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

THE
.COMMITTEE ON DOCKYARD PRO-
MOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS.

Yesterday, leave having been given by the House of
Lords for his grace the Duke of Northumberland, late
First Lord of the Admiralty, to attend and be examined
before the committee, the committee-room was crowded
at an early hour.
The noble duke arrived soon after 11 o'clock. Instead
of occupying the witness-seat, his grace by some accident
found himself in a seat at the table of the committee, and
was by no means very audible at intervals in the delivery
of his evidence.

The Chairman (Lord Seymour), in addressing his
lordship, said—Will your grace state to the committee
what was the date of your accession to office ? I think
it was on the 2d or 3d of March, 1852.

Had you previously held any situation in any depart-
ment of any previous Government I—Never.
From the commencement of superintending the ad-
ministration of the Admiralty, were any arrangements
made as to the distribution of its patronage among the
lords and Secretary of the Admiralty ?—There was ; and
I believe it has always been the custom among the dif-
ferent members of the board and among the different
lords. I, for my own part, took all the naval and mili-
tary patronage, and gave up the civil patronage to the
secretary.
You gave up all the civil patronage to the secretary ?
—Yes, excepting the master-shipwrights, and one class
of messengers, which I reserved for deserving soldiers
and marines. _ _

Is your grace aware whether it had been the custom
before to give up the appointment of the principal officers
in the dockyards to the secretary 1--I never inquired ; I
had no knowledge on the subject either one way or the
other. I may mention that Lord Ellenborough told me
he never knew anything about the private patronage,
but I only say that from hearsay,

Then the committee are to understand that it was with
your sanction Mr. Stafford had almost all the dockyard
appointments ?—The whole of them, except in cases
where it would be an honour conferred on a master ship.
wright that he should receive the appointment from the
head of the establishment. I only reserved it for that
reason, that it might be considered a degree of honour
for a master shipwright so to receive it.

It appears from the evidence that on April 2, 1852,
Mr. Stafford wrote a letter to the Surveyor of the Navy,
in which he stated there seemed no alternative but to
resume the system that existed previous to September,
1849, and pointing to cancelling the circular of Sir F.
Baring of September, 1849. Now I wish to ask your
grace whether you had given any directions to Mr. Staf-
ford before he wrote that letter ?—None. I may men-
tion that Mr. Stafford at various times had conversa-
tions with me on the subject. Ido not know whether
the committee would wish to know what these represen-
tations were, but the letter was written without my
knowledge, and without my knowing anything about it.
Then your lordship had not considered, either one
way or the other, the expediency of cancelling the cir-
cular of September, 1849 ?—I had not.
Was it represented to you by Mr. Stafford in those
conversations that the surveyor's department appeared
to use influence in favour of any political party ?—The
conversations were at various times, for many mornings,
when he came to me, and they were to the effect that
he was responsible for all the patronage of the Ad-
miralty—that he felt a difficulty in doing his duty—that
when called upon by the Government or by the House of
Commons to explain anything for which he
was re-
sponsible, he had not the means of answering, the whole
of the appointments and patronage being in the sur-
veyor's office. He told me also that the patronage of
the Admiralty was used against the Government ; and
lastly, the last time he spoke of it he said that he felt he
had not the power of doing his duty, and
that
he could not retain his office under the circum-
stances, mentioning it only in conversation ; and
he told m e that his office was of little value
to him. I always refused to interfere for want
of experience. I had not had sufficient experience,
and therefore refused to interfere.
Hearing it stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty.
that the patronage of the Admiralty was given to politi-
cal adversaries, did your grace institute any inquiry on
the subject at the time ?—None whatever ; and I never,
from the day I was in office to the day I left it, inquired
whether the patronage was in the hands of the surveyor,
or whether it was in the hands of the secretary. I never
knew anything about it. It was never brought to my
knowledge by the parties. I knew nothing whatever
about it.

trust the surveor of the navyrepresentation
secretary, who was a mem-
berin his department ?—I had
of the Government, and who was responsible to the
House of Commons. If be made representations, what-
ever the representations may be, I supposed he had
grounds for those representations, for I never inquired. I
refused to interfere because I had not sufficient experi-
ence.

Did not your grace consider it very prejudicial to the
interests of the service that there should be even an im-
putation against the surveyor's department of the exer-
cise of political favouritism ?—lt might be so against any
department. I have been now 50 years in the navy, and
I never heard but one story told of the same system of
government influence and jobbing, as it is called, in the
dockyards having always prevailed. It was a matter
of common notoriety, as far a I know.
Did your grace take into consideration the circular
that had been issued by Lord Auckland, and written
by Mr. Ward, with a view to preventing jobbing in the
dockyards ?—Lord Auckland's regulations were excellent
—they were excellent ; and I may mention that the
effect of the minutes was to return to Lord Auckland's
regulations.
But Lord Auckland's regulations state that the good
or bad working of any system must depend in a great
measure on those entrusted with the administration :
now, when it was represented to your grace that the
surveyor's office was not properly carrying out that ad-
ministration, did it appear to you to be your duty to
order an inquiry into it ?—I cannot conceive how I
could have made any inquiry into the matter. The
means of inquiry would be by a committee. I had no
means of inquiring into every individual case that was
recommended. I only heard it generally from the
secretary as a 'confidential and responsible member of
the board, and as responsible to the House of Commons
that such was the ease. I had no reason to disbelieve
it, and at the same time I did not know that it was
anything more than what might have been going on as
before. I believed it might not have been the Surveyor
of the Navy who did it, but that it might have been
some one under him.
Dut as far as the interest of the service was con-
,