The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-30 00:00:00

.....—,
/ 72--z--- /1---e•-- --(1 .?,-- ,---(-------r/G°---2'/I---e)
.. . ,
. . ..-
, .
. '
--7''' - 1 ,r,;-1---- . . ---- , -ir _ , .av r • 2k.
..„,----....,10, ....\ 7 ..._. ,-,„...... .....
~ .•
''A A -.:4 • . lop,.
, ,• ~ r 2 ,
\cl4-' , 1,-,
~.. /
~...".
-.,4 5,,, _ -,"" 'Clk`;r fr, - $4,11+9 p. lir 4/ 0 .1.94 ------'l . 7„sak: \.4 " ~..., ~ ~./ 14./W
l(rS '' /' '1
.....,,.. Lao
~A 5
,it,
~, . ?•• •/, I VIP ..., ~ , b
' -la qii? '. \,, u' j• , ~,.41/4 i
..-".1 lIP f , .4.. I Or,,);,••:- ...--. it 0I T ' 1.1 • "'"
_ .

[PRICE SD.

Surveyor or. direct from the dockyards. I -think'
it would be -advantageous to the service if the men.
in the dockyards ceased to have votes. I may mention,
with reference to my interviews with Sir 13. Walker
about the copies of his correspondence with Mr. Staf-
ford, that I went to him because I thought it was a pity
t4:take.up a business which haitipassed over for several
niontlis. I went to Jiiin as a friend to both .parties. to
try and use my incluence to eiideavour'to arrange that
.the correspondence should not be sent in. ' I acted' only
in aTriendly'spirit, not wishing to act against one. side
or the other, but I got him to withhold the lettefs. This'
Was on the 20th of November. I went on seeing the
Board minute ordering the copies of the corresptindence
to ,he sent in. Liniglit or. might not then have seen. the
question asked in Parliament referring tb .this:;: I.
thought the matter had dropped about his resio-nation,
and that some ariangethent had been made, and that we
should have nothing more to do with it.
Captain Duncembe here put in some questions which
he wished the Chairman to put to the witness, and on
several. occa,,ions.during the day adopted this course.
In answering them, Captain Milne said—l do not
remember any instance in which the Board have been
placed in such.a;position as to be obliged to allow some
orders of the Seyretary which they disapproved of. The
conduct -ot the. Secretary was never made matter of
conversatidn at the Board that lam aware of. No
Secretary of the' Admiralty could stop the returns. It
would, be hardlyin the power of any Secretary to stop
or withhold them. Sir. F. Baring did not remove a
storekeeper from Chatham to Devonport on account of
his Radical political opinions. I know he had been a
political partisan at Sheerness and Chatham, and I
thought he had better go to Devonport. I am not aware
whether he took any part there or not, but he is since
dead. Mr. Stafford asked me, as I was a mutual friend
of both parties, to see Sir.B. Walker about the corres-
pondence
between them and to act as a mediator, and
that was my own feeling 'at that time. I thought I
could stop any further proceedings taking place, and
I was anxious to do so. Mr. Stafford requested me to
mediate in the matter to induce Sir B. Walker to with-
hold the correspondence, and, as I have already men-
., ...tioiled,-1-tioauglit- it No*4 I pity to ;-..raWall. matter

up again.
Captain Duncombe (through the Chairman)—When
Mr. Stafford asked you to mediate, did he mention a
wish to have the letters suppressed ?
Witness—l think he made use of the expression, that
it would be very disagreeable for him if Sir B. Walker
sent these letters. He said it would be far better if this
could be avoided and the matter let alone.

Vv
Captain Pelham, private secretary to the Duke of
Northumberland when First Lord of the Admiralty, was
then called. He said he received a letter from Sir B.
Walker in his capacity as private secretary. He stated
then to the committee that his position with respect
to the Duke of Northumberland was one of an entirely
confidential nature, and though he had no difficulty
in answering the question put to him by the committee,
he thought it right to state that all that passed while he
was in the capacity of private secretary to his grace he
considered of a private nature. He did not, however,
iirge this in consequence of anything that the duke had
told hirt en the subject. When he received the sum-
mons to attend this committee, he waited on his grace
and told him that he should suggest to the committee
what he had just stated. His grace, he wished it to be
understood, gave him no direction whatever to refuse
giving anyinformation in his power.
Sir Baldwin Walker, in answer to some questions,
stated that his submissions to the Board of Admiralty
with respect to promotions, if in existence, ought to be
in the Record-office. He bad sent there, and after two
days' search he received for answer that they had never
been there at all.

Mr. Ballow, keeper of the Record•office, connected
with the Admiralty, was then called, and stated that
the document in question could not be found. He
gave a description of the r.iutine of the office, and said
that papers were frequently misplaced through the great
quantities they received continually.
Mr. J. H. Hay, chief clerk of the Admiralty, was
also examined with reference to the papers that passed
through his hands, and described the system adopted.
He also stated that it came under his observation that
papers were very frequently lost.
Sir B. Walker was then examined at great length,
with respect principally to the case of Wells and Cotsell,
most of the circumstances of which transpired before the
Chatham Election Committee, and during the debate
lately in the House of Commons. He stated that
it was found necessary for the good of the service
to appoint the master smiths at some of the dock-
yards from private yards, instead of raising men already
in the dockyard to fill that position, because the Govern-
ment yards got behind the improvements of the day.
The correspondence between the Board of Admiralty and
Sir Baldwin relative to the withdrawal from him of the
appointment of master smiths and other officers in the
dockyards, printed by order of the House of Commons,
was very largely referred to during his examination. He
declared that Wells was not, as had been stated, any
protege of his. He was recommended by the master
smith atWoolwich, before which he had never even heard
of him. On the Ist of Oct. Cotsell was appointed to
Portsmouth yard, and Smale, who had formerly been at
Woolwich, was appointed to Chatham. On the 2d
Commander Eden came to him (Sir B. Walker)
and asked why the appointment had been made ?
He (Sir B. Walker) was very much surprised to
hear of it, as no communication had been made
to him, and he went to the Admiralty in company
with Commander Eden, and saw Admiral Parker.
Admiral Parker said that it was impossible' for only the
day before, in the board-room, Mr. Stafford had asked
him to give Cotsell the appointment to Portsmouth, and
he (Admiral Parker) said he would not hear of such a
thing ; it was not at all desirable that Cotsell should go
back to the yard where he had formerly been in a junior
department, and assured them that the appointment was
impossible. He also said, " If this is the case, either Mr
Stafford or I will leave the Admiralty." This was said
in the presence of Commander Eden—in fact, to him.
Admiral Parker was going out of town next morning,
and the following day he (Sir B. Walker) saw him, and
he said he would write to the Duke of Northumberland,
and afterwards told him he had done so, and had pointed
out to his grace how impossible it was to appoint Cotsell
to Portsmouth. He (Sir B. Walker) did not see the First
Lord, or any of the Lords of the Admiralty, on the sub-
ject. Admiral Parker was his immediate chief, and
therefore he addressed him.
Mr. Haughton, a clerk from the Admiralty, produced
the books, and stated that there was no minute referring
to the dockyard, Portsmouth, on the 18th of October, in
the minute book ; but in the general book there was
one about Wells' memorial to the Admiralty, with the
reply of Mr. Stafford on the 16th of October, in which
he says—
" I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the
Admiralty to inform 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
yourself ' Late master smith of her Majesty's dockyard at
Portsmouth.' My Lords cannot recognise you as ' Late
master smith' of Portsmouth Dockyard, as no warrant has
been given to you by their Lordships for such an appoint-
Lent.

Mr. Haughton also referred to the minute of the ap-
pointment of Wells as master smith at Portsmouth
Dockyard, on probation for 6 months, bearing date the
10th of Sept., and signed by Capt. Hamilton.
Mr. Bell, another clerk of the Admiralty, stated that
he made out the warrant for the appointment of Wells,
ready for signature. It was sent up to the chief clerks
whose duty it was to forward it to be signed by two
Lords and the Secretary.
Mr. Piers, in the Parliamentary department of the
Admiralty, stated that the warrant came to Captain
Hamilton for signature. Captain Hamilton said,
" Who could have appointed Wells master smith ?"
He knew nothing about it. He directed witness to
get the ordinary minute of his appointment from
the Record-office, which he did. When he saw
that it was signed by Admiral Parker, he said that
he was not authorised to carry it out, and con-
sulted Sir T. Herbert, who advised him to wait
until Mr. Stafford, who was expected the follow-
ing week, should return to town, as it was well
understood that the dockyard appointments were
vested in Mr. Stafford. The papers were given into
witness's hands then, to keep until Mr. Stafford re-
turned. On his return witness either gave them to him
or Mr. Grant—he could not recollect which. If he gave
them to Mr. Grant it was to hand over to Mr. Stafford.
It must have been some time in September, and a day
or two after the return of that gentleman. This was all
he knew with reference to these papers. He had not
seen anything of them since, and had nothing to do
with them from that time.
The Chairman then inquired of Mr. Stafford whether
he wished to defer his examination generally until
Monday.
Mr. Stafford said he would rather do so than
tbe ex-
amined on Saturday ; but with reference to a potirottird
which the last witness had given evidence.
examined on this point was, that by it some
t_ p
parties wish to say a word. The only reason he willashhecadtatotiabiei
had been cast on the professional characsttaer f he
te that he re-
mentioned, and he wished simply
Mr. Piers. He would put n
iGraliam on the subject :
membered to have received the m, illieuttotteerswpohkicehn ofh f(risoinri.
Stafford) wrote to
,S,i6r Tames_
Old Bond-street, April 30, 1853.
tuhdee r smti as
missing
s last night,
document
Berkeley referred in seech, but I
to which Admiral Berk
in
711311 e yHo clearu se So
fi r d
Commons,id n owthqau it :A:iv
asu
of this mornringtathamtenitlit its
n the su_bmission
thesar Mr. Wells, on
the Navy
and, to the best of my
osefethine
the 9th September, 1852.
Imost g
distinctly
remem-
ber receiving
gr
trhoaftth,
belief, the letter or submission in Parliamentary Paper 271,
P. 161, is an exact copy of it, and I am quite willing to
state this t • " he House of Commons.
" I am, dear Sir, truly yours,
" AUGUSTUS STAFFORD."
He afterwards thought it better not to take
course, but to clear off anything that might this
otherwise
rest on Mr. Grant ; he was most anxious t
to the committee. To the best of hisbelief
the
ohestate this
warrant
was never made out. He knew that it had
signed, as Mr. Piers stated. He never been
stated in his place in
the House of Commons that of course the warrant was
stopped, because it would not have been of any use to
send a warrant when it was in doubt whether Wells
should be appointed or not, and the warrant was till