The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-04 00:00:00

reached him, or been reported to him. During 4852
there were several rumours to the effect that Sir B.
Walker was going to resign. Witness used to sit in the
same room with Mr. Stafford, and the papers that passed
through Mr. Stafford's hands also passed through wit-
ness's. Saw the circular of the 26th April, but could
not say it came to him after it had passed the board.
Papers relating to appointments and promotions gene-
rally came through his hands. Witness here entered
into explanations with reference to the system of
appointments and promotions at Devonport. It was the
usual course, after papers had gone through the legal
department, where the appointments were made out, for
them to be sent back to the Surveyor of the Navy. The
circular of cancelment was not looked upon as an impor-
tant one at the time it was issued, Could not say whe-
ther it was ever submitted to the Lords of the Admiralty.
He meant to say the Secretary of the Admiralty did not
look-upon it as animportant circular, and -that he, as
private secretary, did not.
Mr. Stafford was then called- and examined at great
length on the case of Wells. This examination," which
was one of great detail, chiefly went to attempt to esta-
blish the statement that Wells never had any appoint-
ment, in consequence of its not having been properly
made out and signed, although Wells was recommended
by the submission of the Surveyor of the Navy. The
appointment not having been properly made, would not
consequently be found in the Record-department. He
admitted having seen the submission of Ihe Surveyor of
the Navy, recommending Wells, on his I-eturn from the
Mediterranean at the latter end of September, and that
it was signed in the usual way by Admiral Parker, which
would convey to him- the impression that Admiral
Parker had approved of it. The date of the appoint-
ment of Cotsell was the Ist of October, and, on seeing
the document appointing Wells on the 26th of Septem-
ber, he told Admiral Parker it was his great wish to
appoint Cotsell to Portsmouth. He did not go to Ad=
miral Parker's room on the subject, but after the board
met him. Witness said there would be a difficulty,
but Admiral Parker expressed a strong opinion in favour
-of Wells. Admiral Parker, in his evidence, says—" I
remonstrated with Mr. Stafford before I left town on the
appointment of Costeli to Portsmouth," but it was a re-
monstrance before the appointment was made. He was
aware that Admiral Parker had been superintendent of
dockyards at Portsmouth, and could not, therefore, say
the admiral was an incompetent person to give an
opinion. According to the circular of 1847, the opinion
of such persons would have great weight, more particu-
larly on subsequently becoming a lord. Witness be
lieved he named Admiral Parker's remonstrance to the
First Lord, but to the best of his memory the, First Lord
gave no opinion on the subject. It appeared that Admiral
Parker not only remonstrated with witness but with the
head of the board by letter, according to the evidence.
Thought Admiral Parker wrote the First Lord when he
was absent on leave. Had no recollection of bringing the
matter to the notice of the First Lord before the appoint-
ment took place, but thought he consulted two other
members of the board as to Cotsell's appointment. They
were Captain Buncombe and. Sir T. Herbert, and their
names were to the warrant. Knew it was against the
opinion of Admiral Parker, by his signing the submission
of the 9th of September, but he did not know that he
mentioned the remonstrance to the board. Witness con-
sidered Cotsell the best man, and did not consult Com-
modore Eden at all. Endeavoured to ascertain the
opinion of the superintendents, but did not communicate
with any to obtain their opinion in writing. If he found
that Wells had got the appointment, or the letter adopt-
ing the appointment, nothing on earth would have
induced him to disturb it. He considered that all sub-
missions and recommendations for promotion signed by,
Captain Hamilton were either irregularly or inadver-
tently so signed, and that Admiral Parker went out of
his province in signing or initiating the admission of
Wells, for be considered all this sort of patronage in
dockyard appointments was the secretary's, because the
Duke of Northumberland had given him almost all of
them. The, principal appointments commonly belong to
the First Lord ; but the inferior ones to the secretary.
The letter he wrote to Wells, dated 18th October, 1852,
explained this. It was as followsl--

" Admiralty, October 18, 1852.
" Sir,—l have 'received your memorial without date; and
I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Ad-
miralty to acquaint you that they are not aware that you
have received any appointment from them, and that their
lordships do not consider you justified in designating your-
self ' late master smith of her Majesty's Dockyard at Ports-
mouth ;' they therefore return your memorial. If, how-
ever, from any communication with any of the officers of
the several departments, you have been led to expect such
an appointment, their lordships are prepared to give their
consideration to any memorial from you on that subject ;
but my lords cannot, recognise you as a late master smith of
Portsmouth Dockyard, as no warrant has been given to
,'you by their lordships for such an appointment."
He had been in the habit of asking who were the best
men in the service, and had heard Cotsell's name always
favourably mentioned. He gave to Cotsell the " stereo-
typed" answer given to all persons, that their " applica,
tion should hays the best consideration." This meant
very little. When Cotsell made his request he considered
that it was one that ought to be granted. Did not bring
Wells' memorial before any of the Lords of the Admi-
ralty before answering it, though he had heard of its
having been said by Admiral Parker that either "he or
I would leave the-Admiralty." Thought the Duke of
Northumberland looked to making peace and mediating
between Admiral Parker and himself. He had already
stated that he was ready to take the resonsibility of the
documents not appearing in the records department, and
never knew the papers were lost until some months after
he left the office. The Admiralty not having Wells'
address, it was not on that account sent him. Had I
(continued Mr. Stafford) had further experience in office,
I should have looked more closely to the original circu-
lar, and have consulted others on the subject before I
cancelled it ; and with my present experience I never
should have cancelled it without laying it before the
board. I have no hesitation in saying I think it was a
hasty step.- I was young in office at the' time, and I did
not attach the importance to it that I now do. I think
Sir Frederick -Smith had recommended Cotsell to my
notice.
Captain Richards, captain superintendent of Chatham
Dockyard, was then examined at considerable length.
He stated that he was appointed by Sir Francis Baring,
on the understanding that he was not to meddle in
politics,— He considered the operation of the circular of
1849 very beneficial to the service, and that reversing it
was prejudicial to it, and without his approval ; and read
the following letters in the course of his examination :
(Copy of a note from Sir Francis Baring, Bart., to Captain
Richards.)
" Admiralty, July 2, 1£49.

" Dear Sir,—Captain Eden will write you a letter re
specting an application which I have had from one of your
people. I should like to know the man's character in the
yard, as his application is most improper and I must take
measures to put an end to these proceedings, which aro
worse at Chatham, I think, than anywhere else.—Yours
truly, " F. BARING.
" This inquiry is not intended to be confidential ; on the
contrary, though not a letter by direction of the board, it
is well it should be known in the yard, that notice has been
taken of the memorial."
(Copy of a note from Captain Charles Eden, Private Secre-
tary to Sir F. Baring, to Captain Richards.)
Admiralty' July 2.
"Dear Richards,—l am desired by Sir F. Baring to
forward to you the accompanying letter from Joseph
Ridgway.
" You will observe that this application for promotion
is made in direct contravention of their lordships' circular
of February 27, 1847, under the head of promotion. Sir
F. Baring would wish you to call upon Joseph Ridgway
to give such explanation of his conduct as he may be able,
and that you will forward such explanationto him.—Yours,
very truly, " CHARLES EDEN."
" Chatham-yard, May 2, 1852.
(Extract from a letter from the Captain-Superintendent of
Chatham-yard, dated Ist March, 1852, transmitting the
usual monthly list of vacancies for workmen.)
" First-class leading man of metal mills. An entry from
private trade is recommended for this vacancy ; neither of
the inferior leading men being competent for such a posi-
tion. "R. M. RICHARDS, Captain-Superintendent.
(Extract— From Sir F. Baring to Captain Richards.)
There'must be Some understanding that you will not
meddle with politics. I make this understanding with op-
ponent and friend, and I do not think that you are likely
to object to a condition which will oblige you to look to
the public service alone."
(Extract—Answer.)
"The condition which you are obliged to attach to your
gratifying favour is most acceptable to me, and I pledge
myself to its rigid observance. Had I been in a condition
to have proposed any stipulation, it would be precisely
that which you have been pleased to enjoin, and which
claims my added thanks."
(Private and confidential.)
" Chatham Dockyard, April 8, 1852.
"Sir—Under the very grave responsibility that rests on
me as the superintendent of this dockyard, by their lord-
ships' instructions of February 27,. 1847, and by Mr.
Ward's letter of the same date, I hope I do not misunder-
stand my duty in referring to you, in the mode permitted
in Mr. Ward's said letter, the app.arent difficulty caused
by their lordships' order of the sth inst., for the promotion
of Joseph Ridgway, second-class leading man at the metal
mills, to be acting first-class loading man thereat in the
existing vacancy. The case of Joseph Ridgway in truth
presents much difficulty.
"He is neither considered by the professional officers
under whom he serves,- to be equal to the duties of first-
class leading man, nor to be the best workman in the mills,
either in ability or exertion. My letter of the Ist of March
last submitted with reference to this vacancy an entry
from private trade, neither of the inferior leading being
competent for such a position. Ridgway is. one of
has re
quently been found far behind the other leading men in
the amount of work performed.
" I have further to observe, that about three years their
he involved himself in much difficulty by disobeying theirs
lordships' orders in attempting to obtain proms
wotiilon,—thir
very promotion—through political influence,leFirst Lord and
by the enclosed copies of notes from the a
his private secretary.
" For this proceeding Ridgway was openly repri. mhand odyme, by the personal order of the First Lord, wit
aniin-
timation that any repetition of such conduct would cer-
tainly be followed by dismissal from the service.
" All these facts, though well known in the yard, are not
likely to have been brought under your notice. and it is
therefore that I feel it a duty imperative on me to bring
them before you previous to putting in force their lordships'
order, that you may be aware of the effect such a promotion
must have m the yard when it cannot but be known to be
not only without the recommendation of the officers, but