The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-12 00:00:00

COUR

LAR.

OSBORNE, Aud. 11.
Duke Geer of Mecklenburg and the Grand Duchess
Catherine visited her Majesty yesterday.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Prussia, attended
by Count Piickler and Count G-oltz, arrived between five
and six o'clock from Dover on a visit. His Royal High-
ness arrived at Dover on Tuesday from Ostend, and tra-
velled yesterday to Portsmouth by railway. The royal
steam yacht Fairy was waiting at Portsmouth, and
immediately conveyed the Prince and his suite to
Osborne. _ _ _

The Duke of Cambridge, attended by Lord William
Paulet, has arrived on a visit to the Queen, and also Sir
James Graham.
The Queen and Prince, the Prince of Wales, Prince
Alfred, the Princess Royal, Princess Alice, Princess
Helena, and Princess Louisa, accompanied by the royal
visitors and Sir James Graham, and attended by the
ladies and gentleman in waiting, embarked on board the
royal steam yacht Victoria and Albert this morning, at
10 o'clock, and proceeded to Spithead to witness the
grand naval review.

THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT ENGLEDUE.

The select committee appointed by the House of Com-
mons to inquire into the circumstances under which a
circular, sent to the superintendents of her Majesty's
dockyards, dated September 26, 1849, was cancelled on
the 19th of April, 1852, without any order or minute of
the board ; also, to inquire into the circumstances under
which a letter addressed by Sir Baldwin Walker to Mr.
Stafford, as Secretary to the Admiralty, in which letter
Sir Baldwin Walker tendered his resignation as Surveyor
of the Navy, was withheld from the board ; also, into
the circumstances connected with the appointment of
Mr. James Wells as master-smith in the dockyard at
Portsmouth, the subsequent cancelling thereof, and the
appointment of Mr. George Cotsell in his stead ; and
generally into the exercise of the influence and patronage
of the Admiralty in the dockyards and Government de-
partments connected with the several Parliamentary

boroughs, and to whom the return respecting the case
of Lieutenant Engledue, R.N. (presented 11th of April),
was referred ; and who were empowered to send for per-
sons, papers, and records, and to report their observa-
tions, together with the minutes of evidence taken before
than,: to the house ; and who were instructed to con-
sider the said return, and the circumstances connected

therewith, and to report their opinion thereupon, have,
pursuant to their said intruction, further considered the
matters to them referred, and have agreed to the follow-
ing report :

It appears that Lieutenant Engledue was struck off
the list of the Royal Navy in the year 1840, and that,
after having made several unsuccessful applications for
restoration, he was replaced on the list in January, 1853
The question, therefore, which has been referred to.
your committee,
and upon which they are required to
report their opinion, involves two considerations
First, whether Lieutenant Eugledue was rightly re-
moved from the list in 1840 ?
Secondly, whether he was rightly restored to the list
in January, 1853 ?
In the year 1840, a notice in the usual form was sent
by the Board of Admiralty to Lieutenant Engledue, ac-
quainting that officer that he must hold himself in readi-
ness to serve. In reply to this notice, Lieutenant En-
gledue mote a letter to the Board of Admiralty, stating
that if he were to be appointed a commander, he could be
ready immediately ; but if he were required to serve as
a lieutenant he could not accept the appointment, from
the urgent nature of his private affairs. Subsequently
he was ordered to join a ship, which he refused, having
in the meantime, without having applied for-or obtained
the permission of the Admiralty, accepted employment
under the Peninsular and Oriental Company. For this
conduct Lieutenant Engledue was struck off the list of

the Royal Navy.
The course pursued by the Admiralty in this case was
in accordance with an invariable rule whenever an officer
declines to serve. Moreover, the letter written by Lieu-
tenant Engledue was an additional offence, inasmuch as
he endeavoured to impose a condition on the Board of
Admiralty, and to stipulate for his promotion.
All the witnesses concur in stating that Lieutenant
Engledue was justly struck off the list ; he himself ad-
mitted to your committee that his letter to the Admiralty
was indefensible, and that if lie had exercised authority
at the Admiralty he should have aetel towards any Wier
officer as the Board of Admiralty had acted towards
himself.

During the following years, Mr. Engledue made nu-
merous applications to be restored to his former rank in
the navy. These applications were by successive Boards
of Admiralty refused. In the month of June, 1852, the
late Board of Admiralty twice declined to entertain his
application. Undeterred by these refusals, Mr. Engle-
due forwarded another memorial to the Admiralty, on
the 30th of November, 1852 ; and upon this occasion
the board decided that the case should be again specially
considered, and that for this purpose the papers should
be circulated amongst the members of the board, so that
each lord might have an opportunity of separately re-
viewing their former decision.
It has been stated to your committee that the Lords
of the Admiralty did not agree as to the course which
should be adopted, but that four lords, the majority of
the board, decided in favour of the restoration of Mr.
Engledue to his former rank in the navy. This decision
was on the 22d of December, and, accordingly, on that
day a letter was written by the direction of the board,
informing Mr. Engledue that he was at liberty to memo-
rialise her Majesty in Council for restoration to the rank
of lieutenant. On the 3d of January, 1853, the Lords
•of the Admiralty recommended her Majesty in Council to
comply with the prayer of the memorialist. The Order
in Council sanctioning the restoration of Mr. Engledue
was dated on the 4th of January.
Your committee endeavoured to ascertain the practice
of the Admiralty in regard to the restoration of officers
who had been struck off the list. Lieutenant Engledue
mentioned some instances, and although in many par-
ticulars his information was proved to be erroneous, yet
it appears that in some cases officers have been struck
off, and afterwards restored to the list.
The Lords of the Admiralty who concurred in the
restoration of Lieutenant Engledue state, as the grounds
for their opinion, the admitted ability of that officer, his
acknowledged efficiency, which is proved by several tes-
timonials in his favour, and the length of time during
which he has been deprived of his rank.
On the other hand, it has been stated that Lieutenant
Engledue had committed a grave offence by his letter to
the Admiralty, as well as by his refusal to serve, and
that the circumstances attending his refusal aggravated
his fault. It is said that his restoration will afford a
precedent for other applications, and will be injurious to
the interests of the service.
Lieutenant Engledue was restored to his former rank
without having acknowledged the impropriety of his
conduct, and without having expressed any regret for
his letter of August, 1840. It appears from his state-
ments to your committee, that, notwithstanding his re-
cent restoration, he is not now at once prepared to
serve, and that if he were ordered to join a ship, his
compliance with such an order would be a matter for
his own consideration. He regards his previous services
as entitling him to the boon of half-pay, without refer-
ence to any future obligations.
It is obvious that this opinion of the purposes for
which half-pay is granted is neither in accordance with
.he usage of the service nor with the intentions of Par-
iament.

Your committee directed their attention to the
time at which the letter was written authorising Lieu-
tenant Engledue to memorialise her Majesty in Council.
This letter was written on the 22d of December, 1852.
The late Government had, on the previous `2oth of De-
cember, announced in both Houses of Parliament the
resignation of their offices. Your committee have not,
however, heard any evidence which shows that this
favour was bestowed from any political or unworthy

motives.
Since by the terms of reference your committee are re-
quired to report their own opinion upon this case, they
must observe that they consider Lieutenant Engledue's
dismissal in the year 1840 to have been strictly in con-
formity with the practice of the Admiralty ; they do not
underrate the former merits of Lieutenant Engledue a'
a zealous and efficient officer, but having ascertained
that Lieutenant Engledue was dismissed in consequence
of his refusal to obey the orders of the Admiralty, and
having heard from himself in the course of this investi-
gation that, although now restored to his former rank,
he still holds it as a matter for his own consideration
whether he' Will or will not comply with any demands
which may hereafter be made upon him for his services,
your committee are of opinion that the restoration of
Mr. Engledue to his former rank in the Royal Navy
was not a judicious proceeding.