The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-03 00:00:00

[PRICE SD.

Lord Seymour—Did you put aside recommendations
coming through the surveyor, and womote others? _
Mr. Stafford—Not in many instances. When I had signed
the appointments of A. and B. in the morning, and went
down to the House, it was there represented to ale that C.
and D. were more deserving.
Lord Seymour—Did not these letters convey a censure on
the Surveyor-General, which should have been inquired into?
Mr. Stafford—l think not. The bringing forward of these
cases would have subjected individuals to a system of petty
tyranny which no Lord of the Admiralty can prevent.
Lord Seymour—Then you took the complaints for granted,
without inquiry ?
Mr. Stafford—l took the number of complaints as a justifi-
cation for issuing the circular, but I am free to own that I
did not then attach so much importance to that document as
11.,s been given to it since. So long as I left the regulations
of Sir Henry Ward and Lord Auckland untouched I did not
think I made much change ; and I consider that my letter of
the 2d of April was an act of courtesy to Sir Baldwin
Walker. The first thing I had to inquire into when I came
into office was ...he amount of my patronage, and I was told
that the patronage of the dockyards was under the secreta y.
I never heard Sir Baldwin Walker charged with any political
bias in the discho.rge•of his duties.

Lord Seymour—Did you not convey an impression to Sir
Baldwin Walker that the previous Government wished Zo
keep the patronage of the dockyards through au arrange-
ment made by themselves ?
Mr. Stafford—l thought the best way to manage the ques-
tion was to come into direct communication with the dock-

yards.
Lord Seymour—lf you believed that such a system had
been devised was it hot your duty to expose it ?
Mr. Stafford—l was not sure that it could be exposed,
though my mind was sufficiently convinced to make me alter
the existing regulations. The superintendents of the dock-
yards were all appointed by political opponents, and had it
been otherwise my motives might be more liable to suspicion.
Lord Seymour—Then you distrusted the surveyor's-office ?
Mr. Staffordlt was represented to me that iu that office
there were relations of people who were in the dockyards,
and that other causes of promotion existed besides political
ones. I found also that there existed a great deal of pro-
fessional jealousy in the dockyards. If I had gone into an
inquiry on such matters it would have been endless ; and
while I considered there were grounds for altering the regu-
lations I did not think they were sufficient to justify harsher
proceedings. I consulted the First Lord about cancelling the
order of 1849, and the tone of his Grace was that he left the

Baldwin Walker says that no dockyard
department
Lord
Seymour—Sir
promotions were made between the 3d of March, when yJu
took office, and the 2d of April, when you wrote to him on

the subject.
Mr. Stafford—l cannot say without reference to the books.
I think there were some ; I will not say many. I made the
alteration on account of the complaints of my political

friends.
Sir Baldwin Walker—l have no power over the first ap-
pointments into the dockyards. I merely submit names for
advancement.
Lord Seymour—The letter of the 2d of April, then, was
issued rather on account of the representations of your friends
than on actual facts ?
Mr. Stafford—There were a number of names of peop:e who
had been passed over.
Lord Seymour—Did you not consult Captain Milne?
Mr. Stafford—No, I did not. It might have been bettar if
I had done so ; but I found that at the Admiralty -2,,thilg
was more jealously watched than patronage.
Lord Seymour here read the following letter which he had
received from Mr. Talbot, the Earl of Derby's private secre-

tary :
" May 2, 1853, House of Commons Committee-room.
"My Lord,—l have been desired by Lord Derby to attend
the committee this day, and to inform you, as chairman, that
unless the committee be perfectly satisfied that his lordship
brought no undue influence to bear upon Mr. Stafford, with
reference to the dockyard appointments, he would wish to be
called upon to give evidence before the committee. It would
probably be right that this should be made public, but I will
not do so without your permission.—l am, my lord, your
obedient servant, " W. P. TALBOT.

"The Lord Sekmanr."
It would be premature, his lordship added, for the committee
to give an answer at present to this communication, because
they were not able to font an opinion whether the noble earl's
attendance would be required or not.
Mr. Stafford then resumed his evidence, and said—Obser-
vations have been made by the witnesses who have been exa-
mined as to the issue of the circular of the 19th April; 1852,
addressed to the superintendent of each yard, without
any order or minute of the board. I have no difficulty
in dealing with that point, In the first place, I put
in now the board book of that date, by which you will see
that the circular of September, 1849, was not issued by a
board minute, and, according to precedent, required no
bonrd minute for its cancelling. I put in, also, the general
minute-book of the respective dates, by which the committee
will see that the circular and its cancelling were dealt with in
a similar manner. This cancelling circular was issued with
the cognisance of the First Lord, and I may refer the commit-
tee to the opinions of the present First Lord, expressed the
other night iu the House of Commons, as to the official cor-
rectuess of the course adopted. ' I now come to the evidence
with reference to Sir B. Walker's letter of the 21st of April,
which appears in the Parliamentary return. It seeme that it
was addressed to me, as Secretary of the Admiralty. It was
not, however, given to inc. I never saw it. In fact, I find
it stated at question 3,452, Chatham E., that Sir Baldwin
gave it to Admiral Parker, not to me. It certainly never
reached me. If there is any complaint of its not ma:ling
the board, the fault does not rest with me. Sir B. Walker
states that Admiral Parker took the letter, after it had been
read in Captain Milne's presence, and told Sir Baldwin that
he (Admiral Parker) would bring it before the board. I had
no communication with Sir Baldwin, or Admiral Parker, Dr
Captain Milne, and was shown no letter. Sir Baldwin says
that he thinks on the following day, which would be the 221,
ho was asked by Admiral Parker to meet me on the subject.
My impression is, that the meeting did take place on the 26th.
That, however, except for the sake of accuracy, is compara-
tively immaterial, as there is no doubt that Sir Baldwin, Ad-
miral Parker, and I did meet, and at that meeting the circular
of April 19 was discussed. On that occasion I was shown no
letter. lam clear as to that ; indeed, lam confirmed as to
that view by the evidence of both Sir Baldwin and Admiral
Parker. Sir Baldwin says—" Admiral Parker had my letter
in his hand during the interview." Admiral Parker says—" I
did not read the letter on that occasion." Sir Baldwin Welker

complained of the circular of April 19 as a personal reflection.
I assured him that nothing of the kind was intended, and offered

towrite anyprivato letter he pleased,deeming at the Moment that
that was all he required. When,however, he answered that as the
circular was public any document removing the imputation on
himself should also be public, I directly replied that there could
be no possible objection. A draught of a further circular was
made and read to Sir Baldwin Walker, and after some mei&
cation to his satisfaction was assented to by him. The
draught I refer to is that of the circular of April '26. It is
material to notice hero, in confirmation of my former state-
ment, that the Auckland regulations have never been propos:A
to be interfered with, and that iu this circular, issued to sa-
tisfy Sir Baldwin, it is expressly set out that no such
rut )ra-
tion had existed. My impression of the whole affair vb-Le.,, that
Sir Baldwin had felt that the circular of April 19 had con-
veyed a personal imputation, which ho desired• to have re-
moved, and which, as it never had been intended, I dc sired
should be removed, and about which he was satisfied ; y the
circular of the 26th. That impression seems to have been
entirely shared by Admiral Parker, as I gather from his letter
of April 11, 1853, which I read in the House of Commons. 1
never thought more of it. Sir Baldwin, however, further
states, with regard to that interview, that I repeated those
observations which he states I made at the interview April
5, that it was of no use " blinking the question," &c. I ob-
serve that Admiral Parker's evidence is silent on that point.
For myself, I can only repeat the remark I made before on
the other occasion on which I am stated to have used these
words. So far as my knowledge or thought about the matter
went, things remained thus until November, on the 21st of
which I received a notice of questions from Admiral Berkeley
—and on November 23 Admiral Berkeley and Sir G. Techell
put the two questions to me—first, whether there was any
correspondence on the subject ; and second, whether Sir B.
Walker had tendered his resignation. On the 22d, the day
previous, I wvote a private letter to Sir B. Walker, sending
him a copy of Admiral Berkeley's notice, and asking to what
correspondence it referred. Sir B. Walker states that he
could not find the copies at Somerset-house, but they were
probably at Whitehall. On the reciept of that note, or previ-
ously, I made every search, and found no letter, or traces of
any ; consequently, the following evening, in the House of
Commons, I :answered "No" to both questions. I have
before stated that I had never seen or been told of Sir
Baldwin's let ter of resignation. Admiral Parker has
told the coma nittee that he did not show it to me or
road it to mB. He has also told the committee that he
destroyed it 4. That evidence gives the reason, both
why Ido Hi know it, and also why it could not be
found when I pearched on the 22d of November, as, in fact,
it did not exit L. Sir Baldwin states that ho found the copies
in a dispatch box at home. He does not say when—if it was
that night or the following morning. He might have supplied
me with the en before the evening of the 23d, when I was
called upon ti > give the two answers. Sir Baldwin states,
quite truly, tl hat on the 25th November, two days after my
answers in th( House of Commons, he wrote the letter to my-
self, as secret: try, referring to his letter of April 21 and May
10. I menti on the letter now for the first time, as the com-
mittee may of serve. All that I know or knew of that letter
was this: the :Duke of Northumberland showed it to me in
the strictest co nfidence. I need not mention to the committee
the regret whit sh I feel, in my desire to lay all the facts be-
fore them, in rt ;foiling them to a letter which I am obliged to
say in the sane a breath was shown me in the strictest confi-
dence. I read I it, however, and returned it to the duke.i
Sir B. Walker further states, that calling at the Ahdimmiratanyd
on that day ht ►
that I began : a conversation by naming his letter and st,. v
was informed that I wished to see
ng
All
the answers I had given in the House of Commons. can
part
of
his
evidenee'win can
it
sa ythaofn that
issit natethmeeenatrliiseit.hat Sir Baldwin is morenacsecunran;me in
tee will see tb ad the only letter to which Sir Bald
have before a, lverted, as Admiral Parker has told May,
ld
y
had not only c eat given the letter of resignation to me, but you wthhaicthhel have referred was the letter of the 10th of
which is now le the Parliamentary return,
.dotee, and,l
m sh atvailus
og
that he had cle stroyed it. The letter of
wthase roathteodf
bMy amye,
bcoens: dseunttratey
(1-
Lk:
diitdhadnotbmexiasttreain ttehde Itebyet(?hr
remark that if : such a
itis remarkableconversation t
hestefaact
I should havetsasstatedby
Sir B. Walke. r occurred,
November 26, the letter asking for
tobfeth2;
,2h6il .
written the nel day,
copies in reply .• to Sir Baldwin's letter of the 25th. The com-
mittee will oh erve that the next document in date is a letter
from Sir Bald 's+, in to myself, dated Novembieera2c9l.edl
NhvanditPe_sb:
e:;tr
dthathtadhaithattt
leftcorrespondence,hveao;snw that
iisaoautt
ectubha
awyaehylmte:
home,'
tef ohn
Baldwintlots copiesheed hasmc
(epic
oopfr
ait
idea,Yrequesting him to call
that I had " lEna a
Baldwin eerta'_nly did come
e 28th, he
aselnedtteitr ofrnoMmo
-eel, e-
did so call, that I stated to him
to me. I tel t him that there was no trace of the late:: the
on Monday • tlrst
plan " of sett .1 big the affair.
Record-office,, and that it seemed to me
the only p'..an -im
to adopt was i Ao write a letter, the general terms o 7 wYch I
suggested, any 1 which were i?itreactically the terms-Of :;"_ a ter
wslhaticehtoSihrimß. Whaatlkoeur
adllidoccasi•
occasions
that day.
relgre yie:,red
were
°Ledo -coopnesraulttionA.dm
out::
kheh letter ot lotted.n
understood, k ,hat he should go
on any other • terms than those
, as I
and he left f :e r that pm o
in a state ot considerable se
Lletter in his . hand. r excitement, with a draught of the
it, that ID3 iaht kin and proposed to him to write
glt before the board. He declined, and