on all the men, as well as diminish the authority of the su-
perintendent. He acted, therefore, in opposition to the
advice of Captain Richards, and he did not ask for the
opinion of the surveyor.
" As a justification of this proceeding, Mr. Stafford states
that ho was at this time prepossed with a notion that Capt.
Richards was a decided political partisan. This notion,
however, rested on some rumour which Mr. Stafford had
accepted without inquiry; and he states he did not then
know the engagement into which Captain Richards had
entered upon his appointment to this office. Your com-
mittee have not received one word of evidence in support
of this rumour ; but, on the contrary, decisive evidence
that it was unfounded.
"On the 16th of April, 1852, the circular was issued can-
celling the previous circular of September, 1849.
" Your committee have endeavoured to ascertain the
authority under which the circular of the 19th of April was
issued, and the occurrences which led to its issue.
" Mr. Stafford states that ho had not then seen the
original minute sanctioning the circular of September,
1840 ; that he had found a transcript of it in the general
minute book, but could trace no notice of it in the general
minute book. This seemed to prove that it had not been
issued by the board. Again, in the general minute book
no mark showed that it had received the sanction of the
First Lord, Mr. Stafford, therefore, without inquiring for
the original document, concluded that the minute of Sep-
tember, 1849, had been issued upon the sole authority of
the previous Secretary of the Admiralty. He made this
erroneous statement to the Duke of Northumberland, and
contended that he, as Secretary of the Admiralty, was
fully justified in revoking an order which a former secre-
tary had of his own authority issued.
"The Duke of Northumberland admitted that he had
on several occasions refused to interfere in cancelling the
circular of September, 1849 ; and it was only when he
thought the power belonged to the Secretary
.that he ac-
quiesced in it. Under this erroneous impression, the First
Lord permitted the circular of the 19th of April to bo
issued, and was cognizant of its purport before its issue.
Two Lords of the Admiralty had been themselves superin-
tendents of dockyards, but neither these Lords nor any
other members of the Board of Admiralty were consulted
in regard to this circular, or even informed of it until after
it had been issued.
" From the evidence of the Earl of Derby, it appears
that the Duke of Northumberland had himself selected the
distinguished naval officers who were his colleagues at the
board. It may be presumed, therefore, that his Grace had
full confidence in their judgment and experience; yet on
this occasion he did not consult them, but relied on the
assertions of the Secretary of the Admiralty, who had nei-
ther official experience, nor any knowledge of the details
of the several departments under the Admiralty.
" The Duke of Northumberland remembered, as ho said
the undeviating traditions of former times respecting job-
bing in the dockyards, and it seems that his Grace studi-
ously avoided all cognizance of such proceedings ; ' he
never knew, from the day he entered the office until he left
the office, whether the patronage was in the hands of the
Surveyor, or whether it was in the hands of the Secretary,
he never knew anything about it.'
"The evidence shows, however, that the duke's .mind
had been imbued with a notion that the circular of 1849 had
transferred patronage from the Secretary to the Surveyor
of the Navy, for his Grace said, ' Under the circular of
1847, the superintendent sent up two names to the Secre-
tary of the Admiralty, who selected one of those names,
and that selection was the only patronage which the Secre-
tary had in the promotions.' Under the circular of 1849, he
believed that the Surveyor erased one of the two names,
transmitting the other to be registered at the Admiralty.
" The duke admitted that he spoke only from hearsay ;
and your committee, relying upon evidence, must pronounce
his Grace to have been misinformed in regard to this point.
Under the circular of 1849, the Surveyor, having received
two names from the superintendent, did not erase either ' •
he merely made a submission, giving his opinion as to which
was the more, deserving person. Patronage, in regard to
promotions, could not honestly be exercised either by the
Surveyor or by the Secretary. The circular of 1847 had
announced that promotions should be governed by the
merits of the candidates, and that no preference or favour
should influence the decision. For the justice of the deci-
sion, the Board of Admiralty remained equally responsible
under the circular. of 1849 as under the circular of 1847.
" The authority, therefore, under which the circular of
1849 was cancelled on the 19th April, 1852, was undoubt-
edly the consent of the First Lord ; a consent given under
the assurance conveyed to him that the power of cancelling
that document belonged properly to the Secretary. Th&
sanction, therefore, of the First Lord, was given iu igno-
rance of all the facts which were essential to bo known,
before a correct opinion could be formed upon the pro-
priety of maintaining or rescinding the order issued by Sir
Francis Baring.
" Your committee repeatedly asked Mr. Stafford to state
any facts which had made him desirous of cancelling the
circular of September, 1849. Mr. Stafford did not state to
you committee the source from which he derived his im-
pressions, nor did he furnish any facts enabling your com-
mittee to institute a more searching inquiry. Under the
authority of that order the Surveyor of the Navy had
acted for two years and a half ; and if, during that period,
it had been shown that any promotions had been unfairly
submitted, or any names unjustly withal by the Surveyor,
or by the Surveyor's department, your committee would
have deemed it their duty to report facts so injurious to
the interests of the public service.
" In regard to promotions unjustly withheld, your com-
mittee were suprised to find that Mr. Stafford, when he
gave his evidence, still considered the case of Ridgway a
very strong case in justification of altering the system under
which recommendations were submitted. It is unnecessary
to speak further of this case, except to say that a timely
warning had been kindly but fruitlessly sent to Mr. Staf-
ford, which does honour to the gallant officer from whom
it emanated.
"Mr. Stafford said that he had some distrust or mis-
giving as to the Surveyor's department ; it was represented
that there was nepotism and jealousies at work between
that department and the dockyards. Representations were
made to him that there was a concert between the Surveyor's
department and Chatham, or, in other words, that some
hint was given from the Surveyor's department to persons
in the dockyard at Chatham, as to whom they should re-
commend. In regard to the Surveyor himself, Mr. Stafford
says,. that he entertained no suspicion, but he so far gave
credit to the numerous private hints and anonymous re-
ports which reached him in reference to that department,
that he thought it desirable to bring the correspondence
from the dockyards directly under his own inspection,
without allowing it first to pass through the Surveyor's
office.

-4gincti, however, it appears that in two cases at least,
the promotions were specially recommended by Sir F.
Smith, the evidence given by this gentleman before the
Chatham Committee, will perhaps throw some light on
this subject. Sir F. Smith there states, in reference to
Mr. Cotsell, that `he understood Cotsell was about to be
jockeyed by some contrivance in the Surveyor's office.'
Again, it will be remembered that Mr. Grant states, Sir
F. Smith, his friend, had represented the injustice done
to Ridgway, at Chatham.
" Your committee earnestly endeavoured to obtain
something more definite than these rumours, because they
deemed it important to ascertain whether the promises
held out by the circulars of 1847 and 1849 had been
honestly fulfilled.
" For this purpose, the first question to be asked was—
whether the Surveyor's department had duly submitted
the recommendations as received from the dockyards. The
superintendents of the dockyards were unanimous in testi-
fying to the fairness with which their recommendations
had been treated while the circular of 1849 had been in
force. They had perfect confidence in the impartialityof
the Surveyor's department, and considered the system in-
troduced by the circular of 1819 an improvement on the
previous practice.
te:ia."Y our committee next inquired whether the superin-
nts had made recommendations whereby they appeared
haveto been actuated by any preference in forwarding or
in withholding the names of candidates. Mr. Stafford
motives, and t!
read to your committee
iwinhpicrho,,gitohnesy ttioischthiaEing
a statement which he had made
in the house, acquittingf the superintendents of any such
into office he had entertained,
his belief in the good faith with
geeod.
contrary
duty. He discarded any
" Another important tiwonhierhonloaniulLs
nfirsamteeinyt,raDnicde
the principal officers and their assistants in the dockyards