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

MANCHESTER, MAY 25.

STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market has been inactive,
and the few sales made were at a slight decline. Eastern
Counties 13 5-16 ' • London Stock, 118 ; ditto Now Eighths,
7-16 p. ; Sheffield's, 30 ; ditto Pref., 10-1 • Midlands, ;
Dovers, 22i ; East Lancashire Prof. Quarters, 9 5-16.

not, any more than any other Government, permit all the
patronage to be in the hands of their political Oppdnents.
" 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 H. 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 art entry of a man from private
trade. This suggestion was not approved, and on the sth
of April, 1852, :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
he 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 he 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 thel9th of April was
issued, and the occurrences which led to its issue.
" Mr. Stafford states that he had not then seen the
original minute sanctioning the circular of September,
1849 ; 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-
-1849, had been issued upon the sole" authority of
thete In b e,r 2previous 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 be
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 he 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. The
sanction, therefore, of the First Lord, was given in igno-
rance of all the facts which were essential to be 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 witheld 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 recommendatigns 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 nepotiqm 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 regardrto 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.

" Since, however, it appears that in two cases at least,
the promotions were specially recommended by Sir F.
Smith, the evidence given by this gentleman beforo 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 impartiality of
the Surveyor's department, and considered the system in-
troduced by the circular of 1849 an improvement on the
previous practice.
"Your committee next inquired whether the superin-
tendents had made recommendations whereby they appeared
to have been actuated by any preference in forwarding or
in withholding the names of candidates. Mr. Stafford
read to your committee a statement which he had made
in the house, acquitting the superintendents of any such
motives, and testifying his belief in the good faith with
which they discharged their duty. He discarded any
impressions to the contrary which on his first entrance
into office he had entertained.
" Another important question remains—namely, Did
the principal officers and their Moil/tante in the dockyards ,

THE SUN, LONDON, TIIUIISDAY: EVENING, MAY 26, 1853.

who co-ticketed the examinations, and recommended three
tames to the stilietletendent, invariably perform this duty
with care and impartiality I
" it is manifest that the good intentions of the Board of
Admiralty, the.fairnetes of the Srirveyor, and the justice of
the superintendentg, ate all liable to be defeated, unless
the principal officers of the deelersd execute their portion
of the task with honesty and diligettee.,
" On this point your committee have received conflicting
evidence. The superintendents testify their belief in the
honesty and good faith of their principal officers, witS the
contrary is positively asserted by one witness, a political
agent in a dockyard borough. Mr. Stafford also says that
he was was influenced by the prevalence of such reports.
When further pressed by your committee to furnish names
and to instance some cases, he replied that this would be
injurious to the persons who had given him the informa-
tion, that he had himself tried to remedy the injustice,
and then destroyed the letters.
" Your committee consider that if the Secretary of the
Admiralty entertained such suspicions, and was from this
motive induced to cancel the circular, of 1849, he would
have done no more than his public duty in endeavouring,
by every means in his power, to expose such dishonesty
and fraud. Mr. Stafford, however, thought it useless to
inquire further, and probably in his case he judged wisely,
for when the Secretary of the Admiralty accompanies
political candidates through the dockyards and invites the
officers of the department to meet electioneering agents on
the eve of an election, it becomes obvious that he cannot
consistently take any steps for the purpose of repressing
favouritism and party preferences. Before any useful in-
quiry into such rumours can be instituted, it is essential
that all the men in the dockyards should be convinced
that the authorities at head-quarters are sincere in their
intentions.
" Your committee have been unable to discover any
facts which justify the issue of the circular of 19th April,
1852, cancelling the order of September, 1849, and the
evidence proves that this proceeding was adopted by Mr.
Stafford to satisfy his political friends. The circular
of September, 1849, has since been restored, I,2ed its pro-
visions rendered more secure by being embodies in an
Order in Council.
" In concluding their observations on this head of their
inquiry your committee feel it due to the Surveyor of the
Navy to declare their opinion that they have heard nothing
which casts the least shadow of suspicion upon the integ-
rity of his conduct in the performance of his official duties.
Sir B. Walker asserts that he never allowed any one in his
department to interfere with these duties, and that the re-
sponsibility of the submissions rests solely on himself.
SECOND. —Also to inquire into the circumstances
under which a letter addressed by Sir B. Walker to Mr.
Stafford, as Secretary to the Admiralty, in which letter
Sir B. Walker tendered his resignation as Surveyor of the
Navy, was withheld from the board.
" On the 21st April, 1852, Sir B. Walker states that he
was first informed of the issue of the circular of the 19th
by the dockyard returns acknowledging its receipt. On
the same day he wrote a letter tendering his resignation,
and addressed it to the Secretary of the Admiralty.
" Sir B. Walker says that he took this letter to the Ad-
miralty, and read it to Admiral Hyde Parker, who was
the immediate head of the Surveyor's department. Ad-
miral Parker took the letter, and said he should give it to
the First Lord. Admiral H. Parker is not certain as to
the date, but it is certain that he took the letter, on the
Same day on which he received it, to the Duke of Northum-
berland ; that he gave the letter to the duke, having first
taken it out of its cover. He did not read it to his Grace,
but told him the purport of the letter.
"The Duke of Northumberland has no recollection of
this letter, and he thinks there is some confusion as to the
date of this interview. He believes that Admiral H. Par-
ker came to him on Monday the 26th of April, and repre-
sented the annoyance which the Surveyor felt on account
of a slur which seemed to be cast on his character by the
issue of the circular of the 19th. Admiral Parker spoke
very warmly and justly upon the subject, and the duke
told him he felt confident that Mr. Stafford meant no dis-
respect to the Surveyor. After this interview his Grace
sent for Mr. Stafford, and told him that the Surveyor con-
sidered the circular cancelling the order of 1849 had cast a
stigma on the Surveyor, and the duke was much afraid he
would resign ; and he added to Mr. Stafford, who treated
it rather lightly, 'lt is much more serious than you seem
to think ' • for, if he resigns his office, I may not find a suc-
cessor.' Upon that Mr. Stafford went into Admiral Par-
ker's room, and at the end of about half an hour they came
into the duke's room, Sir B. Walker and Admiral H. Par-
ker together. The circular of (the 26th April was then
read in the duke's room, upon which Sir B. Walker said,
I am perfectly satisfied.'
" Sir B. Walker asserts confidently that the duke is in
error as to this interview ; but he states that he did see
the duke between the day of the delivery of his letter and
of the circular being issued, and that the duke said to him,
I know all about your letter ; Admiral Parker has told
me all about it ; remain perfectly quiet, and everything
shall be set right.'
"In the midst of these contradictions, there is one point
on which all the witnesses agree, namely, that the purport
or draught of the circular of 26th April was read in the
presence of Admiral Parker and of Sir B. Walker before
its issue.
" The circular of 26th April was afterwards read at the
board. This circular informs the superintendents that the
circular of the 19th was not intended as an imputation on
the Surveyor of the Navy,. and it proceeds in these words :
—` The arrangements with regard to the dockyard promo-
tions, as laid down by their lordships' circular of the 27th
February, 1847, will be strictly adhered to ; and they deem
it desirable to revert to the system then in force, of having
all communications on the subject addressed to this office
in the first instance.'
"Admiral Parker states that a day or two after the above
interview he destroyed Sir B. Walker's letter of resigna-
tion, considering the matter to be settled. As regards the
letter of resignation, therefore, it appears that, although it
was addressed to the late Secretary of the Admiralty, it
was never delivered to him, and, consequently, he is in no
way responsible for the act of withholding that letter from
the board.
" Your committee were informed by Sir B. Walker that
he did not until November know that his letter of resigna-
tion had been destroyed ; ho had found in the circular of
26th April a reference, as he thought, to the words he had
used in his letter, and he concluded that his letter had been
submitted to the board. Sir B. Walker acknowledged that
the circular of the 26th cleared his character, and so far,
and so far only, was he satisfied ; he did not think the
course taken by the board satisfactory, inasmuch as they
confirmed the act previously done by the Secretary with-
out their knowledge.
" The Duke of Northumberland, and the other Lords, in
sanctioning the circular of 26th April, repeated and con-
firmed the order of the 19th. They had now removed all
imputation upon the Surveyor's honour ; but they had not
provided for the efficient working of the system which they
stated would be strictly adhered to.
"The First Lord and several of his colleagues seem to
have considered that in regard to promotions the Surveyor
would be consulted as before, the only change being that
the recommendations would be sent, in the first instance,
to the Secretary. The duke did not, however, give any
directions on this subject; he expected that the Secretary
and the Surveyor would work together, as this was essen-
tial for the efficiency of the service. The First Lord sup-
posed that the Secretary would communicate upon all
matters with the Surveyor, and his Grace said that it was
impossible for him to contemplate any abuses. This
expectation was not realized. Sir B. Walker denies that
he was afterwards consulted by the Secretary upon vacan-
cies or promotions, and Mr. Stafford cannot remember
that he ever did consult the Surveyor upon such business
after April, 1852.
" The duke received, however, other intimations that
the appointments in the dockyards were not satisfactory to
officers in his department, and that abuses were not alto-
gether impossible. He had granted an interview to Captain
Richards, who had brought to his notice the circumstances
of Ridgway's promotion, and the correspondence with
regard to that case. The Surveyor of the Navy had also
seen his Grace upon that subject. His Grace's conversa-
tion induced Captain Richards to think that the duke quite
concurred with him in his view of dockyard promotions.
Admiral H. Parker remonstrated frequently upon the
rescinding the circular of September, 1849, and said he
should bring the matter before the board. In reply to
Admiral H. Parker, the duke spoke very confidentially,
and encouraged him to bring the subject before the board.
This, however, was never done.
"On the 10th of May Sir B. Walker, having received
many communications from different dockyards iu regard
to the unjust filling up of vacancies, and being now re-
lieved from personal feeling in regard to any imputation
on his character, which had been at first involved in this
question, wrote a letter to the duke calling his attention
again to the subject, and expressing and earnest wish that
his Grace's administration might not be tarnished.
" The duke states that he considered this letter well, and
thought he saw in it a desire to revive personal disputes ;
he however, showed the letter in confidence to Mr. Stafford,
saying that he should not make it public.
Sir B. Walker received no reply to this letter.
" Your committee examined Sir B. Walker upon tho
details of the cases which he adduced in justification of
his letter to the Duke of Northumberland, and they ob-
tained evidence in corrobation of his statements from the
superintendents of Woolwich, of Devonport, and of Cha-
tham. The officers concurred in stating that the appoint
ments made by Mr. Stafford were, in many instances, un-
just to the men in the yards, contrary to the circular o-
-1847, and detrimental to the efficiency of the service.. Inf
explanation of these various cases Mr. Stafford said, that
he had .regarded many of these appointments as first entries,
the nomination to which had been invariably vested in the
Board of Admiralty. Under this impression he had not
followed the recommendations of the superintendents, but
had, without reference to their advice, named the persons
suggested to him by his political friends. The evidence of
Commodores Seymour and Eden, of Captain Richards and
of Sir B. Walker, will show the view which these officers
took of these appointments, and the meaning which they
attached to the circular of 1847. In regard to several of the
appointments inquired into by your committee, the origi-
nal documents could not be produced, having either been
lost or abstracted. The original minute of the 19th of
April, 1852, was also not forthcoming. Some evidence re-
specting it will be found in the appendix.
"Your committee desires distinctly to state that in the
majority of cases, after cancelling tho circular of 1849,
Mr. Stafford appears to have followed the recommenda-
tions of the superintendents ; but it is obvious, as regards
the efficiency of these establishments, that even a few pro-
motions obtained through political influence would defeat
the authorities of the dockyard, subvert the confidence of
the men, and rendar nugatory all the solemn assurances of
circulars issued by the Admiralty, to the effect that men
should rise by merit, and not by political influence.
" There can be little doubt but that these results have
attended the appointments adverted to by witnesses well
qualified to give an impartial opinion on this subject.
Officers of high character in the navy, distinguished alike
for professional abilities and unblemished honour, observed
the course of promotion in the dockyards during the last
summer with apprehension, with feelings of humiliation,
with dismay, and even with disgust.

"One officer, of high standing-in the navy, and supreme
at the Admiralty, had power to check these proceedings ;
an appeal was more than once made to him ; he intimated
his disapproval, but he declined to interfere. His rank and
station in the country, his position in the Government, his
connexion with the gallant service of the navy, were
deemed to be securities for the administration of a depart-
ment confided to the Duke of Northumberland. On this
responsibility the Earl of Derby stated that he had placed
his reliance.
" His Grace had surrendered to the Secretary the civil
patronage of the Admiralty ; and it is due to his Grace to
state that the few appointments connected with the dock-
yards which he himself made were apparently selected
for no other motive except the good of the service. Your
committee, however, would ill discharge their duty if they
did not point out that in every branch of the Government
the head of the department must be held responsible, not
indeed for every individual appointment, but for the sys-
tem under which the patronage is distributed ; and he is
specially bound to uphold subordinate officers who cannot
properly perform their duty without his countenance and
support.
TAXED Qvanue—The dumdum connected with

the appointment of Mr. James Wells as master smith in
the dockyard of Portsmouth, the subsequent cancelling
thereof, and the appointment of Mr. George Cotsell in his
stead..

...r....1."'''

NAVAL IIVTELLIGENCE

PORTSMOUTH, MAY 25.
The Vesuvius, 6, paddle-sloop, manned from the steal
guard-ship Blenheim, and in charge of Comm deg
Gardner, of that ship, left this steam-reserve to-d19,1',
Southampton, to embark the 23d Fusiliers and caw
them to 'Cowes.
The Porcupine steam-vessel arrived at Spithead thigt
morning from Jersey, which port she left on the Id °:
May, leaving on the station her Majesty's steara-vessoli
Dasher. She came into harbour at noon to refit, ft
will afterwards proceed to the Isle of Man to Po"

" Mr. George Cotsell, the master smith at Chatham,
stated to your committee that he had for some years been
desirous of being transferred to the same situation at Ports-
mouth, and in the spring of 1852 he made an application to
the Admiralty on this subject. He subsequently saw Mr.
Stafford in the smithery at Chatham, accompanied by Sir
F. Smith and other gentlemen. He then took an oppor-
tunity of reminding Mr. Stafford of his request.
In August, 1852, Admiral H. Parker, directod Sir B.
Walker to select a man for the smithery at Portsmouth from
the private trade.

"Sir B. Walker thereupon communicated with Com-
modore Eden, because at Woolwich a smith from private
trade had been found of great service. Eventually James
Wells, a smith from Liverpool, was recommended for the
place, and Admiral Parker signed a minute, considering
himself entitled to appoint a master smith, and believing
that this appointment would be an advantage to.the service.
In accordance with this minute letters were sent from the
Admiralty, on the 10th of September, to the superinten-
denr at Portsmouth, to the Surveyor, and to the Account-
ant-General, acquainting them with the appointment of
Wells. -A warrant was also prepared, but this was sub-
sequently stopped by Captain Hamilton, the permanent
Secretary of the Admiralty, without any communication
with Admiral Parker. Captain Hamilton said that the
minute by Admiral Parker was not regular, because he had
no authority to make it, the patronage being at the dis-
posal of the Secretary.
"At the end of September Mr. Stafford returned,
having been absent for some weeks ; he wished to appoint
Cotsell to the place, but Admiral Parker remonstrated.
On the Ist of October Cotsell was appointed, and Wells,
who had entered upon the duty, was dismissed.
Cotsell had a very good character as a workman, as

will be seen by referring- to the evidence. The chief 'ob-
jection to the appointment was, that he :had been named
through political influence, and that, as this was well known

in the yards, it must operate prejudicially to the service.
"On the Bth of October Admiral H. Parker, wrote to
the Duke of Northumberland, complaining of this substi-
tuting as injurious to the public service and as an affront
to himself. His Grace states that he was vexed at the
manner in which Admiral H. Parker had been treated, and
expressed an opinion that it was wrong. The admiral,
had, however, committed an irregularity in making the
appointment, and the duke desired to allay the angry feel-
ings which had arisen.

" Mr. Stafford defends the appointment of Cotsell upon
two grounds—first, that Wells had, in fact, received no
warrant of appointment ; next, that Cotsell had a stronger
claim, because he was an excellent master smith, and hav-
ing served in the dockyards was fairly entitled to be pre-
ferred to a stranger.

" Admiral Parker said that he made the minute rightly,
as First Naval Lord, when he appointed Wells. The duke
states, on the contrary, that the conduct of Admiral Parker
was irregular, for that he himself had given this appoint-
ment to Mr. Stafford.

" The expediency of introducing persons from private
trade, and thereby stopping the usual course of promo-
tions, must depend on the special circumstances of the
case. In the circular of 1847 attention is directed to im-
provements in working copper and iron, and to the early
introduction into the Government yards of the best mode
of working adopted in private establishments. Great be-
nefit had resulted in Woolwich from this introduction,
and Admiral Parker, having been,superintendent of Ports-
mouth Dockyard, was well qualified to give an opinion on
this question.
---•- - -

" Under the present Board of Admiralty Mr Wells has
been restored to Portsmouth, and Mr. Cotsell remanded to
Chatham.

" FOURTH QUESTION.—To inquire generally into the
exercise of the influence and patronage of the Admiralty
in the dockyards and Government departments connected
with the several Parliamentary boroughs.
"An extensive field of inquiry is here submitted for in-
vestigation. All the witnesses, who have been asked the
question, admit that the political party enjoying the power
and patronage of office exercise an influence, more or less
effective, upon the constituencies of the dockyard boroughs.
" The evidence offered upon this general subject con-
vinced your committee that, if they examined into the
political conflicts within these boroughs in former years,
they would immediately be bewildered by contradictory
assertions and statements as to long-past transactions,
which the lapse of time renders it difficult to verify ; and
probably, after devoting the whole session to such an in-
quiry, they would be unable to afford to the house any
more useful information than can be now obtained from
the reports of different election committees.

" Your committee have therefore restricted their inves-
tigations to proceedings subsequent to the issue of the cir-
cular of 1847, when a new era commenced. In former
years it is generally admitted that corrupt practices pre-
vailed in the dockyards. To prevent a recurrence of such
practices the circular of 1847 was avowedly issued, and the
accompanying evidence tends to show that from the time of
its issue until April, 1852, the Board of Admiralty had
h.:neatly fulfilled their part of the engagement. Your com-
mittee limit their report to the subject of dockyard appoint-
ments, and to the direct exercise or influence upon men in
the dockyards. They wish, therefore; to state, that they
pronounce no opinion upon the general exercise of patron-
age by the Board of Admiralty. The patronage of the
first entries would probably give a preponderating influence
to a Government which had held office for a continuous
term of years. There are, however, objections to permit-
ting the officers of the dockyard to exercise patronage in
reference to the first entries. The admission of numerous
relations and persons locally connected with each other
would neither tend to the good discipline of the yard, nor
to impartiality in the examinations for promotion ; while
the power of rejection, if properly exercised by the super-
intendent, seems to afford some security against the intro-
duction of unfit men into the yard.
" No general election had occurred since the issue of the
circular of 1847 until the summer of last year, but two
elections for Greenwich had occurred in the years 1849 and
1851 ; your committee endeavoured, therefore, to ascertain
whether the Government, in the years 1849 and 1851, had
interfered with the course of promotions at Woolwich,
either before or after the two elections. Commodore Eden
states that his recommendations were duly confirmed, and
he does not remember any case where other influence pre-
vailed against him.
"The late Secretary of the Admiralty was accompanied
by the parliamentary candidates of his own political party
when he visited the dockyards at Chatham,. Deptford, and
Devonport, and at the two last places ho stood with the
candidates at the ticket office, where all the men must
necessarily pass in review. During his stay at Devonport,
a few days previous to the election, he invited men, who
were taking an active part in the political contest, to meet
several officers of the dockyard at dinner, and this dinner
was charged to the contingencies of the Admiralty.
" In regard to these proceedings Mr. Stafford has ad-
mitted that his conduct was wrong, and not consistent
with his duty.
" Your committee asked Mr. H. Hay, who has been at
the Admiralty during 47 years, whether he ever knew any
occasion upon which a Secretary of the Admiralty had
gone round without the board in the way in which the late
Secretary did, and Mr. Hay said, ' I do not think I can in-
stance a case."
"Mr. Stafford states that he was not then aware of the
stringent obligations under which the superintendents of
the dockyards, as men of honour, were required to abstain
from all political interference.
" Thus, in ignorance of much that he should have known,
seeking counsel from none, and rejecting such counsel as
had been tendered, he acted in disregard of precedents,
and pursued a course which rendered the circulars of the
Admiralty, and the conditions imposed on the superin-
tendents, equally nugatory and valueless.
" Some observations will be found in the evidence upon
the expediency of disfranchising the men in the dockyards ;
this is a question of State policy involving considerations
which were not referred to your committee, and which it
is,not within their province to report upon. They have,
however, not deemed it irrelevant to obtain some opinions
upon the question from witnesses whose judgment and ex-
perience
deserve the attention of the House. •

- "In its bearing upon the public interest, the importance
of the system under which labour in the dockyards is regu
lated can hardly be overrated. The vote for wages alone
in these establishments at home has this year amounted to
683,6001., and the present member of men is fixed at 9,65.3.
A few years since the expense under this head was still
larger ; but from the evidence of Sir F. Baring it appears
that by the regulations of the years 1847 and 1849 the dock-
yards were so much improved that an equal amount of
labour was obtained from a diminished number of work-
men.

" An impartial system of advancement must be produc-
tive of industry, and therefore of economy ; such a system
your commAteo believe may be enforced, if the Board of
Admiralty honestly persevere in its maintenance, and if,
having appointed fit persons as superintendents, they direct
them vigilantly to watch those whose fair co-operation can
alone insure justice to candidates for promotion.

" For the purpose of securing a proper system of promo-
tions in the dockyards, it may, perhaps, fairly be required
that if tho system under which these promotions are now
again regulated should be hereafter altered or modified the
information shall be laid before Parliament as soon as an
opportunity may be afforded for such communication.
" Before closing this report, your committee wish to di-
rect attention to some matters of detail which appear to
them susceptible of improvement. The minute books of
the Admiralty do not afford all the information in regard
to past transactions which is desirable for reference. The
evidence here annexed shows that important documents
have been either withdrawn or lost, and the loss of papers
is, it is stated, not an unfrequent occurrence at the Admi-
ralty. In order to obviate the inconvenience of such loss,
an improved arrangement might, perhaps, be made, so that
orders entered in the general minute book may not long
remain without the cognisance of the board, and so that in
after years a reference to the general minute' book may
show not only the purport of the minute, but the autho-
rity for its issue.
May 23, 1853."

EXTENSIVE FAILURE IN BRIGHTON.—It is with no
small regret that we announce not only the failure of
Mr. Robert Winter, jun., but the breaking-up and dis-
persion of the Brighton School, which he succeeded in
establishing in Clifton-road. It has for some time past
been known that Mr. Winter was struggling against
formidable difficulties into which the several speculative
schemes in which he had embaiked involved him ; but
it was hoped that such assistance would have been ob-
tained as would have enabled him "to weather the storm."
These hopes have not been realised ; and some large
creditors being in possession of a bill of sale, and all
prospect of a retrieval having vanished, the pupils, up-
wards of one hundred in number, received their conge
last week, and the effects will be brought to the hammer
without delay by Mr. Wilkinson. Mr. Winter's liabi-

lities are, we hear, nearly 20,0001., and we fear that
much distress in several quarters will result from this
failure. We regret to add that Mr. Winter has disap-
peared, and his absence will of course complicate matters
the more.—Brighion, Guardian.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills,
excellent Remedies for the Cure of Bronchitis and Ulce-
rated Sore Throats.—Extract of a letter from Mr.
James Downing, of Paris-street, Exeter, dated March
80, 1853.—" To Professor Holloway.—Sir, Your oint-
ment and pills have effected upon me a perfect cure of a
dreadfully diseased throat, arising from cold, which ul-
timately terminated in bronchitis. The medical aid I
received was unable to combat with the disease, and I
was rapidly sinking under its influence. At this stage
I had recourse to your medicines, which in a few hours
relieved me, and I am happy to inform you, thst, in less
than a fortnight I was entirely cured by them. Sold
by all druggists, and at Professor Efolloway's establish-
ment, 2446 strand, Loudon.

the fisheries. -
The Sidon, 22, steam-frigate, Captain Goldsmith, iC,P'S,
towed into harbour this morning and hauled into to
steam-basin to receive her new shaft. • I to
The Simoom steam troop-ship was docked to-u 3)
have her bottom scrubd down.
Orders have been received to hasten the fittings 0f ti/ice,
royal yacht for the service of her Majesty the vor
men are employed over-hours to get her ready.
The Sprightly steam-tender conveyed Vice-A.01'4"
Sir Thomas Cochrane to Southampton this morning.„g
The Court, being at Osborne, Royal salutes were ,
at 12 o'clock from the ships in harbour, in honour of to
birth-day of the Princess Helena.

,25
PLYMOUTH, MAY 50,
Her Majesty's screw steam-frigate Imperieuse,
Captain R. B. Watson, arrived yesterday eveaing
o'clock, from the eastward.
The screw steam-sloop Brisk, 14, was cominissi°
on Monda by Commodoe Semour. fn('
The barque Amphitrite,r Captain F. F. Arende) 0
for Hamburgh, 70 days from Buenos Ayres) with wc:j
and hides, passed up Channel yesterday morning,
an3t
landed here M. Brasch and family, M. Schneiders
and Miss Fokleberg. On the 10th inst. spoke
barque Agnes, all well, bound for Liverpool. 91,
Admiral Corry's squadron, the Prince Regent/ Do,
the London, 90, the Sanspareil, 81, the Imperiellsel 1:14
the Amphion, 34, the Highflyer, 21, and Leopard,
left the Sound this evening.
La Hogue returned from a cruise this afternoon; 4,
His Netherland Majesty's steam-sloop Seoubio/to
Captain Fabries, four days from the Texel, put
morning, bound to the Mediterranean.
The screw steamer, Victoria, Captain tiii3—`
made her number outside the Breakwater this foren°-

WOOLWICH, May 0'

APPOINTMENTS.
Lieutenants—John W. Pike (1848), to the St- - rge
D'Acre, 101, screw steam-ship at Devonport ; Ge°„„rti•
Stratton (1848), to the Excellent gunnery-ship at '
mouth.
Surgeon—Frederick F. Morgan (1852), to the
8, sloop at Chatham. era
Masters'-Assistants—C. H. J. Baker, to the St•dor
D'Acre ; G. Christie, to the Comus, 14, sloop at

W. W

aval Cadet— .
frigate at Devonport.
Gunner—Edward D,

De Burgh, to the
to the Brisk sti