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

mated to the board ?—lt had been read in my room to
the Surveyor of the Navy and Admiral Parker, and I
was present, and that was the first day that I heard of
the circular of the 19th of April having been issued. I
did not know when it was issued. I observe that in
Captain Milne's evidence it was brought to his notice
by the surveyor also, and the surveyor's letter was read
in Admiral Parker's room to Admiral Parker. Captain
Milne does not quite fix on the date. He seems to
think it was on the 25th, 26th, or 27th of April.
Then are the committee to understand that this
was the first time your grace gave your sanction
to the circular of the 19th April ?—I was cogni-
sant of it before it was issued, and I knew that
I was responsible for it ; but this was the first
time that it was brought before me, and thus we
knew it. It was a very nice point. I knew it. I fully
countenanced it, Admiral Parker fully countenanced it,
Captain Milne fully countenanced it, and we were aware
of it, and certainly were responsible for it from that very
moment. How far the other two members of the board
were answerable I don't know.

In the circular of April 26, 1852, it is stated that the
circular of February 27, 1847, will be strictly adhered
to, and that their lordships deemed it advisable to revert
to the system then in force of having all communications
addressed to the Admiralty in the first instance. As
your grace by this time sanctioned the reversal of a sys-
tem that had been a system at the Admiralty for some
years, may I ask your grace upon what grounds this
reversal was based ?—May I ask what the matter is—
what we cancelled was reverting to Lord Auckland's
original regulation for promotions in the dockyard,
which were these : The master shipwright on a vacancy
named three persons, and named them to the superin-
tendent, who erased one name which he thought the least
worthy of promotion. The superintendent then sent
these two names to the secretary, who selected one, and
that selection was the whole of the patronage the secre-
*saw -had -in promotions. The circular of 1849 made
this alteration. The superintendent sent these two
names to the surveyor, and the surveyor selected one
name, and so had the patronage. The question of pa-
tronage was one known to Lord Auckland and his suc-
cessor. It was reverting to Lord Auckland's regulation,
and my opinion now and then was that Lord Auckland
was right.
Does your grace mean that the surveyor had the ab-
solute choice of one name, or that when the two names
were sent to him he forwarded them to the Admiralty,
with his remarks ?—I do not think he was justified by
the circular of 1849 in making the selection, but he
always did, it was a matter I never knew anything of,
and of which I was not cognisant. But, on reading at-
tentively the circular of 1849, I do not think it justified
the surveyor in taking the patronage.
The circular of 1849 merely, as I understand, ordered
that the correspondence from the superintendents should
go through the surveyor before it came to the Admi-
ralty ?--So I understand.
After some further questions, and the examination of
Commodore Eden and Captain Hamilton, the committee
adjourned to this day.