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

THE LATE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.

The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the
circumstances under which a circular sent to the super-
intendents of her Majesty's dockyards, dated September
26, 1849, was cancelled on the 19th of April, 1852,
without any order or minute of Board ; also, to inquire
into the circumstances under which a letter addressed
by Sir Baldwin Walker to Mr. Stafford, as Secretary to
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
Costell in his stead ; and generally into the exercise of
the influence and patronage of the Admiralty in the
dockyards and Government departments connected with
the several Parliamentary boroughs, and to whom the
return respecting the case of Lieutenant En gledue,ho
R.N. (presented 11th April), was referred ; and w
were empowered to send for persons, papers, and records,
and to report their observations, together with the
minutes of evidence taken before them, to the House—
have considered the matters to them referred, and have
agreed to the following report
Four distinct questions appear to be contained in the
terms of the above reference, and your committee will ac-
cordingly proceed to offer separately their observations
upon each.
" FiusT.—The circumstances under which a circular sent
to the superintendents of her Majesty's dockyards, dated
26th September, 1849, was cancelled on the 19th April,
1852, without any order or minute of the Board of Ad-
miralty.
"

" In order to render intelligible their remarks upon these
circulars your committee must revert to the proceedings of
the Admiralty at an earlier period.
" On the 27th of February, 1847, while the late Lord
Auckland was First Lord, an Admiralty order was issued
in the form of a circular, addressed to the admirals and
captains superintending her Majesty's dockyards. In this
document, which will be found at length in the Appendix,
the Lords of the Admiralty state their determination to
introduce and maintain a system of promotion under which
every raan who shall have once entered the service of the
dockyards may learn to look to his own exertions as the
only means of future advancement. With the view of
giving effect to this determination the circular contains a
scheme, according to which, whenever a vacancy offering an
opportunity for promotion shall occur, the principal officers
of the dockyard are directed to select three names of the
persons who, after examination, shall appear best qualified
to fill the vacancy, and they are required to submit these
names, with a full report of the respective merits of the
candidates, to the superintendent of the dockyard. The
duty is then imposed on the superintendent of investigating
closely these returns, and of satisfying himself as to their
perfect impartiality, after which he is authorized to reduce
the number of candidates to two by striking out the name
of that candidate whom he considers least qualified. The
report of the superintendent, containing. his opinion of the
merits of the candidates, with the original documents an-
nexed, is then to be forwarded to the Admiralty, and the
Lords of the Admiralty announce their intention to be
guided by these reports in the selection of one from the
two names submitted to fill the vacancy.
" In laying down this scheme of promotion the Lords of
the Admiralty reserve to themselves the right of making
any further inquiries which they may see fit ; but they
state that they will in all cases seek the advice and con-
currence of the superintendent before their choice is finally
notified. They call upon the superintendents and the
principal officers of the dockyard to assist them in working
out this plan honestly. They further assert that, by the
surrender of their own patronage, they have given proof
of their sincerity, and have removed everything which can
warrant a suspicion that preferment will be the result, not
of services, but of political favouritism. They conclude
by observing that the good or bad working of every system
must depend, in a great measure, upon those who are en-
trusted with its administration, and they can only express
their determination to mark with their severest displeasure
every attempt to thwart their intentions, and to reward
those who shall cheerfully second them by every proof of
their favour and approbation.
"- -

- - -
"It is important to notice, in reference to the above
circular of February, 1847, that the patronage therein re-
linquished is solely the patronage of promotions, and that
the Board of Admiralty did not surrender their right of
making the first appointment—that is, of naming persons
to be entered in the dockyards.
" In the year 1849 Sir Francis Baring, being then First
Lord of the Admiralty, introduced an additional precau-
tion for the exclusion of political influence from the ad-
ministration of the dockyards, by writing himself to the
superintendents and principal officers whom ho had ap•
pointed, asking them, as officers and gentlemen, to give
him an assurance that they would not interfere in the
politics of the place.
" Thus it appears that the superintendents of the dock-
yards, and the officers appointed since that period, who re-
ported on the qualifications of candidates for promotion,
were bound by feelings of personal honour, as well as by
obligations of public duty, to abstain studiously from any
conduct which might cast a suspicion over the perfect im-
partiality of their recommendations. The superintendents
of dockyards are invariably men of rank in the naval ser-
vice, and in regard to them the condition imposed by Sir
F. Baring ir tliirstrongeer tie that can be used to bind.-
honourabl& It has, moreover, a double effect, inas-
much as the First Lord who imposes such an engagement
is thereby himself bound to support the superintendent in
strictly maintaining its observance. Your committee,
however, doubt the expediency of maintaining this condi-
tion on orekeepers and subordinate officers in a dockyard.
They have, indeed, only examined one storekeeper from a
vietualling-yard, but it is manifest that he was not qualified
to appreciate an honourable ongagoment, and that in his
ease such a condition was futile and ineffective.
Your committee have been informed that during the
early part of the year 1849, as well as in some years pre-
vious, a practice had prevailed of transmitting to the Sur-
veyor of the Navy the reports anti recommendations re-
ceived from the superintendents of the doelcyards, in order
that the Surveyor might add his remarks upon tho promo-
tions submitted, and his advice upon the filling up of
vacancies in the several yards.
" In the slimmer of 1849 the Surveyor, Sir Baldwin
Walker, mentioned to the board that some report had not
been transmitted to him, and that, in consequence of this
oversight, certain vacancies had been filled which ho could
have supplied more economically by transfers from another
yard. Sir B. Walker then suggested that, in con-
formity with a more ancient practice, the reports from the
superintendents should be sent direct to the surveyor, and
should then be forwarded by him to the secretary of the
Admiralty. This suggestion was discussed at tho board,
who assented to it, but no minute was made at the time ;
and shortly afterwards Sir B. Walker again mentioned the
matter to Sir Francis Baring, who told him the hoard were
perfectly agreed, and that if he would write a letter to Mr.
Parker, the Secretary, the minute should go on. The let-
ter was written and submitted by Mr. Parker to Sir F.
Baring, who marked upon it his initials, with Approved.,
On this authority the circular of September, 1849, was
issued. The minute, therefore, was not a board minute.
Sir F. Baring, states, 'lt was not a minute made by the
First Lord ; not, however, without the knowledge and con-
currence of the board.'
" The late Board of Admiralty entered upon their du-
ties on the 2d or 3d of March, 1852. The Duke of Nor-
thumberland states, that as soon as he had accepted office
he gave up to Mr. Stafford, the Secretary of the Admi-
ralty, all the civil patronage, excepting the master ship-
wrights, and one class of messengers, which he reserved
for deserving sailors and marines. Mr. Stafford states,
that upon his acceptance of office, the first thing which
was forced upon him by all his political friends was the
amount of his patronage, and the first thing he had to in-
quire at the Admiralty was the limit of that patronage.
He further informed your committee, that as soon as 'he
entered upon his official duties he received repeated com-
munications that the promotions and appointments in the
dockyards took a direction invariably hostile to the Go-
vernment with which he was connected.
" On the 31st of March, or thereabouts, Sir. B. Walker
abates that Mr. Grant, a clerk of the Admiralty, and pri-
vate secretary to Mr. Stafford, came to his office at Somer-
set-house, with a request that ho (the Surveyor of the
Navy) would not submit the names of persons to be pro-
moted into the vacancies for foremen and inspector of
shipwrights in Devonport Dockyard ; as Mr. Stafford's
political friends were dissatisfied. -he wished to promote
some of their party. Sir B. Walker replied that he had
been upwards of four years in the department ; that ho
had not allowed political motives to influence hs submis-
sions to the board ; and that ho was not going to com-
mence jobbing for him or anybody else. He requested,
therefore, that such a proposition should never again be
made to him.
" Mr. Walter Eden, a clerk in the Surveyor's depart-
ment, says that he entered the room during this interview,
and heard the reply made by Sir B. Walker.
" Mr. Stafford denies that he sent Mr. Grant to the Sur-
veyor on such an errand.
Mr. Grant states that the object of his visit to Sir B.
Walker was, as far.as he can recollect, to ascertain whether
certain vacancies existed in the dockyards, the Secretary of
the . Admiralty having received applications for certain
vacancies which were stated to exist, but the reports of
which vacancies had not reached him. His own impression
is that he stated to Sir B. Walker that some inconvenience
was felt in consequence of the reports of the vacancies not
coming direct to the Secretary, but coining in the first
instance through the Surveyor; to which Sir B. Walker
replied, that he trusted the system then in force was not
about to be altered, as ho thought it worked very well, and
he hoped no system of jobbing was about to be recurred to.
" According to Mr. Grant's evidence, therefore, the
first intimation in regard to cancelling the circular of
September, 1849, was made by himself, a clerk in the
Almiralty, to the Surveyor of the Navy. Mr. Grant adds
that he made these inquiries from his own wish to ascer-
tain' the facts, and not by direction of Mr. Stafford.
" On the 2d of April, 1852, Mr. Stafford wrote a private
letter to Sir B. Walker, wherein he adverts to the great
dissatisfaction felt by his political friends as to the present
arrangement of appointments and promotions in the dock-
yards, in regard to which he says, there is a general im-
pression that all those things are dispensed among political
opponents, insomuch that there seems no alternative but to
restune the system which existed provious(to September,

the above
Stafford stated it as his belief that, before writing
pint
rd lettero to Sir B. Walker, he had consulted the
with the linirt at least he had, in his various conversations
be wa.,,
pre,4 of Northumberland, mentioned how much
ono mode of ' and referred to cancelling the circular as
His meetingGraco the difficulty.
conversations with hit` Mr. Stafford had at various times
of September, 1819, bi in regard to cancelling the circular
that the letter of the 2d .
was written without his 4
his reply to
" Sir B. Walker, in knowledge, of April
that the m Mr. Stafford's private
letter, points out dist-
t stem of promotions
is regulated by the circular
periutendents ofratE:
circular
rcoalf
preference impossible, if tbeef I,l4lich renders
an!'
Lords
rard to
the the ci
yards perform their duty ;
111-4 y, and depriv the.
1819, he adds, 'lt is for the doc-
k-1849,
whether they will rescind that ofo i AdmiraltV to de
Icaeori nr Yt
e' 'r
vki ce
'w
Surveyor of the control which is so
" On the sth of April Sir B. Walker
with Mr. Stafford at the Admiralty, on whai(
subject was warmly discussed. There is a materialthe
differ-
ence in their recollection of this conversation. a sirla
Walker asserts that Mr. Stafford said, ' There is no use
B.
blinking the question ; I am so pressed by Lord Derby and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I cannot help my.
self.
" Mr. Stafford states that is difficult to pledge himself,
either affirmatively or negatively, to the precise accuracy
of any particular words, but he can say there was no pres-
sure put upon him either by Lord Derby or by the Chated
n-
cellor of the Exchequer ; and what he believes he sta
was, ' The pressure upon me from members of my own
party was very severe indeed, and that the Government of
Lord Darby and to (Ismilloz of the ZuhuTior would

not, any more than any other Government, permit all the
patronage to be 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 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 IFIr. 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.

1-‘ 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 lst 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, ho 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
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 the 19th 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-
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 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 ; ho
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 know anything about it.'
"The evidence shows, however, that the duke's mind
had been imbued with a notion that the circular of 1849 hld
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 prefrence 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 al-ketl 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 wore suprised to find that Mr. Stafford, whoa 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 ware
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.

"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 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 impartiality of
the Surveyor's department, and considered the system in-
troduced by the circular of BO an improvement on the
tendentsrha,dma
previous practice.
to have been actuated committee next inquired whether the superin-
in -withholding thead bY
recommendations whereby they appeared
read to your co names any preference in forwarding or
names of candidates. Mr. Stafford
in the holm,
acquials. statement which he had made
motives, and testifying acquitting superintendents of any such
belief in the good faith with
which they discharg,e their
impressions to the contrary duty'
on
; liLdilisresatredgra, anylice
into office he had entertained, "'Flu
" Another important question r
the priugipal cam and their pailiZaing—namely, Did
tol thedpoltyarbi

who conducted the examinations, and recommended three
names to the superintendent, invariably perform this duty
with care and impartiality ?
" It is manifest that the good intentions of the Board of
Admiralty, the fairness of the Surveyor, and the justice of
the superintendents, are all liable to lioe defeated, unless
the principal officers of the dockyard execute their portion
of the task with honesty and diligence.
" On this point your committee have received conflicting
evidence. The superintendents testify their belief in the
honesty and good faith of their principal officers, while 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, and its pro-
visions rendered more secure by being embodied 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 inion 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 I. Parker is not certain as to

the date, but it is certaia 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 kthe 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 be 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 the 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 tho 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
be did not until November know that his letter of resigna-
tion had been destroyed ; he 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 bo 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 circumstanees
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 in 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 should not make it public.
Sir B. Walker received no reply to this letter.
" Your committee examined Sir B. Walker upon the
details of the cases which he adduced in justification of
his letter to the Duke of Northumberland, and they ob-
tained evidence in corrobition 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. Ile
explanation of these various oases 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 IT 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 the circular of 1849,
Mr. Stafford appears to have followed the recommends.
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.
" Theca 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, obsorved
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 itavy, 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 ho is
specially bound to uphold subordinate officers who cannot
properly perform their duty without his countenance and
support.
r Tam) QvlA4l4o47—The Cirtluothum connected with