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 l—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-
Iferent 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 gavel., all the civil patronage to the secretary
excepting the irrasr-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 7—l 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. I do 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 had not.
Was it represented to you by Mr. Stafford in those
conversationsconversations wtheartetahtevasruirovuesytoirm'sesd, department
manyartment appeared
to use influence in favour of any political party ?—The
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
liethat toldeer
therefore
patronage
refusedthat o
to
f his
e interfere.effi
Admiralty c e was of little value
to him. I always refused to interfere for want
of
and
tii: etxrience. I had not had sufficient experience,
Hearing it stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty
w
politi-
cal adversaries, did your grace instituteas givenany
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.
Had your grace any reason that induced you to dis-
trust the surveyor of the navy in his department ?—I had
only the representation of the secretary, who was a mem-
ber of the Government, and who was responsible to the
House of Commons. If he 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 considiriitt,
inveigryhtphreejsuo adiegiaailntsot
any
ye
interests of the service that there should be even an hn-
poiuste of
atiopnoliatgioaail fnstavtohueristuisrnvierr's department of the exer-
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
byth Mr.iat l
Ward,adbe with a
been issued by
t
Lordo preventing
Aucklan
jobbing Auckland, an
in thedwritten
dockyards ?—Lord Auckland's regulations were excellent
tdheope administration
a ration
now, when it was represented to your grace that the
great
—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
nolrobasaudrowoonrkitrhigose o
f o• out that perly carrying
surveyor's office was not pro
aennyt rsuysstteedm wmust
ad-
ministration, did it appear to you to be
your 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
t
the board, and as responsible to the House of Commons
such was the case. I had no reason to disbelieve
it, and at the same time I did not know that it
anythingwas
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.
But as far as the interest of the service was con-

cerned, if political favouritism prevailed through per-
sons in his department to the injury of the service,
it would be pretty nearly the same as though it
prevailed through the exercise of the influence of
the surveyor himself ?—lt appeared to me then, and it
appears to me now, that the only way of getting rid
of that favourismfand the influence of Government, is by
taking away the votes from the dockyards. There is no
other way. Without that is done it always must pre-
vail.

When this was brought to your notice by the Secre-
tary of the Admiralty, did your grace authorise the issue
of the circular of the 19th April, 1852, which cancelled
Sir Francis Baring's circular of 1849 I—Well, I sanc-
tioned it: I was cognisant of it.

But did you authorise it ; did you give directions to
the secretary to prepare the circular of the 19th April,
1852 ?—I did not.

You did not ?—I did not. I was cognisant of it, but
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 bad 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-
pared by Mr. Parker, so as to know whether or not Sir
Francis Baring's initials were affixed to it ?—I did not.
"'"lf It had been brought to yolirer"i66l 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 some 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 ?—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 command ?—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 in April, and Captain Richards came to me 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 had 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 yo,a
considered no inquiry necessary ?—I knew nothing abr,ut
the letter. I was not cognisant of the letter. Car2tain
Richards had been to me to explain the matter full,
and he said very naturally that he never was influenced,
as he was ordered not to take any part in polities,
Captain Richards' impression was that Ivo had read
the letter to you ?—lt might have been, Ira 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 ?-11e rAight 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 eharacter 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 mr.ch 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, when 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-