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

,
zy
A-i-177 '4/74/
. ,
_ • ,
....- .
, 1 -
, - ---""•-•...„
_...) 1 • . .--
, ,-4.-,.;n.
i;
' .. •
..,„...rd.
~.......,,„,.... - - --!N c. a..........m .c...:._,-1
' = •:',w--,4<mq:, , ..-•7-. , 1, ~, ,
, i
•-, :4- t,,.,,, ~ -_,....,„- -,, ". Alrillrkir +ll4ll[llF,44Aciat....\ 'l,_ . *;',. ~. :=,... ... ~..
4„,00- I* . n
,
1 ,
+
\ ' i 1 j 1 ' . „
',. r ••,7.;k::,...„-.. °Jir":-,,.,. 'N.7)vr "l4 ',,,Y,,..t DIS • -.:-"-:-.-- (4.1111, '1" lira' v.- ..- - f*..; ' ".4.01Tt......:
-:.--.. -
...i+ . ,

[PRICE SD.

Lord Seymour—Did you put aside recommendations
coming through the surveyor, and promote others I
Mr. Stafford—Not in many instances. When I had signed
the appointments of A. and B. in the morning, and "went
down to the Weise, it was there represented to me 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--I took the number of complaints as a justiti.
cation for issuing the circular„ but I am free to own that I
did not then attach so much importance to that document as
has 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 the amount of my patronage, and I was told
that the patronage of the dockyards was under the secretary.
I never heard Sir •Baldwin Walker charged with any political
bias in the discharge of his duties. •
Lord Seymour—Did you not convey an impression to Sir
Baldwin Walker that, the previous Government wished to-
keep the patronage •of the dockyards through an 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 not-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. Stafford—lt was represented to me that in 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 jtitionsrin-thc dockyards. -If I ~shad 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
department to me.
. .

Lord Seymour—Sir Baldwin Walker says that no dockyard
promotions were made between the 3d of March, when you
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 people who
had been passed over.
Lord Seymour—Did you not consult Captain Milne?
Mr. Stafford---No, I did not. It might have been better if
_ _

I had done so ; but I found that at iho Admiralty nothing
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 infinence 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' ight that this should be made public, but I will
not do so witho:at your permission.—I am, my lord, your
obedient servant, " W. P. TALI3OT.

" The Lord Seymour."
It would be premature, his lordship added, for the con mittee
to give an answer at present to this communication, b ecause
they were not able to form an opinion whether the nobles 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 Apri1,;.1852,

addressed to the superintendent of each yard, Nrithout
any order or minute of the board. I have no dig %lenity
in dealing with that point. In the first place, I put
in now the board book of that date, by which you w ill see
that the circular of September, 1849, was not issue d by a
board minute, and, according to precedent, requii ad no
bonrd minute for its cancelling. I put in also, the g eneral
minute-book of the respective dates, by which the com rnittee
will see that the circular and its cancelling were dealt n rith in
a similar manner. This cancelling circular was issueti with
the cognisance of. the First Lord, and I may refer the co Mmit-
tee to the oph4ons of .the present First Lord, express ad the
other night iTa" the House of Commons, as to the officii it cor-
rectness of ;,he course adopted. I now come to the evidence
with ref97..ence to. Sir B. Walker's letter of the 21st of April,
which tippears in the Parliamentary return. It sceme that it
was addressed to me, as Secretary of the Admiralty. It was
not,, however, given to me. I never saw it. In fact , I find
it F:itated at question 3,452, Chatham E., that Sir E hldwin
;cl,ave it to Admiral Parker, not to It eertainlx never
1, reached me. If there is any complaint of its not rt 'aching
the board, the fault does not rest with me. Sir B. Walker
states that Admiral Parker took the letter, after it he 4 been
read in Captain Milne's presence, and told Sir Baldw in that
he (Admiral Parker) would bring it before the board. I had
no communication with Sir Baldwin, or Admiral Par ker, or
Captain Milne, and was shown no letter. Sir Baldw' in says
that he thinks on the following day, which would be t he 22d,
he was asked by Admiral Parker to meet me on the s object.

My impression is, that the meeting did take place on th o 26th.
That, however, except for the sake of accuracy, is co impara-
tiyely immaterial, as there is no doubt that Sir lialdw in, Ad-
miral Parker, and I did meet, and at that meeting the i;ircular
of April 19 was discussed. On that occasion I was shown uu
letter. lam clear as to that; indeed, lam confirmed as to
that view by the evidence of both Sir Baldwin and .1 Ldmiral
Parker. Sir Baldwin says—" Admiral Parker had my letter
in his hand during the interview." Admiral Parker sa rs—" I

did not read the letter on that occasion." Sir Baldwin Walker
complained of the circular of April 19 as a personal reloction.
I assured him that nothing of the kind was intended, audbeffered
tow tate auyprivate letter he pleased,deeming at the memo nt that
that was all he required. When ,however, he answered th let as the
tiircular was public any document removing the imputation on
himself should also be public, I directly replied that the re could .
be no possible objection. A draught of a further elm gar was
made and read to Sir Baldwin Walker, and after some • modifi-
cation to his satisfaction was assented ,to by hint. The
draught I refer to is that of the circular of April 26. It is
material to notice hero, in confirmation of my form tr state-
ment, that theAucklandregulations have never been p reposed
to be interfered .with, and that in this circular, issue d to sa-
tisfy Sir Baldivin, it is expressly set out that no sue h inten-
tion had existed. My impression of the whole affair w as, that
Sir Baldwin had felt, that the circular of April 19 hatd con-
veyed a personal imputation, ' which he desired to have re-
' moved, and which, as it never had been intended, I desired
should be removed, and about which he was satisfied by the
circular of the 26th. That impression seems to have been
entirely shared by Admiral Parker, as I gather from hiis 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 of 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 froth Admiral Berkeley
—and on November 23 Admiral Berkeley and Sir G. Rechell •
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 wrote 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 letter of resignation. • Admiral Parkar has
told the committee that he• did not show it to me or
read it to me. He has also told the committee that he
destroyed it. That evidence gives the reason, both
why I do not know it, and also why it could not be
found when I searched on the 22d of November, as, in fact,
it did not exist. Sir Baldwin states that he found the copies
in a dispatch box at home. Ho does not say when—if it was
that night or the following morning. He might have supplied
me with them before , the evening of the 23d, when 1 was
called upon to give the two answers. Sir Baldwin states,
quite truly, that on the 25th November, two days after my
answers in the House of Commons, he wrote the letter to my-
self, as secretary, referring to his letter of April 21 and May
10. I mention the letter now for the first time, as the com-
mittee may observe. All that I know or knew of that letter
was this : the Duke of Northumberland showed it to me in
the strictest confidence. I need not mention to the committee
the regret which I feel, in my desire to lay all the facts be-
fore them, in referring them to a letter which I am obliged to
say in the same breath was shown me iu the strictest: confi-
dence. I read it, however, and returned it to the duke.
Sir B. Wallsef further states, that calling at the Admiralty
on that day he was informed that I wished to see him, and
that I began a conversation by naming his letter and Aida, 11
the answers I had given'in the House of Commons. All I C.!
in
sat y
thanof thhea
is
i nstatementco earlieri thatsly llmeti
part
of Baldwin
indeehins more or r eTzeheieur.,
nut a,
ai in
tee will-see thatththe
have referred was the letter of the 10th of May ton ton
have before adverted, as Admiral Parker has ttolo(nyon
that he
me, but
italo.etahtt cod by ‘1
had
that nothe hadoly destroyed ogyi given
i t. the
Thelettelre
tote
rrensfig,thvn,ates
e
which is now in the Parliamentary return,
confidentially duke,
anc,
having
been as it had been treated byt
is.ko
tthr
iefd
s,
udeihd
an not
conversationexist
ntiraimeletellfelse facts alsiu statedllmust
also
gy
at
15.i11.11'1%. Walker occurred, it is remarkable that I should have
written the next day, November 26, the letter asking fur
copies in reply to Sir Baldwin's letter of the 25th. The com.
mittee will observe that the next document in "date is a letter
d
from Sir Baldwin to myself, dated Novembereoetutii:hls
Monday
to2tca.
amih9cin:mis;
,mye,holi
Whitehall;twe th
aucahep
osciikte ovnhemehdaaeel
for copies of the correspondence by my letter of the 26th. Sir.
it
f
Baldwin has stated that he wrote a letter on the 27thea,niivulagietho
enclosedthat
h e
memberscopies ; thathad t
left. ;s that
aiutmethhd
awitmeohytec,onta
uoht
khh.a
otftlln.
call,
onmndde
that
hyi
requesting
Iu thatesst
stated
eno
gua
o
aspdel aildnendtst'oei'trcof settling the affair. * Sir Baldwin cm
to me. told him that there was noint‘race of the letter in the
the only plan for him
tß:eaodrodp-tofftwaces,tano
write
tihatetiitlesteteeim,etdhteo
suggested, and which were practicarylatehrale terms of the letter
which Sir B. Walker did write on that day. I believe I did
state to him that on all occasions I should regret if we were
on any other terms than those of co-operatiou. He said, as I
ua
undd ehr tloeofdt ,f
otrhatht
aht petopulose. He retd go and consultured to Amd me
ii
ur a 1m
y Parkeroffi c e
in a state of considerable excitement, with a draught of the
letter in his hand. I read it
it, that I might brill , and iSroposed to him to write
g before the board. Ile declined, and