The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

' -Y uu did not t-1 did hut. I \t;,.s cs)giiisiint of L, luut
I did not give those directions.
But before it was issued was your grace cognisant of
it ?—Before it was issued I was cognisant of it.
I wish to know, did your grace approve of it ?=No ;
on every occasion when it was mentioned to me by Mr.
Stafford in his representations I objected to interfere. I
would not interfere because I had not sufficient experience,
but he afterwards represented to me that Mr. Parker's cir-
cular had been written by him, and that it was not a
minute of the board, •and that he, as secretary, had the
same power as Mr. Parker had. He said, also, that he
would do so on his own responsibility.
Did he bring in before your grace the original circular
of Mr.. Parker, to which he referred ?—No, he did not.
When he brought you the circular of the 19th of April,
1852, did your grace affix your signature or initials to it?
—He did not bring it.
You did not then see the circular which had been pre-
p:wed by Mr.,PaEker,,so as to know whether or not Sir
Francis-.paring's initials li9Wiffixed to it-- not.
If it had been brought to your Frace's notice, that the
circular of September, 1849, had affixed to it the initials
of the First Lord, should you have considered it neces-
sary to take sonic further consideration before allow-
ing that circular to go forth—the circular of Mr.
Stafford?—l can hardly answer what I might have done
under the circumstances. Sir Francis Baring's name
would not make it a legal document without the name of
another Lord of the Admiralty.
Then Sir Francis Baring's name being attached only
showed that it had the sanction of the First, Lord ?
Yes.

But this circular, as I understand, went forward with-
out the sanction of any lord annexed to it ?—Without
the sanction of any lord annexed to it.
Now, on the 21st of April, a few days after this circu-
lar had been issued, Admiral Parker, in his examination,
stated to the committee that he had placed in your grace's
hands Sir Baldwin Walker's letter of resignation 9--I
have looked very carefully into that part of Admiral
Parker's evidence, and I find he is very uncertain about
his dates. I may mention at once that, until November,
when it was referred to in the House of Commons, I did
not know his letter of resignation had been sent in, or
had existed.

Admiral Parker, in his evidence, distinctly states that
he took Sir Baldwin Walker's letter, tendering his resig-
nation, to the Admiralty to the Duke of Northumber-
land on the same day. Has your grace any recollection
of that ?—None whatever. I have referred to all the dif-
ferent points in the evidence relating to Sir Baldwin
Walker's resignation, and Captain Milne's evidence as to
Sir Baldwin Walker having mentioned that he wrote the
letter when Admiral Parker and Captain Milne were in
the room, and Captain Milne is asked when it was, and
says the 25th or 26th of April.
Then you have no recollection of Admiral Parker
having either given you the letter or having related to
you the purport of that letter ?—He never mentioned a
word of the letter. He may have indirectly or indiscri-
minately have discussed the purport of the letter, though
he never mentioned that there was a letter.

Do you remember when he discussed first the purport
of the letter ? On the 26th of April, which was the first
day I heard of the order being out, and the minute of
the 19th April was brought to my knowledge on Mon-
day, April 26, by Admiral Parker himself making the
complaint from Sir Baldwin Walker.
Captain Richards has brought to the notice of the com-
mittee a private letter written by Captain Pelham to
Captain Richards, the superintendent of Chatham dock-
yard, inquiring whether any political influences were at
work to hold back appointments for the promotion of
men in the service in Chatham yard ; now I wish to ask
your grace whether that inquiry was at all instituted by
your grace's commandl—By no means ; I never knew
of it.

In that letter Capt. Pelham, your private secretary,
states, "My chief is for the best man for the public ser-
vice, and scorns a job;" and he writes to Capt. Richards
respecting the appointment of a man to the metal mills
at Chatham by Mr. Stafford, the man being reported unfit
by Captain Richards ; and to this Captain Richards sent
a reply on the 24th April. Does your grace remember
whether that reply was brought under your notice ?—lt
was ; the first complaint was from Sir Baldwin Walker
early iu April, and Captain Richards came to sue on the
12th or 13th April.
Captain Richards, in his letter, says he requested an
interview in order to disabuse your grace's mind upon
the question. It would appear, therefore, from his let-
ter, that he asked for an interview after he had written
one letter, which it appears your grace granted. Now,
at that interview did Captain Richards bring under your
notice the case relating to Ridgway?—Yes, he did.
He showed how Ridgway had formerly applied to Sir
F. Baring for his intervention ?—Yes, he did.
And he entered fully into the case, and showed that
Ridgway had violated the spirit and words of the circu-
of 1847 ?—Yes.

And then Captain Richards stated that he was satis-
fied with the interview with your grace, and that you
expressed to him your conviction that he was doing his
duty honestly and honourably ?—Yes, as a matter of
course, as an officer, I was perfectly convinced that he
was doing his duty, and that he was right in not inter-
fering with matters of political influence. The words I
made use of to Captain Richards in parting were, " If
you ever have any interference in your duty, or if you
ever have any complaint to make, come to me, and you
may rely upon it I will support you."
If, then, any accusation was made against Captain
Richards that he interfered at all in politics, it would
have been a violation of the order, and I understand you
to say you quite acquit him of any such imputation ?
I never ha,d a question about it, no such imputation ever
came to me. I only mention my belief in the character
of Captain Richards, but there never was a question.
In Captain Richards' reply to Captain Pelham, he
" begs and entreats that the case may be thoroughly
sifted." Now when this was brought to your grace's
notice at the interview, did you feel so satisfied, that you
considered no inquiry necessary ?—I knew nothing about
the letter. I was not cognisant of the letter. Captain
Richards had been to me to explain the matter in full,
and he said very naturally that he never was influenced,
as he was ordered not to take any part in politics.
Captain Richards' impression was that he had read
the letter to you ?—lt might have been, but I was not
aware of it. It might have been.
Capt. Richards in his evidence states that he asked your
grace if he might have permission to read the letter
from Mr. Stafford to him ?—He might have done so,
and it is very likely he did.
Did you hear from Mr. Stafford any ground for sup-
posing Captain Richards to be a political partisan ?
At this moment I don't recollect any question, cer-
tainly, with respect to Captain Richards.
Now, was your grace aware that Sir Frederick Smith
had applied for the promotion of Ridgway?---I never
heard one word about Sir Frederick Smith, or of any
election connected with any one of the dockyards, either
directly or indirectly.
On 26th April it appears you saw the Surveyor
of the Navy, and you had seen him previously to your
representing to the Secretary of the Admiralty the an-
noyance the surveyor felt in regard to the issue of the
former circular ?—lf I may explain, there is some little
indistinctness in the recollection of Admiral Parker
on that subject. It was on the morning of Monday,
26th of April, that Admiral Parker came to me to say
that the Surveyor of the Navy was very much annoyed
and vexed at Mr. Stafford's cancelling the cir-
cular of 1849, that he considered it was a slur upon his
character, and Admiral Parker spoke very warmly and
justly on the subject, as he was an officer who felt any-
thing like a slur, and he also said that it would lower
him in the estimation of the superintendents and officers,
and he did not think that if the slur remained on the
surveyor's character that he would remain in his office.
I told Admiral Parker I was quite confident Mr. Staf-
ford never meant any disrespect to the surveyor, and
that I would send him into Admiral Parker's room,
where I understood the surveyor was, to remove any
impression from the surveyor's mind that such was the
case. It was an interview that lasted five or six minutes,
and it was very ardent on the part of Admiral Parker,
and very proper.
After the interview on the 26th of April was a circu-
lar submitted to your grace for approbation ?—I sent
for Mr. Stafford, and told him all the circumstances—
all that Admiral Parker had told me. I said it was
considered by the surveyor that this cancelling had cast
a stigma on the surveyor, and I am very much afraid he
will resign his office, and if he did resign his office, I
said, though you, Mr. Stafford, may treat it lightly, it
is a much more serious thing than you seem to think ;
for if the surveyor does resign his office, I am not pre-
pared to propose a successor ; he has done his duty and
good service, and I thought that good service should con-
tinue. Upon that, Mr. Stafford went to Admiral Par-
ker's room, where the whole of the circumstances, I be-
lieve, took place about the minute that was agreed to.
At the end of half an hour they came into my room, Sir
Baldwin Walker and Admiral Parker together. Sir
Baldwin Walker explained to me how very much he was
annoyed, and explained to me the matter very much in
the same words as before, that he felt the circular was a
censure on him, and which I of course felt a wish to re-
move. In a few minutes Mr. Stafford came in with a mi-
nute and read it to Sir Baldwin Walker and Admiral Par-
ker in my hearing. Sir Baldwin Walker, wh en it was read
said, "I am perfectly satisfied ; " and Mr. Stafford
answered that it should be read to the board as a mi-
nute, and they all went away, It does not quite agree
with the evidence already given, but that was the case.
Then you had read the circular before it was sub-