DOCKYARD APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS.

HC Deb 19 April 1853 vol 126 cc33-122

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

Before I proceed to make any observations upon the important subject which I shall feel it my duty to bring under the consideration of the House, I must be permitted, in the first place, not merely as in duty bound, but with every feeling of gratitude, to offer my sincere thanks to the two hon. Gentlemen (Mr. R. Phillimore and Sir W. Clay), who had precedence on the notice paper, for having permitted me to address you at this early part of the evening. It is quite unnecessary for me to assure the hon. Gentleman to whom I must frequently allude in the course of my observations (Mr. Stafford), that I do not bring this subject forward from any feeling of hostility towards himself; and the assent given by the hon. Gentleman increases the confidence I previously entertained that he will acquit me of all such feelings. But in this assembly, where the proper freedom of speech is admitted, where the character and conduct of public men may be fairly, but not too closely, criticised; where the administration of those public men is to be taken into consideration, it is the duty of Members of Parliament who may think that that administration has been improperly carried on in some departments, that influence has been unfairly exercised, and patronage has not been distributed for public good, but for political purposes, not to shrink from the task, and not to shrink from the difficulty of bringing such subjects under the consideration of the Legislature. With these feelings and these views, and in the hope that, if anything of that kind has occurred, we may, perhaps, prevent the repetition or recurrence of it, I shall now submit the present Motion. The hon. Gentleman, when I gave notice of my intention, not only expressed a hope that if I put a notice upon the paper I would bring it forward at the earliest possible opportunity, but that, if it should be of a more than formal character, I would abide by the terms of it. I think the hon. Gentleman was quite right in calling upon me to do so; and I have acted up to his wish as strictly as possible. Now, I must beg the House to bear in mind that an important element in the consideration of the subject is the period of time at which the circumstances occurred to which I shall allude. In the early part of last year a change of Ministry took place; the Whig Government was displaced, and another was formed under the auspices of Lord Derby. Immediately after the noble Earl's accession to office, he appointed the Duke of Northumberland to the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Northampton (Mr. Stafford) held the important office of Secretary to that Board. Soon after that a general election was expected. The First Minister stated in his place in Parliament that he could not say whether that event would occur in the month of April, in the month of May, or in the month of June; but, so soon as public business would admit of it, he would advise Her Majesty to dissolve the then existing Parliament. That promise made by the noble Earl was faithfully and religiously fulfilled; and in the month of June Parliament was dissolved. I wish the House to bear this in mind as one of the most important elements in the case, because my object is to show that the influence of the Admiralty was improperly exercised, that the patronage of that department of State was used for political purposes, and that the Gentlemen who wielded that influence and distributed that patronage seemed to have only in view one great object—and that was, the result of the general election. It was always my opinion that the real question to be decided by the country at that important crisis was, not whether protection should be restored, or whether the principle of free trade should be continued. I considered protection dead, and free trade established; that the advocates of the former principle had long since given up their theories and their hopes in reference to that great object, and that the real question was this—whether the Administration under Lord Derby should continue in office upon Conservative or Tory principles, or whether a more liberal policy should direct the affairs of the country. I must now call the attention of the House to a circumstance that took place in reference to the administration of the affairs of the Admiralty in the year 1847. Previously to that year there was a great deal of laxity in the management of the public departments under the control of the Admiralty. The subject engaged the attention of previous Boards, and of the Board which existed in the year 1847. In that year they issued a memorable and a most useful circular, part of which I shall now read, in order to show what were the intentions of the Lords of the Admiralty and of the Board of Admiralty in that year. I have stated in my notice that I shall call the attention of the House to three papers, Nos. 67, 271, and 272, of the present Session; and I will confine myself as closely as I possibly can to the details in those papers. I shall now quote from Parliamentary paper No. 272, and the quotation will be found on page 2. It is a circular addressed to the admirals and captains superintending Her Majesty's dockyards, and it bears date the 27th of February, 1847. It commences— Admiralty, February 27, 1847. Sir—I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inform you that they have felt themselves compelled to take the condition of the dockyards under their most serious consideration. The subject is one of great magnitude. The vote for wages and salaries in Her Majesty's establishments at home and abroad, under Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9, has averaged 810,664l. during the last four years. It is a constantly increasing vote. The vote for 1843–4 was 779,386l. The vote for the current year is 951,886l. The vote for stores (including steam machinery) for 1846–7 amounted to 1,694,152l.; and that for buildings and new works to 526,810l. The machinery already in existence in the dock and victualling yards is increasing annually in value, and large additions must be made to it as the steam factories at Portsmouth, Keyham, and Malta advance towards completion. No reduction in this branch of the establishment is probable or possible, for the steam factories must keep pace with the growth of the steam navy, which, again, is determined by considerations of national policy. It then goes on to say— My Lords have much satisfaction in acknowledging the good moral tone that prevails amongst the artificers generally, and the excellent quality of the work performed by them. On the other hand, they think that there is abundant evidence to show that the quantity of work done is below the standard of well-conducted private establishments; and that there is great room for improvement in the application both of stores and labour. Their Lordships will not entertain any general charges of indifference to expense on the part of the officers, or of inertness on that of the men; and they are equally unwilling to dwell upon representations made to them of the effect of political feeling, in some of the yards, upon the course of promotion, though they can conceive nothing-more dangerous to their discipline, if true, or more detrimental to the public interest. They wish to look forward, not to look hack; their object being to introduce a system that may inspire every man with the belief that his conduct will he known and appreciated by his superiors, and that, however humble his position originally, his future fate depends upon his own exertions. Their Lordships see too much reason to apprehend that such is not the present state of feeling in the dockyards; but that the rise from shipwright to leading man, and from leading man to inspector, is regarded rather as a matter of accident or favour than as a reward due to merit, and to be dispensed upon plain and equitable principles. Then follow the various rules which were set forth, showing what regulations the Board thought requisite for appointments in the first instance, for promotions in the next, and for the duties of superintendents over the various offices in the several yards. And the paper winds up with this remarkable and most admirable conclusion:— My Lords have now only to call upon the admirals, and captains, superintendent, the master shipwrights, and the other principal officers of the dockyards, to assist them in working out this plan honestly. They have given sufficient proof, by the surrender of their own patronage, of the sincerity of their desire to make these great national establishments what they ought to be. They have re- moved everything that can warrant a suspicion that preferment will be the result, not of services, but of political favoritism. They wish every step in the advancement of a man to be known and marked by his fellows, and they have laid down the rules that seem to them best adapted to insure in each stage fair play to merit and industry. This circular was signed by Mr. H. G. Ward, and it was circulated in accordance with the orders of the Admiralty. Mr. Ward was examined in 1848 before the Committee which sat upon the Army, Navy, and Ordnance expenditure; and he stated in his evidence that although the order had been in force only a few months, yet a most material alteration appeared in the character, conduct, and feelings of the men; that the Admiralty were induced to believe that they would pay full attention to their duties, in order that, by the proper discharge of those duties, they might be raised according to their merit, in accordance with the circular. Mr. Ward was also questioned as to promotion, and he pointed out the way in which promotions were made during the time he was Secretary of the Admiralty. They were made, he said, in accordance with the circular. He was asked— Do the Admiralty, on receiving that recommendation, in any case go out of the names recommended? He answered— We have tied and bound ourselves by this circular; everything in the yard is conducted upon the principles laid down in this circular. We have foregone all patronage whatever with regard to the promotion of the men; we found that it was working most injuriously upon the characters and morals of the men. We have wished to teach them to look to the head of the yard as the person through whom every recommendation to the Board must come, and to limit the action of the Board to the selection of one of the names that were submitted to them from the yard. We have done that with every class of artisans; we never advance a man of any kind without a report from the superintendent. In reference to this subject the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) put a pointed question with regard to the application of interest in the dockyards. Question 950 was— At elections, do the superintendents of the yard interfere directly or indirectly by the use of influence? Mr. Ward replied— Most distinctly not; we have had no complaint or suggestion of such a thing having been done in any one instance at the last election, of which alone I can speak. Had any one man done so, I will venture to say that under Lord Auck- land's orders he would not have remained superintendent of the yard one day. Such was the way in which this admirable circular of 1847 was carried out; but, in order to render it impossible for the Lords of the Admiralty or the Secretary of the Admiralty, however powerful he might desire to be, to exercise any privilege, of any sort or kind whatever, as regards promotion, without having due regard to the rules and regulations of the circular, the Lords of the Admiralty went further, for in point of fact they said, "No accusation shall he at our door; we will lay the whole upon the Surveyor of the Navy; he shall be the person to whom reports shall be sent, and upon him shall rest the responsibility of any further promotions." Consequently, on the 26th September, 1849, a circular was sent to the superintendents of Her Majesty's dockyards, which will be found in page 10 of No. 272, and of which the following is a copy:— Admiralty, September 26, 1849. Sir—In order that the Surveyor of the Navy may be enabled to check and properly control the new establishments of the dockyards which have been recently promulgated, all reports and correspondence on the subject of vacancies, promotion, or changes of the officers and workmen, are in future to be transmitted through him, instead of their Lordships, direct.—I am, &c. (Signed) "W. A. B. HAMILTON. The object of this circular was evident. The Surveyor was to be alone responsible for all the estimates sent in by him to the Lords of the Admiralty, to be submitted by them for the consideration of this House. No vacancy was to be filled up, unless absolutely necessary, because the Surveyor of the Navy would have to answer for it. But the pith of the document will be found in these Parliamentary papers, for, by acting upon the principles laid down in the circular of 1847, strengthened by the circular of 1849, which I have just read, there was a saving of no less than 190,000l. a year to the country, namely, 130,000l. in the wages of artificers in the yards, and 60,000l. in the steam factory. That this order, as well as the order of 1847, which it was intended to carry out, are considered of material and of vast importance, although they were in a great measure rescinded, and almost absolutely cancelled, by the late Secretary to the Admiralty, is proved by the fact that they have been made the subject of an Order in Council under the present First Lord of the Admiralty. Let us see what was the nature of the last document I have read—that which places the control in the Surveyor of the Navy, instead of leaving it in the hands of the Secretary to the Admiralty, as he-fore and as since. This order was issued to the Surveyor on the 5th September, 1849: it was "approved" by the Secretary, "minuted" by the First Lord, and it was called by the hon. Gentleman, in a letter to which I shall refer presently, "their Lordships' letter;" therefore, I presume it was an order of the Board. Now I come to the time when the Board of Admiralty was changed; and I am about to show the House what took place immediately after Lord Derby's Administration came into power. The Duke of Northumberland, a naval officer, took the head of the Admiralty, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) the office of Secretary. Very soon, or immediately after the hon. Gentleman was appointed Secretary to the Admiralty, he had some conversation with Sir Baldwin Walker—and here I desire only to quote from papers which are public property—in which he said that his political friends were dissatisfied at the manner in which the patronage of the Admiralty was dispensed. Now came the desperate game played by the Board of Admiralty, and I shall show that it was played in reference to the great result I have alluded to, namely, the election of Members to serve in this House. On the 19th of April, the hon. Gentleman, having been in office only five weeks, I believe, wrote—and you will find it in No. 67, page 2—as follows:— Admiralty, April 19, 1852. With reference to their Lordships' order of the 26th of September, 1849, which directs that all reports and correspondence on the subject of vacancies, promotion, or changes of the officers and workmen of the dockyards, shall be forwarded through the Surveyor's department, I am to as-quaint you that the order in question is to be considered as cancelled, and that in future such reports and correspondence are to be transmitted direct to the Secretary of the Admiralty.—By command of their Lordships, (Signed) "AUGUSTUS STAFFORD. To the Superintendents of the Dockyards at Deptford, Woolwich, Sheerness, Chatham, Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke. I asked my right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty whether there was an order in existence in reference to this circular, and the right hon. Gentleman informed me, in his place here, that there was none, I therefore wish to know why this is signed "by command of their Lordships." I have always believed and un- derstood that the object of having Lords of the Admiralty was that we might have a Board to discuss and consider great questions affecting the naval interests of the country, and that the Secretary was to act in conformity with the orders of the Board, and not to play such a desperate game as this of his own accord, for political purposes. I am in happy ignorance of the feelings of official life, and of the proceedings in these establishments; but I have always understood that there is some delicacy with regard to the rescinding of previous orders, of orders issued by a previous Board; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will he able to explain to the House, as I dare say he will, what induced him to issue this circular, which I shall he able to show presently was without the knowledge and without the consent of the Board. The object, of course, is apparent, and it was effected too. It was to take the whole patronage of the Admiralty into his own hands. But the Surveyor of the Navy was dissatisfied. He naturally felt he should be called upon to give an account of the great expenditure that might be incurred, and of the increase in any estimates that might be laid before Parliament; therefore he remonstrated very properly; and on the 21st of April last, forty-eight hours after that circular was written, he addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Admiralty, which will be found on page 12 of No. 272; and I beg the House to be kind enough to mark some of the words at the conclusion of the letter, because they are important in reference to the subject which, in the latter part of my observations, I must necessarily, however painful it may be, bring under the consideration of the House:— Somerset House, April 21, 1852. Sir—You having been pleased to inform me that great dissatisfaction existed among your political friends at the manner in which the promotions, &c, were made in the dockyards, and that it was your intention, in consequence, to cancel their Lordships' circular of the 29th of September, 1849, which directs that all papers respecting vacancies and promotions should be sent through the Surveyor to their Lordships; and as the cancelling of this circular is the only step taken to remedy the evil you were pleased to state existed, it can bear no other construction than that of a censure on my conduct. I must therefore beg to tender to their Lordships my resignation; for I can no longer continue to hold the appointment of Surveyor of the Navy with such an imputation on my character as that of allowing political motives to influence my submission to the Board.—I have, &c. (Signed) "B. W. WALKER, Augustus Stafford, Esq., M.P., &c, Secretary of the Admiralty, If ever there was a tender of a resignation in a plain and simple form, this is one of those cases; for Sir Baldwin Walker says, "I must therefore beg to tender to their Lordships my resignation." As to what became of this resignation, we must presently inquire. Questions were put in this House, and answers were given, upon this subject. Whatever may have become of this letter, it is only for me to inquire, for I do not know. It certainly caused some commotion at the Board of Admiralty, because a very few days afterwards it was found necessary to issue another circular to this effect:— Admiralty, April 26,1852. Misconstruction having arisen with reference to their Lordships' circular issued on the 19th inst., I am to acquaint you that no imputation is intended to be cast thereby upon the Surveyor of the Navy. The arrangements with regard to the dockyard promotions, as laid down by their Lordships' circular of the 27th February, 1847, will be strictly adhered to; and they deem it desirable to revert to the system then in force, of having all communications on the subject addressed to this office in the first instance.—I am, &c. (Signed) "AUG STAFFORD. If it were not intended to cast any imputation upon the Surveyor of the Navy, why was the previous circular issued? Why was the circular of 1847 cancelled at once by a stroke of the pen of the hon. Gentleman? But I think I shall be able to show, although it is stated here that their Lordships' order of the 27th February, 1847, part of which I have read, would be strictly adhered to, it was departed from in many and most material instances. This letter was addressed to the superintendents of the various dockyards, and a copy of it transmitted to the Surveyor of the Navy. The Secretary of the Admiralty had now got everything into his own hands, because the patronage rested entirely with himself, the Surveyor of the Navy having been put upon one side. If I may judge from that which has reached me, his political friends had no longer any reason to be dissatisfied. Vacancies were filled up without inquiries of the Surveyor; unnecessary promotions were made in various yards, of persons, as I am informed, incapable of fulfilling the duties of the offices to which they were appointed: this I take also from the information given me in these same papers; and as to the candidates for the various boroughs connected with Her Majesty's dockyards, they must have been gorged with the patronage given to them. Let me give the House some idea of what took place at Devonport as to the appointments. I have here a list of persons entered in the dockyard at Devonport. The House will bear in mind that their Lordships' circular of 1847, and the following circular of 1849, which strengthened the operation of the previous circular, were in operation until the 19th April, 1852, when these documents were cancelled by the pen of the hon. Gentleman. Now I shall show the House in a few words the number of persons entered in the yard previous to the cancelling of the order, and the number of persons entered in the yard? subsequent to the cancelling of the order, when the patronage was vested only in the hon. Gentleman. I will take the year 1852. I find in January, 1852, three persons were entered; in February, three; and in March, one; making a total in those three mouths of seven. In the month of April, 1852, up to the 19th, upon which day the circular was cancelled by the hon. Gentleman, there were only two entered. Thus, there were only nine in the whole. But now let us see what took place immediately afterwards. From the 19th April to the end of June, fifty-seven persons were entered. From the 1st of July to the end of September, thirty-four persons were entered. From the 1st of October to the end of December, twenty-three persons were entered. So that, while before the circular was cancelled by the hon. Gentleman there were only nine persons entered, there were entered after the circular had been cancelled no less than 112 persons. What took place afterwards, when the present First Lord of the Admiralty came back into office, and when the power of the original circular was re-enforced? Why, in the month of February, 1853, only one was entered, and in the month of March only one more. This return I have had some difficulty in getting. A gentleman in the west of England, but in no way connected with the Admiralty, procured it for me. But if this is a sample of what is taking place in various yards, the House will agree with me that I am perfectly justified in bringing the matter under consideration. Let us go a little further in reference to this subject. I have also a list of names, of men engaged as extra sawyers, who were removed in April, 1852, to make room for others. It is a list of eleven persons. One had been there two or three years, and the whole of the ten others had been there for several months; and yet they are discharged without any cause, except that it is convenient to make room for others. Here are some of those who supplied their places—John Smith and James Abbott were admitted sawyers, being both Plymouth voters. A man named Pengethley and J. Rounsell were admitted as sawyers in the yard, and their brothers were Devonport voters. Neither of these four persons had ever been in the yard before, so that great injustice has been done to the men who have been reduced. But now we are in Devonport, I will give another instance of what took place in the borough of Plymouth. In the three months previous to the cancelling of the circular—in February, March, and April—only three persons were entered in the yard. The dissolution of Parliament took place at the end of June, and the elections for these boroughs took place in the first week in July. Now, mark what was the effect on the admission of persons to this yard. While only three persons were admitted in the first three months preceding the cancelling of the circular, between the 14th of June and the 17th of July, no less than nineteen persons were entered. The elections were just at that time taking place, and we all know the effect of appointments of this kind in influencing the votes of the electors. It seems that Sir Baldwin Walker, the Surveyor of the Navy, could not stand this sort of proceeding in the dockyards, over which he is supposed to assume control, and he wrote a letter to the Duke of Northumberland, which contains all the charges—for I make nine—against the hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of the Admiralty, and the Board of which he was so far a member. Fourteen days after the order of 1849 was cancelled, and twelve days after the circular of the hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of the Admiralty, Sir Baldwin Walker wrote to the Duke of Northumberland to this effect:— Somerset House, May 10,1852. My Lord Duke—I feel that I should be neglecting my duty were I not to point out to your Grace the evil system which has been pursued of late, not only with respect to my position as Surveyor of the Navy, but also with reference to the appointments and promotions in the dockyards. Your Grace is aware that the Secretary of the Admiralty thought proper to cancel, without the knowledge of the Board, their Lordships' circular of 29th September, 1849, which directs that all papers respecting promotions and vacancies in the dockyards should be sent through the Surveyor to their Lordships; this order of 1819 was only reverting to a system which had always been in force prior to 1845, and which was then discontinued, I have reason to believe, on personal grounds. The abolition of a system which was found to work well for upwards of three years, causing an annual saving of 130,000l. in the wages of the artificers of the dockyards, independent of upwards of 60,000l in the steam factories, without impairing the efficiency of those establishments, must be prejudicial to the public interest, and has tended much to lower the position of the Surveyor. Now there is no one to control the establishments, and the Surveyor can no longer be held responsible for the estimates not being exceeded, nor can he be answerable for the efficiency of those establishments; for the Board's admirable circular of February, 1847, which directs that all advancement in the dock yards shall be for merit alone, has been virtually thrown aside; vacancies have been filled up which were not necessary, and men advanced, not for merit, but by political influence; and in one in stance a person has been promoted who is not competent to fill the situation to which he has been appointed; and that was done without any reference having been made to the superintendent of the yard. Having stated thus much, I think it right to inform your Grace that I attribute the inconsiderate manner in which I have been put aside by the Secretary of the Admiralty to my unqualified refusal to depart from their Lordships' circular of February, 1847, by lending myself to recommend men for advancement on political grounds. In conclusion, I beg to assure you, my Lord Duke, that I have made this statement from no personal motives, my only wish being the public good, and that your Grace's administration should not be tarnished. "B. W. WALKER. This letter, I say, does honour to the man who wrote it. And here Sir Baldwin Walker says that the late Secretary to the Admiralty thought proper to cancel the order of 1849 without the knowledge of the Board; and yet the circular of the hon. Gentleman is signed "by their Lordships' command." I will give a summary of the charges in this admirable letter of Sir Baldwin Walker to the then First Lord of the Admiralty, which seems, as far as regards the records of the office, not to have been noticed. To be sure it is not strictly an official document, but it looks very like one. It is an important letter from the head of the Naval Department to the First Minister of that Department, and calls attention to considerable grievances and impositions on the public, and at all events deserved an answer or notice of some kind. The charges made are, that the Secretary had thought proper to throw aside the circular of 1847, which directed that all advancement should be by merit alone; that vacancies had been filled up which were not necessary; that persons had been promoted who were not competent to fill the situations; that merit had been disregarded; that all this had been done for political purposes; that the late Secretary to the Admiralty had done it himself, and had done it because the Surveyor of the Navy would not lend himself to recommend men for advancement on political grounds. These are grave and serious charges; but they become much more grave, and assume a much more serious aspect, when we look to the quarter from which they emanate. I have not the honour to know Sir Baldwin Walker, neither have I had any communication with him on the subject; but I am informed he is one of the most able officers in Her Majesty's service—with remarkable mildness of disposition he combines a firmness of character and stability of purpose rarely equalled—with all the attributes of a gentleman he unites the most striking characteristics of an experienced officer. But this I do know, that his skill in civil affairs is only surpassed by his daring in naval enterprise. He has received honours and rewards from foreign sovereigns, and is the only captain in Her Majesty's service who wears the star of the Order of the Bath upon his breast. I think even if I were to stop here, I have made out a case for Parliamentary inquiry. I think I am entitled to say, grant a Committee, and let Sir Baldwin Walker be the first witness called. Let that letter be put in his hands, and let him be called to prove the charges it contains. If he does prove them, I say grave and serious censure will lay on the late Board of Admiralty. But if these accusations are unfounded, if these statements are untrue, if they are put forward to gratify any petty spleen or malice, then I say this otherwise noble and spirited letter will lapse into a foul and scandalous libel, and Sir Baldwin Walker, with all his glorious antecedents, must fall from that high position which he now so justly occupies. I would, Sir, I could find it consistent with my duty to close my observations here, because what I am now about to state peculiarly affects the hon. Gentleman opposite. I have always considered, during the great number of years I have had the honour of a seat in this House, one of the most valuable privileges acceded to Members of Parliament is that of being able to put questions to the Members of the Government of the day, because if that privilege is exercised with fairness and discretion, much valuable information is acquired, many a speech is saved, and many a debate is rendered unnecessary. The Gentleman to whom a question is addressed, has the option either of answering the question, or declining to do so. If he selects the former alternative, I think it is his duty to give so clear, so plain, so straightforward an answer that no doubt whatever may be left on the mind of the Member who puts the question, or on the minds of those who hear the answer given, and that they may leave the House perfectly convinced they have been accurately informed what the real state of the case is. Now, Sir, do not let it be supposed that I wish to insinuate or to intimate in the slightest degree that the hon. Gentleman has departed from what ought to be the rule. On the contrary, I shall show that he gave a clear and decided answer to the question put to him, and in consequence of the nature of the answer given, I feel it my duty now to bring it forward, in order that some misapprehension may be cleared up. And I do so, because I think it would be unfair to the hon. Gentleman not to give him an opportunity which I know he desires. On the 23rd of November, 1852, some questions were put by two gallant admirals, the hon. Member for the city of Gloucester, and the hon. Member for the town of Brighton; and on referring to Hansard I find the hon. and gallant Member for the city of Gloucester put three questions, one following the other, the second of which, being connected with the subject now before the House, I will read to the House. Admiral Berkeley asked— Whether the present Board of Admiralty, soon after their accession to office, gave directions that the names of the workmen and artificers recommended for promotion, were to be sent direct to the Secretary to the Admiralty instead of being first submitted to the Surveyor of the Navy, as had been previously the rule, and whether any correspondence took place with the Surveyor in consequence of such order, and whether such order is still in force?' Mr. Stafford, in reply to the second question, said— He had to state that he supposed the hon. and gallant Gentleman alluded, in the wording of his question, to the arrangement made by Mr. Ward in 1847. The arrangement, which was first made when the Navy Pay Office was consolidated with the Board of Admiralty in 1843, confirmed in 1844, and assumed to be in existence in 1847, when Mr. Ward issued his last regulation, was still in force, and had not been at all disturbed by the present Board of Admiralty. There was no correspondence with the Surveyor of the Navy on the subject."—[3 Hansard, cxxiii. 350.] Immediately after my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the town of Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) also put a question to the hon. Gentleman, and although I should prefer to quote from the pages of Hansard, I cannot do so, because the question is not to be found there. I am sure, however, hon. Members, and I dare say the hon. Member himself, will recollect the question being put. I have looked at all the morning papers, and I find it given in very similar words; but I take it from the paper which is more particularly the organ of the political opinions of the hon. Gentleman. Sir George Pechell asked if the Surveyor of the Navy had not tendered his resignation? Mr. Stafford said the Surveyor of the Navy had not tendered his resignation. I want, Sir, to clear up this discrepancy, or mystery, because I have read the letter of Sir Baldwin Walker, in April, 1852, in which the words were—"I beg to tender my resignation to your Lordships." This letter was addressed to the Secretary, although it is not to be found in the records of the Admiralty. The Surveyor of the Navy was examined before the Chatham Election Committee, and on looking over the evidence, I find he there says—In consequence of the letter of the late Secretary to the Admiralty of the 19th of April, he wrote a letter (which I have already read to the House) on the 21st of April, forty-eight hours afterwards, and gave it into the hands of Admiral Parker, then and now one of the Lords of the Admiralty; and he had no conception his letter was not laid before the Board until he saw in the papers the questions and answers I have read, in which it is stated no communication had been sent, and no resignation had been tendered on his part. I think the best course for me to take is not to comment at all on this part of the subject. I do not wish to prejudge the question. I do not wish to prejudice the question in the slightest degree. What I desire is a candid explanation of all these matters. As I have said before, I do not stand here to make any charge against the hon. Gentleman, but to bring before the House the charges which have been made by others, that further inquiry may take place. But I think I may ask the hon. Gentleman whether this letter of Sir Baldwin Walker ever did reach the Board—whether he can recollect if he ever saw this letter, or heard of its contents; and if he heard of the letter, and was aware of the contents, whether that was before the 21st of November? If he knew nothing of the contents of that letter, I would further ask, what could induce the Board of Admiralty, on the 26th of April, 1852, a few days after the receipt of the letter of Sir Baldwin Walker, to issue the letter which bears the signature of the hon. Gentleman, in which it is said no imputation whatever is intended to be cast upon the Surveyor of the Navy. If hon. Members will refer to the printed papers in their hands, they will see I am taking these questions consecutively in the order in which I have placed them; and I now come to the cancelling the appointment of Wells, and the appointment of Cotsell in his place. I find, on looking over the evidence taken before the Chatham Election Committee, before which Sir Baldwin Walker was examined, that in the month of August last, some time before the appointment of Wells, the smitheries in the Portsmouth yard were not in a good state, and it was determined by the Board to introduce a man from a private firm, and this was done in the instance of Wells. Sir Baldwin Walker writes a letter on the subject on the 9th of September, dated from the department of the Surveyor of the Navy, in these terms:— With reference to the accompanying letter from the Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth, and to their Lordships' decision that an experienced master smith be appointed to Portsmouth yard from the private trade, I beg to state that Mr. James Wells, who is in his 37th year, has been very strongly recommended as being well qualified for the charge of a smithery; and I therefore submit that he be appointed master smith at Portsmouth yard in the present vacancy, and that, as in the case of Messrs. Black and Ainslie, appointed respectively to Woolwich and Devonport yards, under similar circumstances, he be entered on probation for six months, to be paid at the rate of 200l. a year, with the understanding that if, at the expiration of that period, his conduct and abilities should be found to be perfectly satisfactory, he shall be appointed master smith at the full salary of 250l. a year. I find in the next page of the same parliamentary paper which contains this letter, that in pursuance of this recommendation, on the 10th of September, 1852, Mr. Wells was appointed, and a letter announcing his appointment was sent to the Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth, and a duplicate letter was sent to the Surveyor of the Navy, informing him that his recommendation had been carried out by their Lordships. It appears, also, from the evidence before the Election Committee to which I have referred, that Wells went down to Portsmouth to perform his duties, that his conduct was perfectly irreproachable, that he conducted the business of his department satisfactorily to everybody; and in that evidence the counsel for Sir Frederick Smith, in cross-examining Sir Baldwin Walker, asked if, previous to the appointment of Wells, he made any inquiry as to his political opinions; and Sir Baldwin Walker said, most decidedly not. I believe the exact words were—"I do not know anything about his politics," Wells continued in the appointment twenty-one days afterwards, when the order of the 1st of October, 1852, was made, appointing a person of the name of Cotsell. Mr. Wells, being naturally indignant at this treatment, sent a memorial to the Lords of the Admiralty, which is not dated, but it must have been about the 16th of September, as it is in immediate connexion with a letter of Sir Baldwin Walker, of that date. In that memorial Wells sets forth his grievance, saying he had been sent by the Surveyor of the Navy to Portsmouth as master smith on probation; that he relinquished a business in which he had invested 1,200l. before he accepted the appointment; and that he thinks he is very hardly dealt with. This memorial is enclosed in a letter from Sir Baldwin Walker, in which he says that he selected this man in consequence of their Lordships' decision, that the vacancy for a master smith at Portsmouth should be filled by the appointment of a competent person from the private trade, as had been done at Woolwich and Devonport; that Wells was examined by Sir Baldwin Walker and the chief engineer as to his qualifications, which were found highly satisfactory; that Wells gave universal satisfaction during the time he had charge of the smithery; that he had been superseded, and this grievance Sir Baldwin Walker had reason to complain of, because on his recommendation Wells had relinquished business to take the appointment. In answer to that letter of Sir Baldwin Walker, containing the memorial of Wells, the hon. Gentleman wrote to Wells on the 18th October, as follows:— I have received your memorial without date, and I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty 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 yourself' late master smith of Her Majesty's dockyard at Portsmouth;' they therefore return you your memorial. If, however, 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 late master smith of Portsmouth dockyard, as no warrant has been given to you by their Lordships for such appointment. I am also to desire that, in any future communication to their Lordships, you will state your address. I have said it was determined by the Board of Admiralty that a man should be selected from the private trade. The man was selected; the selection was approved of; he was sent down to Portsmouth by an Admiralty order, A letter was sent to the Admiral Superintendent, and a duplicate was sent to the Surveyor of the Navy, informing them that Mr. Wells was appointed on probation. And although I admit, in the strict technical and official sense, no warrant was made out for the appointment—or rather no warrant for the appointment can be found in existence, because I wish to draw that distinction—I submit that virtually Mr. Wells was appointed. Thanks to the petition against the Member for Chatham, we have a good deal of evidence on this point of the case, and in that evidence I find Robert Bell, Clerk to the Admiralty, stating that he saw the minute of the appointment of Wells—that he himself got the minute drawn out five days after the appointment was made. Where is this document? I hare asked for it in this House; and the right hon. Baronet the present First Lord of the Admiralty says it is not in existence. Perhaps I may enlighten the House a little as to what has become of it. As this is a matter of grave importance, I feel it my duty to state exactly the course I have taken with reference to the document I am about to read, that I may be exonerated from all blame should the veracity of the person who gave the information be hereafter questioned, which I do not expect. A gentleman called on me a few days ago, having seen the question and answer put by me and given by my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), and said he could give some information about the nonappearance of this document. He then stated the circumstances to which I shall presently allude. I said, this statement is of such serious import, it is a charge of so extraordinary, I may also say of so extravagant a nature, that I will not make use of it in my place in Parliament or elsewhere unless I receive it in the form of a deposition, and have the authority of the person making the deposition to read it to the House. Yesterday morning I received the deposition and the permission of the deponent to read it to the House. I thought it of such great importance that I at once went to the Admiralty. The Board was then sitting. I sent a note in to the Secretary of the Admiralty to tell the Board I had got this document. I felt that I ought to mate the Board acquainted with it (and it was my intention to make the late Secretary of the Admiralty acquainted with it), in order that they might be prepared to inquire into the subject, and convey any information to the House when it was brought under discussion. I must also say that I was obliged to leave the Admiralty on my own private business, and left the document there to be copied, hoping to receive it before I came down to the House this afternoon. Although I did not receive it in time to give the hon. Gentleman opposite a copy, I made him acquainted precisely with the contents. Under these circumstances, and whatever the nature of the document, I trust I shall he acquitted of any precipitancy in the matter. I will now read the document to the House:— Thomas Scott, of High Street, Chatham, in the County of Kent, Relieving Officer of the Medway Union, says:—I am, and have been for the last five years, well acquainted with Mr. George Cotsell, of Chatham Dockyard, Master Smith. A few days prior to his departure from this yard to Portsmouth, I met him; our conversation turned upon his removal to that place. He said, 'Now the thing is all settled I don't mind telling you how it happened. When I found by the Times paper that Wells was appointed Master Smith of Portsmouth, I immediately went to the Board of Admiralty. I there saw a gentleman, a friend of mine. After telling him what I had come up about, he took me into a room in the Admiralty. I there saw the appointment of Wells made out and lying on the table. My friend said, 'You see you are just in time,' and took the appointment of Wells from the table and thrust it into his pocket; at the same time telling me I should never hear any more of it, and that my appointment would be all right. "THOMAS SCOTT. Chatham, April 16. Before I quit this part of the case it is right I should show to the House who Cotsell is. It will be recollected that the decision of the Board of Admiralty was—and I repeat it again in order to show how the orders and decisions of the Board have been infringed—that a man should be taken from the private trade to be Master Smith of Portsmouth dockyard. I know, by the papers laid on the table, no order of the Board appears about the selection of a man from the private trade; but there is this corroboration of Sir Baldwin Walker's statement, that, in point of fact, it was acted upon. He selects a man from the private trade; he hands his name in to the Board of Admiralty; the Board provisionally appoint him on probation, thereby showing they acted up to the intention expressed in August last to the Surveyor of the Navy. Now, it appears that Sir Frederick Smith was a candidate at the last Chatham election. The Committee sat at the Sun Inn. The late Secretary to the Admiralty went there, and he and Sir Frederick both sallied forth to the yard. They went through the smithery and other parts of it, and in the smithery they saw Cotsell, and, as I am informed, and can prove, Cotsell asked the Secretary to the Admiralty for his removal from Chatham to Portsmouth. Whether a promise was made or not, remains to be proved; but if it was made, it was religiously carried out. Cotsell, I shall prove, was an active partisan of Sir Frederick Smith. He attended his meetings, and was the great orator of the evening. The election concluded, and Wells was appointed. It would seem that Cotsell remonstrated, and that he came to the Admiralty. What took place I have already road to the House, and the appointment of Wells was cancelled. I speak of the appointment of Wells, because, although I may admit and will admit that no warrant is in existence, it was as much an appointment, in the honest sense of the term, as anything could possibly have been. I do not deny that Cotsell may have been a good workman; it is not my desire to depreciate his talents or his qualification for the situation; but a man was selected from the private trade, and strong inducements appear to have been held out to cancel the order of the Board, which I look upon as a virtual appointment. Let us see what followed. In consequence of Wells being called away from Portsmouth, four promotions took place. Cotsell, the great orator and supporter of Sir Frederick Smith, was sent from Chatham to Portsmouth. Small, having voted a plumper for the Conservative candidate at Woolwich, was sent from Woolwich to Chatham. Forbes, who was at Sheerness and had friends at Chatham, which friends were voters and memorialised in favour of Forbes, was sent from Sheerness to Woolwich; and Thomas Bailey, an active partisan, who, with his brother, plumped for the Conservative candidate at the last election, was sent from Woolwich to Sheerness. I think I have, then, a right to say this patronage has been used for political purposes. Now let me point out the manner in which the influence of the Admiralty has been exercised in the dockyards, and with this I shall conclude my observations. I refer now to the last paragraph of the notice I have given. I have shown that at Chatham the late Secretary to the Admiralty went round the yard, or a great portion of the yard, with the Conservative candidate. The system pursued by the hon. Gentleman—and a very effective one it has been—was that of standing at the gate of the yard where the men delivered their time tickets, standing with the Conservative candidate, in order—I dare say very properly in his view of the case—that these workmen and artificers shall know what parties are associated with the hon. Gentleman. That took place at Deptford; and I have a letter from Deptford, written by a working man in the yard, which, as I have tested its credibility as far as I can, I shall read to the House. It is dated April 9, 1853, and I have shown it to the hon. Gentleman:— Sir—Your exertions in the House the other night to expose the abuses, jobbing, and trickery of the last election, induce me to furnish you with a few particulars of what took place in the dock and victualling yards here. The facts speak for themselves. Mr. Stafford, the then Secretary of the Admiralty, accompanied by Colonel Green, came here, and introduced his friend, Mr. Peter Rolt, to the officers, who, of course, promised and gave their vote and interest. They then attended at the muster office when all the men returned from dinner, so that they should not be ignorant that Mr. Rolt was the Secretary's special friend. A wink being as good as a nod to a blind horse, the most stupid of us could not misunderstand the motive nor the consequence of our stupidity; even our wives were shrewd enough to advise us to be on the safe side. Admiral Stewart was thrown overboard. Two extra clerks, whose relatives are special friends of Mr. Stafford, were appointed, at 80l. a year. King was appointed foreman of millers (he has been only a few years in the service), to the exclusion of good practical men of many years' service and superior education. A miller who supported Mr. Rolt was appointed on the establishment, although he was declared unfit for the service by the medical officer; and Hansom, who was on the establishment, was transferred to the extra list, to make room for Airney. Longhurst, a cooper, was appointed second foreman of coopers at 130?. a year; the Board wished him to be made first foreman at 150l. a year, but the officers dared to remonstrate, and reported that Longhurst was totally disqualified for want of education, and had been discharged for drunkenness two years ago; he was a strong supporter of Mr. Rolt, and lives opposite Mr. Rolfs father in Deptford. Elder, another friend of Mr. Rolfs, an extra baker, and rated as a labourer, was appointed foreman of storehouses at 851. to the exclusion of leading men of labourers whose right to succession was hitherto acknowledged by the Board. It is not necessary to detail all that occurred in the dockyard and victualling yards to occupy your time further; but any time you are passing the Admiralty, the truth of thi8 statement you can easily verify by stepping in. I hope, therefore, you will support Lord John Russell's new Reform Bill— [Derisive cheers from the Opposition.] Aye, but what follows? "And disfranchise the whole lot of us" [Cries of "Name!"from the Opposition.] I cannot give the name at present, but I may tell the House that the writer of the letter is a working man; that I have shown the letter to the hon. Gentleman; that I have done all in my power to test the truth of his statements; and that if it pleases the House to grant me a Committee, every part of that letter shall be inquired into. ["Hear, hear!"] But I shall tell the hon. Gentlemen who are so loud in crying "name," something more than that. I shall go to another dockyard, and hon. Gentlemen, if they choose, may inquire of their own friends whether what I am now going to state be true or not. I find that the Secretary of the Admiralty arrived at Devonport in the Black Eagle, on the 21st of June, 1852. The election took place about a fortnight after. On Wednesday, the 22nd, the Secretary of the Admiralty went round the dockyard with the two Conservative candidates, and the party stood together in the muster office while the men deposited their tickets on leaving, so that each man necessarily passed before them. In the evening of the same day the Secretary gave a dinner in one of the hotels of the town, and there were present on that occasion the Conservative candidates, the two chairmen of the Conservative committees at Dover and Stonehouse, two attorneys acting as Conservative electioneering agents, the chairman of the Tory committee at Plymouth, and a storekeeper at Devonport who canvassed for the Tory candidates. Was not this an electioneering dinner? If it was necessary for the Secretary of the Admiralty to make this voyage, and to go over and examine the dockyards. I say it was most especially his duty to do so as a servant of the public, free from political connexions, totally unconnected with political alliances, and merely to look to the management of the dockyards with reference to the public service, and not with reference to political results, Now, let me ask this question—and I hope some answer will be given—are we to find the expense of these voyages and dinners in the public accounts? Are they charged on the contingencies of the Admiralty? I expect an answer to that question. If I do not receive, one I shall certainly ask the Com- mittee, which I hope will be appointed, to examine the hon. Gentleman on that point, and to inquire whether these dinners to Conservative candidates, and Conservative attorneys, and Conservative committeemen, are to be found in the accounts of the Admiralty. If these accounts are to be found in public documents, then that is using public money for political objects, and prostituting the patronage of the public for political purposes. There is another dockyard at Portsmouth, and doubtless the hon. Gentleman thought it was consistent with the due discharge of his public duty that he should have all the men in that establishment also passed before him, and that he should see them deliver their tickets at the gate. No such thing. The hon. Gentleman did not go through this ordeal at Portsmouth for this very sufficient reason, namely, that at Portsmouth there was no contested election. No Conservative candidate stood there, and that is the only solution that I can give of this dereliction of duty, if it was a dereliction of duty, on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The last paper to which I will refer is a circular of the Admiralty, dated the 18th February, 1835, which has reference to the subject now before the House. I presume that at the election which took place in the early part of 1835, after the Whig Ministry had been suddenly and unexpectedly turned out of office during the recess, some proceedings similar to those which characterised the late elections in the dockyards occurred, because I find an order issued by the Admiralty on the 18th July, 1835, after the Whigs were reinstated, which bears the signature of Sir Charles Wood, the then Secretary of the Board. It is addressed to the Admiral Superintendent:— Admiralty, July 18, 1835. Sir—Representations having been submitted to the Board of Admiralty of attempts having been made by the officers of the yards to influence the workmen in the exercise of their elective franchise, my Lords, being most desirous that no such interference should take place, but that the men should be left at perfect liberty to give their votes as they may think proper, are pleased to direct that it may be a standing order, the infringement of which will be visited with the highest displeasure of their Lordships, that in any future election for the town or county in or near to which the yard under your superintendence is situated, the exercise direct or indirect of any influence on the part of the superior officers to induce the workmen to vote in any way is to be carefully avoided; and, in order to take further precautions against the appearance of such influence, no canvassing by any candidate, or on the part of any candidate, is to be permitted within the yards, excepting only of such voters as may be resident in the yards. And my Lords further direct, that you take the most effectual means of making this known, both to all the officers and men under your superintendence without loss of time.—I am, Sir, your very humble servant,—"C. WOOD. I think I have now proved, and if the House will grant a Committee I shall be able to prove still further, that this order of the Board of Admiralty, dated 18th of July, 1835, has also been virtually cancelled, not only by a stroke of the pen, but by act and deed. I have now discharged my duty to the best of my ability. I stated at the outset that I did not bring forward this subject from any feeling of personal hostility towards the hon. Gentleman. I assure him I have never entertained any such feeling, and that I have brought forward this subject solely from a sense of public duty. If in the course of the observations which I have addressed to the House, I have let fall any phrase or have given utterance to any epithet or expression calculated to give pain to the hon. Gentleman, or to any other Member of the House, I am sure I did not intend it. If the House shall appoint a Committee to inquire into this subject, and if the report of the Committee and the result of the investigation shall be condemnatory of the administration of the hon. Gentleman, I will regret it as deeply as any Member of this House. I shall be glad indeed to find myself in error, and if in error, to admit that I was in error, and it will be a satisfaction to me to find that under the administration of the hon. Gentleman the influence of that department of the State over which he had control had been properly exercised, and its patronage properly distributed.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which a 'Circular sent to the Superintendent of Her Majesty's Dockyards, dated September 26th, 1849,' was cancelled on the 19th day of April, 1852, without any Order or Minute of the Board: Also, to inquire into the circumstances under which a Letter addressed by Sir Baldwin Walker to Mr. Stafford, as Secretary to the Admiralty, in which Letter Sir Baldwin Walker tendered his resignation, as Surveyor of the Navy, was withheld from the Board: Also, into the circumstances connected with the appointment of Mr. James Wells as master smith in the dockyard at Portsmouth, the subsequent cancelling thereof, and the appointment of Mr. George Cotsell in his stead: And generally into the exorcise of the influence and patronage of the Admiralty in the Dockyards and Government Departments connected with the several Parliamentary Boroughs, since the 19th day of April, 1852, at which date a Circular was issued from the Admiralty, signed by the Secretary, cancelling their Lordships' Order of the 26th day of September, 1849, which directs that 'all Reports and Correspondence on the subject of vacancies, promotions, or changes of the Officers and Workmen of the Dockyards, shall be forwarded through the Surveyor's Department;' and ordering that 'in future such Reports and Correspondence be transmitted direct to the Secretary of the Admiralty.'

MR. STAFFORD

Whatever, Sir, may be the result of the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), I must commence my observations by tendering to him my acknowledgments for the spirit and tone of his speech, and for the courteous and candid communications which he has made to me, during the last few weeks, with reference to the subject now before the House. But having said this much in reference to the hon. Baronet, I must ask the indulgence of the House while I remind them that it will be a somewhat difficult task for me to follow the various details to which the hon. Baronet has adverted; for it is one thing to defend oneself when in office with all the resources of the department at hand, and quite another thing to do so when deprived of access to those official documents and memoranda which are necessary to be referred to in such cases. I hope the House will bear in mind, therefore, that I labour under considerable disadvantages in the present discussion; and that, notwithstanding the kindness of the right hon. Baronet who now holds the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, the minutes and papers which I should have wished to have consulted have not been so accessible to me as they would have been had I remained in office. I may be permitted, without disrespect to the hon. Baronet who has just addressed the House, to alter somewhat the order of the subject which he has brought forward, because I feel there is one point of such great importance to myself—if I may be allowed so to speak—that I must claim the indulgence of the House while I refer to it in the first instance. The hon. Baronet has stated, and stated justly, that it is the privilege of the representatives of the people to ask questions of the Executive Government in reference to the several departments of State; and he says most truly that there is the alternative permitted to the Members of the Executive Government—either to answer at the time, or to claim delay for inquiry. So far from quarrelling with that definition, as laid down by the hon. Baronet, I am prepared to admit its entire accuracy; and although the admission may appear to operate against myself, to go further and say that there is another course open to the officers of the Executive Government—I mean the liberty of making subsequent explanations. I believe the House would not judge very harshly of any Member of Government, however subordinate, who, having made a statement requiring explanation, should come down subsequently and offer that explanation. Well, I accept the statement of the hon. Baronet literally as he has put it. I acknowledge the questions that were put to me in the terms in which he states them; I acknowledge the answers that I gave to those questions; and I acknowledge that subsequently to the answers it was competent for me to have offered any explanation, which explanation I did not offer, and which explanation I never once thought of offering. Perhaps I may be permitted to lay before the House a statement of the circumstances to which the hon. Baronet has adverted, and which I believe, so far as I was concerned, great as is the importance which has subsequently been attached to them, did not in their occurrence occupy one hour. When Secretary of the Admiralty, it was my practice to go to the Duke of Northumberland, the First Lord, every morning, with such papers as I thought of importance for his perusal and consideration. On the morning of the 26th of April, 1852, the Duke of Northumberland told me that the Surveyor of the Navy was exceedingly annoyed at the circular which had been issued on the 19th, and thought a stigma had been cast upon his character by the issuing of that circular. The Duke added that he did not believe the Surveyor of the Navy would remain in his situation unless that supposed stigma or imputation was removed. I immediately said that nothing could be easier than to remove the imputation, if any existed; that we could easily issue another circular, and that another circular should, if I had the permission of the Board, be issued that very day. The Duke said I had better see Admiral Parker and Sir Baldwin Walker. I replied that I would go and see them instantly. When I returned to my office I drew a rough draft of the circular, which was subsequently issued. Regarding my interview with Admiral Parker and Sir Baldwin Walker, I will read to the House a portion of a letter from the former, not written to me, but to a gallant officer, a mutual friend of the Admiral and of my own. When I saw the letter first, it so completely tallied with my own recollection of the circumstances that I requested the gallant gentleman to whom I have referred, to ask permission for me, from Admiral Parker, to make use of it in this discussion. I obtained the permission sought, and the following is the letter alluded to:— Castle Malwood, April 11, 1853. I saw Mr. Stafford in the presence of Sir Baldwin Walker, and Mr. Stafford stated to him that he had not any intention, by the circular sent to the dockyards, of casting any reflection upon the Surveyor. I think Mr. Stafford brought with him a written memorandum, which he read, and Walker made some objection to a part of it, which, I think, Mr. Stafford altered. This memorandum was afterwards sent to the dockyards. Walker appeared satisfied, and I then considered it settled, and destroyed Sir Baldwin Walker's letter. This, I believe, is the whole case.—Yours very truly, HYDE PARKER. Now, the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) has asked me whether I ever saw the letter of Sir Baldwin Walker. I am not going to shrink from that question. According to the best of my belief, I never did see that letter; I never knew it was addressed to myself; and dates being important, I beg to call the attention of the House to an unconscious corroboration of what I now state, on the part of the Surveyor of the Navy himself. What said the Surveyor of the Navy? It would be seen by reference to the evidence on the Chatham election petition (Questions 3,450 to 3,459) that the last time the Surveyor saw his letter was on the 22nd, whereas the interview took place on the 26th:— By Mr. Serjeant Kinglake: You say, although you addressed a letter, it was not brought before the Board? Sir B. Walker: I discovered afterwards that it had not been brought before the Board; the letter was on the 21st of April, 1852. A further explanation is necessary on my part; it was delivered to the senior naval Lord of the Admiralty, addressed to the Secretary. By Mr. Merewether: Did you deliver it?—Yes, I did. I wish to add, I discovered, some months afterwards, that it had not been brought before the Board. By Mr. Serjeant Kinglake: Do you know what became of the letter after you had delivered it to the senior naval Lord of the Admiralty?—I do not. Did you see it at all afterwards?—I saw it in his hand the day afterwards. In whose hand?—The senior naval Lord's. Who was the senior naval Lord at the time?—Admiral Hyde Parker. The second circular was submitted to and amended by Sir Baldwin Walker, but I really forget now what the verbal alterations were which he introduced. The circular was couched in the following terms:— Admiralty, April 26, 1852. Misconstruction having arisen with reference to their Lordships' circular issued on the 19th instant, I am to acquaint you that no imputation is intended to be cast thereby upon the Surveyor of the Navy. The arrangements with regard to the dockyard promotions as laid down by their Lordships' circular of 27th February, 1847, will be strictly adhered to, and they deem it desirable to revert to the system then in force of having all communications on the subject addressed to this office in the first instance. By command of their Lordships, (Signed) "AUGUSTUS STAFFORD. To the Superintendents of the Dockyards at Deptford, Woolwich, Sheerness, Chatham, Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke. Time went on, the pressure of business was very great, and I can truly say I forgot all about the matter. Spring went, summer came, and autumn was fast going on, when, in the month of November, I received a note from an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, stating that a question was going to be asked of me in reference to a correspondence on the subject of the resignation of the Surveyor of the Navy. I had correspondence with the Surveyor, in which I told him that his letters were nowhere to be found in Whitehall. I asked him whether they might not be in Somerset House, and he informed me that they could not be found there. I had made search for them in the Record-office, at Whitehall, but without success; and the clerks, of whose ability and integrity I never had and never shall have the slightest doubt, had told me they knew nothing of communications made by the Surveyor of the Navy. In short, I could obtain no information about the correspondence whatever in the Record-office of the Admiralty, and I therefore returned a negative to the question which the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) has referred to more than once this evening. I could not have returned any other answer, because even if the Surveyor of the Navy had tendered his resignation and then withdrawn it, there must have been a correspondence on the subject in the Record-office. But there was no such correspondence. It may appear that the person most implicated in this matter is Admiral Parker; but those who know the distinguished position, the nice sense of honour, and the straightforward character of Admiral Parker, do not need to be told that if I had made an erroneous or incorrect statement on a subject with which he was so much connected, he would not have given me instructions to come down to the House and make an explanation. Admiral Parker knew very well that the Surveyor of the Navy delivered his letter to him because he considered him as a friend—because he was the senior naval Lord—who might exercise his own discretion as to the expediency of bringing the communication forward or keeping it back. In the exercise of that discretion he did not send the letter to the office, or submit it to the Board, but destroyed it, and so the resignation of Sir Baldwin Walker was never heard of. But that is not all. On the 25th of November the Surveyor wrote a formal official letter to the Board, which he did not send to the senior naval Lord, but addressed to myself in the usual way, so that it might be brought as a matter of course before the Board. The letter was to the following effect:— Somerset House, Nov. 25, 1852. Sir—Having observed in the public papers that the Secretary of the Admiralty is reported to have stated in the House of Commons, on the evening of the 23rd instant, in reply to certain questions asked by Admiral Berkeley and Sir George Pechell, that there was no correspondence with the Surveyor of the Navy on the subject of the promotions in the dockyards, and also that the Surveyor of the Navy had not tendered his resignation, I desire, through you, to call the at tention of my Lords the Commissioners of the Admiralty to letters from me, bearing date the 21st of April and the 10th of May last.—I have, &c, (Signed)— "B. W. WALKER, Surveyor of the Navy. Augustus Stafford, Esq., M.P., &c. Secretary of the Admiralty. I returned the following answer:— Admiralty, Nov. 26, 1852. With reference to your letter of the 25th instant, I am to acquaint you that your letters of the 21st of April and 10th of May, referred to by you, do not appear to have reached the Record department of this office, and my Lords therefore request you will transmit copies of these letters. By command of their Lordships, (Signed)"A. STAFFORD. Surveyor of the Navy. Three days after I received the following letter:— Somerset House, Nov. 29, 1852. Sir—With reference to your letter of the 26th instant, I beg to acquaint you that since my communication of the 25th instant, I have been informed that my letter of the 21st of April, ad- dressed to the Secretary of the Admiralty, which was delivered to Vice-Admiral Hyde Parker, was not brought before the Board; and with reference to the letter of the 10th of May, it was a communication addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and not to the Secretary.—I have, &c, (Signed) "B. W. WALKES. Augustus Stafford, Esq., M.P., &c, Secretary of the Admiralty. Now, a great deal has been said about this transaction; but I really think the circumstances are very simple. The Surveyor of the Navy cannot be supposed to be acquainted with the routine of the Record department, and it is not surprising, therefore, that he should not know that his letter of resignation had never been submitted to the Board of Admiralty, and consequently was not to be found in the archives of the office. I made diligent search for it, but could not find it, and so stated most distinctly that there was no such letter. I do not see how I could have acted otherwise than I did, or have taken a more straightforward course. I have nothing to conceal, however much has been made of this transaction. I thought the matter was settled, as Admiral Parker phrases it, and it almost escaped from my recollection. When the subject of Sir Baldwin Walker's letter of resignation was mooted in the Chatham Election Committee, I thought the most simple way of ending the discussion would be to move for the correspondence on the subject, and to lay it on the table of the House. There was nothing I had to conceal or to explain, and I was sure that the correspondence which was to be laid on the table would explain itself. Well, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) moved an amendment, or an addition, I can hardly say which—

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

A proviso.

MR. STAFFORD

No, not a proviso. It was as follows:— And in case such correspondence shall not be in the office, that the Surveyor shall be directed to furnish copies of any letter or letters addressed by him to the Secretary or the First Lord of the Admiralty on such subject. I will now read to the House a private letter which I addressed to the Surveyor of the Navy on the subject of dockyard promotions. Although it is extremely disagreeable to me to read private letters, yet I find I must submit the contents of this one to the House, because the public letter written in answer to it by the person to whom it is addressed has been published, and, in justice to myself, the whole corre- spondence should be read together. The letter, which runs as follows, was marked, "private and confidential":— Admiralty, April 2,1852. Dear Sir Baldwin—I find that great dissatisfaction exists among my political friends as to the present arrangement of appointments and promotions in the dockyards, and there is a very general impression that all these things are dispensed among our political opponents, insomuch that there seems no alterative but to resume the system which existed previous to September, 1849. I need not tell you that no one considers the blame—if blame there be—to rest with you; but you are thought too far removed from politics altogether to understand the small intrigues which go on in these places. For myself, I hate the notion of patronage altogether, and a change of the existing arrangements would only expose me to perpetual annoyance and trouble; but in any case your wishes would always have great weight with me; and in the perfect frankness with which I now state the case and ask your opinion, I hope you will perceive the sincere respect with which I remain, dear Sir Baldwin, truly yours, A. STAFFORD. Now, that letter might be right or it might be wrong; but I confess I did not expect when I wrote it, especially as I had previously received a private letter from the Surveyor, that the answer would contain an announcement of his resignation; and I do admit that I read with surprise that letter when it was laid on the table of this House. And now permit me to say, referring to the next letter, that I think it was left to the discretion of the First Naval Lord either to submit Sir Baldwin's letter to the Board or not, as he pleased. When it is remembered that the First Lord of the Admiralty is a member of the Cabinet, while the other members of the Board are not so—that he carries on an important correspondence with the commanders-in-chief on foreign stations, and other authorities, I think the House will see the necessity of the First Naval Lord having the power of treating the letters he receives either as public or private documents. Sometimes the First Lord hands the letters to the Secretary, and then they are read to the Board. Sometimes he retains possession of them altogether; and sometimes, I believe, he transmits them to his successor. But this is a matter of such great delicacy and importance, that I must be excused for declining to say more on the subject. What answer may have been made to Sir Baldwin Walker's letter I know not. The Duke of Northumberland, by not bringing it before the Board, treated it as a private letter, and it was consequently not referred to the Re- cord department of the Admiralty; and I have to say, that his Grace's astonishment was very great when, his consent to the publication of this letter having been not granted or even asked, the first time he saw it was in the public newspapers. Now, the House would see the extreme difficulty of carrying on the public business of the country, if a system like this is to be tolerated. Here is a letter published alone, which may probably have been, for anything I know to the contrary, answered either verbally or by a written communication. I trust I have now disposed of the letter part of the question to the satisfaction of the House; and I do not consider myself open to the grave charge of stating what was not the fact. I will now go to the first question to which the hon. Baronet called attention. The hon. Baronet proposes "to inquire into the circumstances under which a Circular, sent to the Superinten-tendent of Her Majesty's Dockyards, dated September 26, 1849, was cancelled on the 19th April, 1852, without any Order or Minute of the Board." On looking over the Board Minute Book, I found that the Circular in question was not inserted there, and therefore I acted in strict accordance with precedent when I put the resolution cancelling it in the General Minute Book. The hon. Baronet may think that the previous Board were unwise in issuing so important a Circular without making it a Board Minute, and may also consider that it would have been better if the late Board had given more authority to their cancelling order, by giving it the force of a Board Minute. The hon. Baronet, in alluding to my having signed the order by their Lordships' commands, said that I was new to official life; but I beg to inform the hon. Baronet, who appears to imagine that I have done what I was not empowered to do, that the Secretary of the Admiralty is the servant of the Board, and that his duty is to carry out their orders. At the same time I may remind the hon. Baronet, that, although in strict compliance with precedent, the Circular of the 19th of April was placed simply in the General Minute Book, and not in the Board Minute Book, yet on the 26th of April it was reaffirmed by the Board Minute, thereby receiving, as it were, a double guarantee. The members of the Board present on the 26th of April, when the Circular was issued, were, the Duke of Northumberland, Admiral Hyde Parker, Sir Thomas Herbert, Cap- tain Duncombe, and Captain Milne. I think, therefore, that the charge of my having issued the Circular in question without the knowledge of the Board must fall to the ground. As to the propriety of cancelling the Circular of 1849, I trust the House will hear me and then judge for itself. While the present Sir Henry Ward held the office of Secretary to the Admiralty, the regulation was found to work well enough under his vigorous administration; but when he retired, the Secretary-ship fell into gentler hands; he was succeeded by Mr. John Parker, and the case became quite altered. At that time there was an inclination to take from the Secretary to the Admiralty a power which, until that time, he had always exercised. I am about to read some statements on this subject to the House, and I must say that I think the hon. Baronet is quite right in not naming his correspondents, because every one who knows anything of dockyards must be aware of the hot water into which people get who make these communications. I will read two out of innumerable letters, and not the worst cases that have been brought under my notice. The first is to the following effect:— When the Whigs, in 1848, began to feel their power declining, they thought it necessary to fall on some plan for continuing a system which would, even if they retired from office, still leave the dockyard patronage in their grasp. The commencement of that system had stuffed every hole and corner in the yards with Whig officials and underlings, and during twenty years these worthies had managed to exclude from entry or promotion all parties who would not support the Whig interests. It became necessary to vest all recommendations with dockyard authorities, the channel for which was the Surveyor of the Navy—and thus erect a formidable chevaux de frise round their position. This order, framed with an apparent design of securing the avenue to employment, and promotion to ability, merit, and service, was, notwithstanding all its pretence and flummery, in reality a document enabling the parties to carry on a system which had long grown up into a crying evil and public scandal. So notorious were the channels of dockyard patronage, that it is said, and I believe with perfect truth, that a sort of tariff had been laid down as to the prices of various appointments; any person desirous of entry or promotion went to certain parties and offered to bet the tariff regulations that he would not succeed. The bet, if the thing was feasible, was accepted, and the unlucky applicant was always sure to lose his bet, and honourably paid it. I have here a letter from a dockyard which I will not mention, and from a person who, I am well assured, is trustworthy:— Political party feeling is very strong in this dockyard, and the heads of departments being all Liberals, with few exceptions, the Conservatives have no hope either of promotion or fair play. Men who are well qualified for promotion by length of service, good conduct, and superior workmanship, have had for years fresh hands put over their heads, solely, it is believed, on account of their Conservative principles. To instance more particularly, in the case of—. Mr.—, being a Liberal, shows the greatest partiality in the distribution of work; the Conservatives being invariably put to the worst of the work. Is one party required afloat and another ashore? The Tory leading man, Mr.—, is sent afloat, while the other is kept in the yard, and in the distribution of work on shipboard the Conservatives are appointed to cockpit work, while the Liberals have the cabin and stern work; and in every case where it can be done, there is a marked preference given to men professing Liberal opinions. In the case of an appointment lately of an artificer from this yard to superintend a new machine at another yard, it was promised to A and he made preparations for moving, but having voted for the Conservatives at the last election, B was appointed over his head, without any notice. On the appointment of B becoming known, there was a general cheer by the workmen of his party, Mr.—saying to the Conservatives, What do you think of it now? You had it all your own way while your own party was in power; we have got our own way now, and we mean to keep it too. Sir, it was not the case that any alteration of the dockyard regulations was really intended by the late Board; but it was perpetually repeated to us that the working of the system, as it was now enforced, was not to make appointments to the dockyards non-political, but to make them one-sided—a system where the Conservatives got nothing, and where the Liberals got every thing—an extremely convenient arrangement, no doubt, for hon. Members opposite. But then let them say so at once, and not stand up for purity and impartiality when, the purity and impartiality, like Irish reciprocity, is all on one side. I find that the present right hon. Secretary at War (Mr. S. Herbert) when he was Secretary at the Admiralty, always corresponded direct with the superintendents of the yards. I find that the right hon. President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood), when he was Secretary of the Admiralty, did the same. I find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), when he was Secretary for the Admiralty, did the same. I could not see what prima facie case there existed against these superintendents of the yards, that all communications between them and the Secretary of the Admiralty should be completely choked up now as it never was before 1840, and I was determined to make inquiry how the matter stood. Now, on looking to the dockyard instructions, I found that the case was very clear. They do not shrink—they expressly direct that all communications should he made directly from the Admiral Superintendent to the Secretary of the Admiralty. The following is an extract from the instructions issued 1st of January 1844, which hears the signature of "Sidney Herbert":— All reports from the officers of the yard shall be made and transmitted, when necessary, by the superintendent to our Secretary for our information and direction. Superintendent, you are daily to correspond with our secretary, acquainting him with the transactions of the yard, &c. You are to report all vacancies, without exception, that occur in the dockyard; and when any vacancies, occasioned by promotion or otherwise, shall occur, you are, after consulting the officer in whose department such vacancy may happen, to forward to the Admiralty the names of persons belonging to the yard fit, from ability and character, to succeed to the vacancy; but no person whatever is to be promoted or entered on the establishment of the yard in any vacancy or otherwise, as office clerk, artificer, or labourer, without our express authority. In short, the whole is founded upon the supposition that reports of all vacancies are to be forwarded direct to the Admiralty. As far as concerns taking political precedents and authorities for what I did at the Admiralty, I frankly own that I most studied the suggestions contained in the evidence that was given before the Committee on the Navy Estimates, by the late Lord Auckland and Sir Henry Ward; and I say that nobody who wishes to get a thorough knowledge of the work that is done at the Admiralty should omit to read the valuable evidence given by the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman. I do not know anything—whether we regard the power of comprehension, the masterly style of explanation, and the complete grasp of detail, together with a calm and impartial spirit running through every word—in all these respects I do not know anything superior to the evidence given by Sir Henry Ward and the late Lord Auckland. Lord Auckland, who appointed the present Surveyor of the Navy, stated that it was his wish to draw out a draft of instructions defining his office. I will quote the words of the noble Lord, in answer to a question of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham), on the 8th of May, 1848:— Are the miscellaneous estimates of the present year laid on the table of the House of Commons?—I am told not. I have now got a draft with regard to the office of Surveyor of the Navy, which I will put in. My wish has been that Sir B. Walker should know his office well before we absolutely settle his establishment. But this expresses the view I take of what it ought to be. I think it will meet his views, and I hope it will meet the views of the authorities by which it may be sanctioned. Now here is an extract from that draft, in which he says— In all professional details of matters connected with his duties, in requiring information or explanation on professional points, the Surveyor will be at liberty to correspond with the officers of the yards; but he is not to issue any orders of a general nature, or to enter upon any part of the general correspondence with the superintendents of the yards. Lord Auckland states in this letter of instructions that there must be a reconstruction of the office of Surveyor of the Navy; but it must be evident that this reconstruction was effected in a manner which did not prevent the Secretary's correspondence with the dockyards, or there would have been no necessity for that Circular, though no one who reads this letter, or the evidence of Lord Auckland and Sir Henry Ward, can imagine that the subject itself escaped their attention. It seems to me that all through it is taken for granted that the superintendents of the yards—men of high sense of honour, and holding important offices—are to communicate directly with the Secretary of the Admiralty. Thus sanctioned, then, and finding that every Secretary of the Admiralty but one, and he only for two years, had corresponded with the superintendents of the different yards, I did venture to suggest to Sir Baldwin Walker that we should prefer that the superintendents of the yards should correspond with us rather than with him. I ventured to suggest to the Board, with great respect to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) that they might prefer the authority of Lord Auckland to that of the right hon. Gentleman, and, in fact, to replace the Surveyor in the precise position in which he was placed by Lord Auckland. The hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) says that the late Board of Admiralty wished to lay the whole responsibility of these appointments upon the Surveyor of the Navy. Sir, I question the wisdom of that arrangement. I question whether it is not better, though it tells now to my own disadvantage, that the sole responsibility should be with the Secretary of the Admiralty, and that he should be liable to be called upon to explain as far as possible every appointment, to the lowest, than that he should get up and say, in answer to questions why this or that man was appointed—I know nothing of the matter—the responsibility rests with the Surveyor of the Navy, and not with me. Sir, I do not shrink from the responsibility, nor do I at all regret that I relieved, what is certainly already an overworked office, from additional duties, for which, from its composition, it is not qualified, the discharge of which is contrary to all precedent, and contrary to the instructions which were issued by Lord Auckland at first. Now I shall venture to go into the letter, which seems to have been both private and public, addressed by Sir Baldwin Walker to the Duke of Northumberland. The letter has "been already read; but although I am unwilling to weary the House, perhaps I had better read it over again than seem to avoid any of the charges that have been brought against me. He begins by saying— Somerset House, May 10, 1852. My Lord Duke—I feel that I should be neglecting my duty were I not to point out to your Grace the evil system of my position as Surveyor of the Navy, but also with reference to the appointments and promotions in the dockyards. I had hoped that the position of the Surveyor of the Navy was explained by the Circular of April, and that he was satisfied— Your Grace is aware that the Secretary of the Admiralty thought proper to cancel, without the knowledge of the Board, their Lordships' Circular of 29th September, 1849, which directs that all papers respecting promotions and vacancies in the dockyards should be sent through the Surveyor to their Lordships. This order of 1849 was only reverting to a system which had always been in force prior to 1845, and which was then discontinued, I have reason to believe, on personal grounds. It is difficult for me to understand how the Surveyor should say that this was done without the knowledge of the Board, when the Circular itself bore that it was by command of the Board. Nor do I know to what he refers when he says that the system was in force prior to 1845, and was then only abolished on personal grounds. At that time the Earl of Haddington was First Lord of the Admiralty, and the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) was Secretary, and the statement appears to me to involve a grave charge with respect to them. He then goes on to say— The abolition of a system which was found to work well for upwards of three years, causing an annual saving of 130,00(M. in the wages of the artificers of the dockyards, independent of upwards of 60,000£. in the steam factories, without impairing the efficiency of those establishments, must be prejudicial to the public interest, and has tended much to lower the position of the Surveyor. I do not see how this "lowers the position of the Surveyor," nor can I understand the extraordinary figures which he has here set down; but this I say, that the Circular in question was issued while the Estimates framed by our predecessors were acted upon by us. The Estimates framed in 1852 were 626,931l., while the Estimates framed in 1851 were 636,417l., thus showing a saving of 9,486l. over the year when the Circular of 1849 was in full efficiency. This much is certain, that at the time when the late Board went out of office, the rates of the expenditure of dockyard wages were rigidly watched. I took upon myself to correspond with the dockyards whenever the rates of wages appeared to me to be in excess; as, for instance, at Pembroke, where the large vessel, the Duke of Wellington, was building. I found the wages had risen very high, and I wrote to know the cause, when I was answered that the excess at Pembroke would be balanced by a reduction at Devonport, whence a number of artificers had gone to expedite the building of the Duke of Wellington. I say, then, that far from proving injurious, this change will involve no difference to the public service. There was no difference in the Estimates for wages in consequence of such cancelling, and no injury to the country. As to the steam department, that is still left in the hands of the Surveyor of the Navy; it has never been interfered with at all, and if the House choose to refer to the matter I could refer to whole bales of correspondence where I have sanctioned the Surveyor's arrangements without bringing them before the Board at all, because I felt that on this matter he was the best authority. Sir Baldwin Walker proceeds to say— Now there is no one to control the establishments, and the Surveyor can no longer be held responsible for the Estimates not being exceeded, nor can he be answerable for the efficiency of those establishments; for the Board's admirable Circular of February, 1847, which directs that all advancement in the dockyards shall be for merit alone, has been virtually thrown aside—vacancies have been filled up which were not necessary, and men advanced, not for merit, but by political influence; and in one instance a person has been promoted who is not competent to fill the situation to which he has been appointed; and that was done without any reference having been made to the superintendent of the yard. Sir, I do not want the Surveyor to be responsible, if the Estimates are exceeded. I believe it is far better that those who are responsible for the Estimates should be in this House, and I hope that no future Sec- retary or First Lord will ever surrender those Estimates to the Surveyor of the Navy, or admit that he is the person who is responsible to this House for the financial details of this gigantic establishment. When the Surveyor says that there is no one to control the establishments, I totally and entirely disagree with him. There are persons who control the establishments. There are the Admiral Superintendents, the Commodore Superintendents, the Captain Superintendents, in the yards; and I know enough of these gentlemen, as men of business—as men having the welfare of the institution at heart, to know that they both can and will control the establishments; and, far from agreeing with the Surveyor of the Navy, I can wish no better luck to these establishments—apart from all party feeling—than that they may be long presided over by men who, in spite of what the Surveyor says, both can and do effectually control the establishments. The letter then proceeds:— Having stated thus much, I think it right to inform your Grace that I attribute the inconsiderate manner in which I have been put aside by the Secretary of the Admiralty to my unqualified refusal to depart from their Lordships' Circular of February, 1847, by lending myself to recommend men for advancement on political grounds. Now, considering that this Circular was first issued on the 26th of April, and that on the 10th of May the Board announced their determination rigidly to adhere to the Circular issued in 1847, it does seem a little premature in the Surveyor of the Navy to say that the Circular of 1847 was to be thrown aside. There were no proofs of the allegations offered here—whether he offered any in conversation with the First Lord of the Admiralty I do not know; for this constitutes one of the great difficulties of meeting the case. The hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) has named six or seven people to whom he considered that appointments had been unfairly given. He gave me the names, and, through the kindness of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, I have examined into some of them. With regard to these that were referred to by his correspondent from Devonport, I have to say that that correspondent can no more be a judge of the sort of men that should be entered in the dockyards, or of the reason why more men are entered in one month than another, than the hon. Member for Marylebone himself. There may have been a greater number of names entered in consequence of fewer having been entered in previous months; but this I know, that none have been entered without the sanction of the Commodore Superintendent; and Commodore Seymour would never have sanctioned the appointment of more men than was necessary, neither could it have been possible to go on with such appointments without exceeding the Estimates for the year. As a proof of the way in which the arrangements work, I may mention, that recently, at Woolwich, Commodore Eden, finding that twelve boys were wanted in the dockyard, entered them upon his own responsibility. I had sent the Commodore the names of twelve boys; he rejected eleven of them, and entered only one. Here, however, twelve names were entered in the yard; the lists were swelled by that proportion, and it might be said that this was a political job. I can only say that, in conversation with Commodore Eden upon this very subject, he stated to me, with true sailorlike frankness, "I have my own political opinions, but I know nothing of politics in the yard; but this I know, that if you send me unfit men, I shall chuck them neck and heels into the street." And I believe that every other Commodore Superintendent would have done the same thing; and I consider that I should be acting dishonestly if, after the communication I have had with these gentlemen, in the most frank and friendly spirit, I did not now state that I believe they would not have stood by if I had attempted to perpetrate a political job in their department, but that they would have sent remonstrances to the Board exonerating themselves from the responsibility. But what are the broad circumstances of the case? Not one of them sent any such communication to the Board. I have held correspondence and communication of the most friendly and confidential nature, with regard to some of these appointments. Some of the cases I recommended they objected to, and I yielded. On other cases they said that the Circular of 1847, recommending that length of service should have priority of promotion, would not meet the circumstances of some particular case, because it would be for the interest of the service to promote the third or fourth man rather than the first or second: it must be plain to the House that no formal resolution can supply the place of confidential communications. In one of those cases (Ridg-way's) which the hon. Baronet has named, the Commodore wrote to say that, in his opinion, the man was not competent for the situation. I wrote hack for them to give him a trial, before I could sanction the ruinous principle of interfering with private trades. They did try the man, and I presume that the trial was satisfactory, for I heard no more of his incompetency. I shall now come to the case of Longhurst. One man was named in preference to him, who had been in the yard for thirteen years, and another who had been fourteen years, and both of them, I have no doubt, were adequate to fill the situation referred to; but when I came to ask the period of Long-hurst's services I found that he had been in the yard for seventeen years. The man was discharged in August, 1849, along with another, for having been found drunk; but in consequence of the high character he received from the master shipwright, he was restored on the 5th of October, just five weeks after the commission of the offence. The police report, with respect to his drunkenness, stated that he and another were brought before the master attendant intoxicated, through taking, it appeared, some of the contractor's ram, about 40 cent above proof, under delivery, and they were ordered to be discharged. The master shipwright having stated these men to be of excellent character, and that they did not neglect their duty on this occasion above a minute, he was directed to reprimand them, with a caution for the future. Five weeks' dismissal and a reprimand seemed sufficient punishment, and the man was restored. I did not think that enough to disentitle him to the office of second foreman, which he had otherwise earned by his long services. Another case was that of a man who, though a labourer, was the son of a gentleman, a naval officer; what I did was, to recommend the superintendent to give him a little lift if he saw fit. Then there was the case of the miller, to whom the hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) alluded as having been appointed to the office of miller in Deptford, though he was reported to be incapable of holding the situation. The surgeon of the establishment did certainly pronounce that this man was labouring under a disease which unfitted him for the office; another surgeon pronounced him to be in perfect health. I desired him to call at Somerset House and see Dr. Bryson, the assistant physician general to the Navy. Dr. Bryson examined the man, and gave his opinion that he was in good health, and perfectly competent to take the office of mil- ler. I then desired that the man might be tried in the office, and I believe that he is now giving perfect satisfaction. I do not think, therefore, that I have much to charge myself with in regard to this appointment. Of course I know not what other allegations hon. Gentlemen may bring against me after I sit down; but, with regard to these, I think I have fairly met them. I now come to the case of Cotsell. The hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) stated to me yesterday that he was going to bring down to the House the paper which he has read to-day, and that he would let me see it yesterday evening. Sir, I went away in the evening, for I confess I did not wish to see it. The hon. Baronet did me the favour to offer to show it me before he brought it forward. I said he might use his discretion whether he would bring it forward or not, but that I did not wish to see it. That deposition, which is signed by a relieving officer of the name of Scott, who lives at Chatham, has nothing whatever to do with me personally, as I believe, it does not say that Cotsell saw me when he came to London.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

I have parted with the paper, and have not got it at this moment; but it stated that after Cotsell got the appointment, he said, now that the election was over, he did not mind telling how it occurred; that Mr. Stafford promised him the appointment; that he came up to the Admiralty and saw a friend of his there; that Wells's appointment was lying on the table; that Atkinson said he thought himself hardly dealt with, and, thereupon, the appointment was put aside, and the gentleman said there would be no more heard of it.

MR. STAFFORD

The hon. Gentleman said that the election was then over. Yes, but the election petition was not over. Why was not this paper laid before the Election Committee? Here I find the name of Cotsell entered in a double capacity, both as a briber and as bribed, and the person who bribed him is entered as the Secretary of the Admiralty. [Laughter from Sir G. Pechell.] Yes, let the hon. and gallant Gentleman laugh if he chooses. I have no doubt that the case affords matter of diversion to such minds as his. I say that those who charged Cotsell with bribery, and charged me with bribing him, had the opportunity, if they chose—if they had the manliness and courage to bring this charge forward—they had the opportunity to do so before one of the constituted tribunals of the country—they might have put myself and Cotsell upon oath, where we must either have stated the truth, or risked the penalties of perjury; but they never did either the one or the other, and now at the latest moment, at the eleventh hour, when it is impossible for me to communicate with Cotsell, then the relieving officer comes forward and brings a charge which, I say, amounts to nothing more than to show how closely the eyes of enmity have watched my progress—how eagerly they have sought for word or action of mine which would not bear the severest scrutiny. I say, no more than that it proves to the House. The hon. Member (Sir B. Hall) says that Cotsell asked me to promote or to change him from Chatham to Portsmouth; and so he did, but previously to this he had sent a memorial to the Admiralty upon the subject. Mr. Cotsell was perfectly at liberty, when he saw any Lord of the Admiralty, or the Secretary to the Admiralty, to communicate with him. Mr. Cotsell named the matter to me, hoped I would do all in my power to forward his application; and I as I would have done in any other case, said I would give the matter my best consideration. I now come to the letter of the 9th September, 1852—the letter of the Surveyor of the Navy—in which he says— With reference to the accompanying letter from the Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth, and to their Lordships' decision that an experienced master shall be appointed to Portsmouth yard, from the private trade, I beg to state that Mr. James Wells, who is in his thirty-seventh year, has been recommended to me as being well qualified for the charge of a smithery. Now, the appointment of a master smith from the private trade, is, whether right or wrong, a transaction of great magnitude and importance. Two essential ingredients are necessary to such an appointment. The first is to prove the inferiority of those in the dockyards who stand next; and, from the private trade superior attainments on the part of the person selected; for instance, though Mr. Cotsell might have been inferior, it did not follow that Mr. Wells was first-rate. In the Memorial of the 16th of October, 1852, the Surveyor says, referring to a decision of the Board in August last— I received an order from the Admiralty to select the best man for this appointment. I merely obeyed my orders to select the person best qualified. I am not aware that I have departed from the ordinary course. When I came to inquire about the order on which so much stress has been laid, I was utterly unable to find it. I moved for it in the returns, and the Board of Admiralty wrote, to this effect:— With reference to the papers moved by Mr. Stafford, as to the decision of the Board in August last, as to the filling up the vacancy of master smith at Portsmouth, I have to acquaint you that such decision does not appear in this office. In directing me to supply a copy of the order, I beg to acquaint you that there is no official document on the subject in the office. Therefore we find at the commencement that there is no authority at all on the subject. The Surveyor says— James Wells, who is in his thirty-seventh year, has been very strongly recommended as being well qualified for the charge of a smithery; and I therefore submit that he be appointed master smith at Portsmouth Yard in the present vacancy, and that, as in the case of Messrs. Black and Ainslie, appointed respectively to Woolwich and Devonport Yards under similar circumstances, he be entered on probation for six months, to be paid at the rate of 200l. a year, with the understanding that if, at the expiration of that period, his conduct and abilities should be found to be perfectly satisfactory, he shall be appointed master smith at the full salary of 250l. a year. As I did not return from the Mediterranean until the 25th of September, I can take no further share of official responsibility than to assume the act of one official to be the act of another; and I am willing to admit that three letters—to the Admiral at Portsmouth, to the Accountant General, to the Surveyor of the Navy, were issued, and that the Board of Admiralty subsequently changed their mind. They may have been right, or they may have been wrong in so doing; but such changes are not unprecedented in higher quarters; for the youngest Member of this House must remember that on one particular occasion, when the Government this Session brought forward a measure containing three clauses, which received the sanction of the House on the second reading of the Bill, they subsequently thought fit to withdraw one most important clause. It might have been right or it might have been wrong to appoint Mr. Wells; but there was no information before the Board to lead them to believe that they had injured Mr. Wells. Every one who is appointed to an office like this receives from the Board of Admiralty two communications—one stating that he is appointed, and is to go and take up his warrant, and the other includes the warrant to the superintendent, to be given to him on his arrival. The following letter, dated 10th September, 1852, was address- ed to the Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth:— My Lords have been pleased to appoint Mr. James Wells to be master smith at Portsmouth Dockyard. He is to be entered on probation for six months, and to be paid at the rate of 200l. a year, with the understanding that if, at the expiration of that period, his conduct and abilities shall be found to be perfectly satisfactory, he will be confirmed as master smith, at the full salary of 250l. per annum. The letter to the Surveyor of the Navy was in the same terms. The hon. Baronet says the warrant was stopped. Most truly it was stopped. That is to say, it did not issue, because the Board were anxious to give the matter further consideration before confirming the appointment. But when they sent the letters to the Admiral Superintendent and to the Surveyor of the Navy, they knew that it was not the business of these officers to communicate with Mr. Wells. It was discovered subsequently that Wells had gone to Portsmouth. I now come to inquire how that happened to be the case; and here begins a mass of perplexity which I must say baffles my understanding. However, all I ask the House to do is to follow me as I go through the papers. In the communication which the hon. Baronet assumes to be dated the 14th October, but which really has no date, Mr. Wells says—"that your Memorialist was induced, after an interview with Sir Baldwin Walker, to accept an appointment as master smith in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth." It appears that Sir Baldwin Walker saw this man, and told him of the appointment, for the details of the appointment are so minute that it was only at an interview probably that all this information could be obtained. If hon. Members will turn to page 8 of the same returns, they will find that the interview with Sir Baldwin Walker changes into "Document No. 1," for Mr. Wells says, in a letter dated the 6th January—"On the 13th September last I had the honour to receive the appointment of master smith at Portsmouth Dockyard, as will be seen on reference to document No. 1, forwarded to me by direction of Sir Baldwin Walker." Now, I cannot understand the contradiction involved in the two statements. If Mr. Wells had an interview with Sir Baldwin Walker, why was the letter sent; and if the letter was sent, what reason was there for an interview? But Sir Baldwin Walker, in his evidence, expressly declares that he had no interview with Mr. Wells. But whether the appointment announced was by letter or at an interview, what was Sir Baldwin Walker's course, as stated to the Committee? The question was put to him— I venture to ask you, was it not out of the ordinary course of your duty your sending that communication to Wells? His reply was— It certainly was, I may say, out of the ordinary course of my duty; but the Admiralty not having had the address, I concluded the letter had not been sent to him on that account. Now, first, we find that Sir Baldwin Walker had Mr. Wells's address, and that the Admiralty had not the address. But Sir Baldwin Walker does not communicate the address to the Admiralty, but he says that he communicated with Mr. Wells. But when I examine further inte the matter, I find that he does not even communicate with Mr. Wells, but he directs a clerk in Somerset House to communicate, not with Mr. Wells, but with the master smith at Woolwich, and the communication is in the following terms:— I am directed by Sir Baldwin Walker to acquaint you that their Lordships have been pleased to appoint Mr. James Wells to be master smith at Portsmouth Yard; and he requests you will communicate this to Mr. Wells, in order that he may make arrangements to take up his appointment. This is addressed to Mr. G. Black, master smith, Woolwich, and this note is added, "Date not known; but as the Admiralty Order appointing Mr. Wells was dated 10th September, it is presumed this communication was dated 11th September." What a style of doing business is this. What renders all these transactions very remarkable is the fact that Mr. Wells was a protege of Sir Baldwin Walker, and that it was very natural to expect he would see the legal instruments properly executed and carried out. On the 1st of October the Board decided on appointing Mr. Cot-sell master smith at Portsmouth. The Board went on the belief that those letters from the Admiralty which had reference to Wells had not gone beyond the Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth and the Surveyor of the Navy, and, therefore, that no agreement of any kind had been entered into with Mr. Wells; or that he had received any notification of his appointment. The Board was not chargeable with the informality. They sent this letter to the Surveyor of the Navy:— Their Lordships' order of the 10th ultimo for the appointment of a master smith to Portsmouth yard has been cancelled; and the undermentioned appointments have this day taken place: Mr. George Cotsell, master smith of Chatham yard, to be master smith of Portsmouth yard, vice Tyler, superannuated. When the Surveyor of the Navy received this notice, stating that another appointment had taken place, it might naturally be supposed he would be anxious that some reparation should be made. Not the least. He never wrote a word to the Board until more than a fortnight afterwards, and he then brought forward the memorial of the 16th October, 1852. On that day the Board found themselves in this dilemma. There were two master smiths. One of them had been appointed with every formality, with every regularity; the other had nothing to show but a letter addressed to the smith at Woolwich. It was for the Board to decide whether Mr. Wells should be called "master smith" or not; and the question raised was, whether it was right to sanction all these proceedings, or whether it was necessary, for the sake of the orderly conduct of the business of the office, to direct Mr. Wells's attention to the inaccuracy and informality of the appointment he had received, and the following communication was addressed to him:— I have received your memorial without date, and I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty 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 yourself 'late master smith of Her Majesty's Dockyard at Portsmouth;' they therefore return you your memorial. And I must say that the Board would have committed an act which would have led to the greatest confusion if they had recognised such a transaction. The letter goes on to say— If, however, 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 late master smith of Portsmouth dockyard, as no warrant has been given to you by their Lordships for such appointment. Knowing all this, it was thought very hard and unfeeling that we did not call Mr. James Wells "master smith of Portsmouth dockyard." It was not the intention of the Board to injure Mr. Wells. It was their intention to do everything they could for him. He did not, however, memorialise again until the 6th of January, 1853, and the Board were not at all to blame for that delay. We had to consider which of these two smiths, Cotsell or Wells, should be appointed master smith at Portsmouth. I will allude to the political part of the question by and by. Let not the hon. Baronet imagine I am going to shrink from it. I will now take the case of Mr. Costell. Here was a man who was the senior smith in the dockyard service, and he might look up to Portsmouth as the chief yard. Mr. Cotsell had raised himself from a lower department entirely by his own merit. He had been in three dockyards, and on one occasion had received the thanks of the Lords of the Admiralty for services he had rendered. It is not my wish to use my own language with regard to either of these men. I will refer to the testimony of Mr. Abethell, the master shipwright at Portsmouth, the builder of the Duke of Wellington. Here is a petition from Mr. Cotsell to be permitted to remain at Portsmouth, and on the 29th of January, he asks the Admiralty for leave to do so. His application was forwarded by the master shipwright in these words:— I beg to submit the above for the consideration of the admiral superintendent, and to observe that for professional ability and general fitness for the situation of master smith in this yard, and with regard to faithfulness, economy, and an appreciation of the improvements in smithery work, I have the highest opinion of Mr. Cotsell. I now come to the character of Mr. Wells, which I have no wish to depreciate. I will refer to the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker on this point. In answer to a question— 'May I venture to ask who recommended Wells?' he said, 'I must explain how it was done fully, if you will allow me. The person that he was immediately selected or named by was the master smith at Woolwich, who had worked in the same firm at Liverpool with Wells. 'He was asked,' Is that a firm that makes machinery?' and his reply was, 'I am not prepared to answer that question.' He was then asked,' Can you say whether Wells ever forged an anchor?' to which his reply was, 'I am not prepared to say that he has.' Now, in his letter to the Admiralty, dated October 16, 1852, Sir Baldwin Walker says, "Mr. Wells was directed to proceed to Somerset House, and was examined by myself and Mr. Lloyd, the chief engineer, as to his qualifications for the appointment." So that in October, 1852, Sir Baldwin Walker examines Mr. Wells as to his qualifications, and in February, 1853, he cannot speak to them. But there is something more. Sir Baldwin Walker forwards a me- morial from Mr. Wells, in which Mr. Wells says, "he was induced, after an interview with Sir Baldwin Walker, the Surveyor of the Navy, to accept an appointment." But what does Sir Baldwin Walker say in his evidence before the Chatham Election Committee? He was asked this question—"When Lord Derby's Government came into power, had Wells ever had any letter from the Admiralty appointing him? "His reply was," Not that I am aware of; I never saw Wells until after he had been dismissed. "So that although the Surveyor of the Navy forwarded a memorial from Mr. Wells, in which Mr. Wells stated that he had had an interview with Sir Baldwin Walker—although in October Sir Baldwin Walker said he had examined Mr. Wells—yet in February he could not swear that Mr. Wells had ever forged an anchor, and declared that he had never seen him until after he was dismissed. I now come to the political considerations involved in Mr. Cotsell's case. My great opponent, the great opponent of the Board on that occasion, was the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. F. Mackenzie), at that time Secretary to the Treasury. He stated to me that Mr. Wells, a staunch supporter of his, who had voted for him and his Colleague, had been disappointed. He urged Mr. Wells's claims upon me most urgently, and in a long interview which I had with him at the Treasury, I never saw a man who cared less for the dockyards. He intimated that the Treasury was the senior department, and that the Admiralty ought to knock under, but I told them that the Admiralty should not knock under. I acknowledged that Liverpool, in a political point of view, was a more glorious triumph than Chatham, and that it would be easier to make reparation to Mr. Cotsell than to Mr. Wells at Liverpool. But I told him that the case of the dockyards was one on which I had set my heart, and that I would stand by the decision of the Board, and I rejoice in having done so. Not all the discussions in this House—not all the political disadvantages it has thrown upon us—has altered my opinion that the Board acted rightly in rewarding the distinguished merit of Mr. Cotsell, and that we were right in risking political difficulties at Liverpool. Not long ago Viscount Canning, in reply to the Marquess of Clanricarde in another place, on a question relating to the Post Office, said he concurred in all that had been said relative to the duty of the Postmaster General, not to overlook the clerks in case of advancement and promotion, and that it was a general rule applicable to all the departments of the public service. The right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Board of Admiralty said, in answer to a question before the Committee on the 21st of February, this year, "that if the dockyards were justly administered, without consideration of political influence, and with reference to merit only, promotion was open to every man in the dockyard, and from the humblest position he might rise to the highest." That was a noble sentiment on the part of the First Lord of the Admiralty; and I cannot imagine a better comment than the appointment of Mr. Cotsell, who laboured in an inferior department, to the management of a superior department; I can imagine him saying to a young mechanic, "I advanced myself by degrees, step by step, until I have got to the top of my profession, and you may do the same—for those who rule us rule us justly, and respect our claims as much as they do the claims of the highest nobles of the land." We arm our dockyard battalions, we are right to do, so for they are brave and loyal men, proud to call themselves, and to feel themselves, the servants of the Queen; and they will be prepared to stand by you to the last. Because therefore they are proud and loyal, they respect their feelings, their happiness, and their hopes; do not make them, because they earn their daily bread by toil, and because their objects of ambition are not ours, believe that they will not be treated fairly; and never let the humblest of them feel that, without one fault of his own, you have called the stranger to supplant him, and dashed the cup from his lips just when those lips had reached it. And now I come to the hon. Baronet's charges with respect to the general superintendence; and my answer with regard to the general distribution of patronage is this—I think it will be fair to try it by this process. I take the dockyard boroughs—those where the dockyards have particular influence. I begin with Portsmouth. In Portsmouth there was no contest. Now, I say that we might, if we had been so unscrupulous as has been alleged, have got up a contest. Then there is Devonport. From Devonport you have no petition, and we must conclude that if there were any grounds for one, there would not have been people wanting to bring it forward. From Plymouth there is a petition; but, notwithstanding all the alle- gations we have heard, the allegations in it contain nothing against the Admiralty. From Greenwich there is no petition. From Rochester there is no petition. There was a petition from Chatham, and the Committee who investigated the charge which it made, sat a longer time than any other Election Committee. In the Committee a placard was brought to light, which, with the permission of the House, I will read. It was circulated during that election:— A few words to certain electors of Chatham about bribery. Electors of Chatham—The law as to bribery at the present election is a new law. If one of the Secretaries of the Admiralty has accompanied Sir Frederick Smith in his canvass at the dockyard, the Secretary of the Admiralty will be obliged to declare every circumstance of that visit on oath. He must tell every word that passed between himself and Sir Frederick Smith; every word that Sir Frederick Smith said to the men in his presence. If any promise were made in his presence he will have to declare it. If in private he promised Sir Frederick Smith for any man, he will have to declare it. The Secretary to the Admiralty will have to convict himself. The Derby Ministry is beaten in the country. They will not be in power to damage any man for an honest vote, or to give a man a place of any sort for a dishonest one. Electors of Chatham, you are free, &c. This placard was of a nature to inspire the stoutest-hearted Secretary of the Admiralty with terror. I was expecting every moment a warrant summoning me to give evidence before the Committee. But day after day passed away; the proceedings of the Committee advanced; their proceedings terminated; but this terrible Secretary of the Admiralty was never summoned before the Committee, nor at all referred to in their Report. Give me leave to read the Report:— That it was proved to the Committee that Joseph Greathead, an elector of Chatham, had been bribed by a" situation as a letter-carrier in the Post-office, obtained for his son, C. Greathead, by Sir J. M. F. Smith. That it was proved before the Committee that a large number of the electors are employed in Her Majesty's dockyard, and other public departments at Chatham, and that they Are under the influence of the Government for the time being, and it appears that there is no instance of a candidate being elected for this borough who has not the support of the Government. Under these circumstances it will be for the House to determine whether the right of returning a Member should not for the future be withdrawn from the borough of Chatham. That it is the opinion of this Committee that there are strong grounds for believing that Stephen Mount, in giving his evidence before the Committee, had been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury. There is no special reference in that Report—no reflection upon any one Govern- ment more than upon another; and I say that if any case more than another presents a favourable view of our proceedings, it is the absence of petitions in every place except one—that even, the only one, not bringing forward any specific allegations against the Board. But the hon. Baronet says I went down to Devonport and walked through the dockyard; he says there was a political dinner of mine there, and there were several persons at it he named. If he had given me notice that he was going into this subject, I would have carefully preserved the names of the guests; and, if he wished it, of the dishes also. The right hon. Baronet says that both the Conservative Members were there.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

I said the two Conservative candidates.

MR. STAFFORD

I can tell him they were not. I admit going in the Black Eagle; and here I may be permitted to reply to one of the many charges that have been made against me—the charge that I had employed a steam vessel, at the Government expense, to go to various ports in the Mediterranean. Sir, I never took one Government steamer a mile out of her way. From Admiral Dundas I heard of a steamer at a particular point, whence I was conveyed to several points, to which, whether I had been on board or not, they must have gone. I cost the Government nothing—not more than 12l. at all for that journey, and that was because I could not pay for myself according to the regulations of the service when I was on board the George and Fury. I was the guest of Admiral Dundas, and I shall thank him to the last hour of my life for the hospitality he showed me on the occasion. As regards my going round the dockyards, I will frankly say that it would have been far better if I had not, because—though I was always accompanied except in two cases by the Superintendent, to show I was not canvassing—though there was no canvassing whatever—though no political conversation ever escaped my lips, except to assure those who asked the assurance, that Government would not interfere or punish any man for the free exercise of his political opinions—it is still my opinion, which I will express, that, as it had a political appearance, it would have been better if I had not gone round at all. I hope that my successors will not. And now I have done with my statement, and I think I have not omitted anything. As this House has heard me with patience, I trust it will decide with justice. I was called to take office, not only at the middle of a Session of Parliament, but just before a general election; and those who are "the roost competent judges of the difficulties and temptations of such a period, will probably be the most lenient in their judgment. I have endeavoured to vindicate the Board with which I was connected where I think it was right; I have frankly owned it where I thought it was wrong; and I shall always have the satisfaction of knowing that there are men without whose kind, zealous, and able assistance, I should never have been able to carry out the labours of that office—men who know that while I was in that office I did not waste my time in mere political jobbery. I shall have the satisfaction of knowing that there are some, serving their country in high and honourable command, who can bear testimony to what is more precious still, the voice of my own conscience, that, without distinction of party, I did my best to cooperate with them, and to promote the welfare of their gallant and glorious services with a zealous and honest heart.

ADMIRAL BERKELEY

said, he had hoped that the hon. Gentleman, after finishing his speech, would have seconded the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall). [Mr. STAFFORD: That has been done already.] He had hoped, however, that the hon. Gentleman would have shown some anxiety to have a Committee, after all that had passed. He (Admiral Berkeley) rose to speak for an absent man—a man he was proud to call his friend, having been on service with him when he greatly distinguished himself in the naval profession, and having known him also when employed in civil situations—he meant Sir Baldwin Walker. The hon. Gentleman, throughout his speech, had cast imputations on that officer; and he maintained that the House would not do him justice unless a Committee was appointed. If Sir Baldwin Walker were present, he believed he would be able to give excellent reasons for the assertion that the circular, to which reference had so often been made, was cancelled without the knowledge of the Board. The regulations originally commenced by the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham were framed, not, as the hon. Gentleman had insinuated, to encourage jobbing, but to put an end to the political jobbing which had previously taken place. The same principle was carried out by his successors; and if a Committee were granted it would be shown that, under the sur- veyorship of Sir Baldwin Walker, it was strictly adhered to. The hon. Gentleman had read an extract from the Morning Herald, one of the most bitter opponents of Sir Baldwin Walker, written by a man who had a knowledge of naval subjects, but who used it entirely for his own purposes; and the statements of this anonymous writer in the Morning Herald were brought forward to prove that Sir. Baldwin Walker was a political jobber. Now to him it appeared most extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford), in his wanderings from one port to another and in the Mediterranean, found every officer totally clear from political bias and political feeling except Sir Baldwin Walker. The hon. Gentleman must excuse his replying that Sir Baldwin Walker, was, to his mind, one of the best officers, one of the best servants of the Crown, we had—that he was one who had the best interests of the service at heart—and that so far was he from exhibiting political bias that he (Admiral Berkeley), one of his oldest friends, did not at this moment know what his politics were. He could also inform the hon. Gentleman that he (Admiral Berkeley) had been in five different Boards of Admiralty, and had always found that there was an honourable feeling, if it were possible, not to disturb the arrangements of those whom they had succeeded. He could not, however, say so much for that Board of which the hon. Gentleman was Secretary. It might be all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that Mr. Wells was not regularly appointed, and to ask, in a taunting tone, "if this was the way to do business?" But he called upon the hon. Gentleman to try and find out what became of the order for the appointment of Wells, for there now could be no doubt that he was as regularly appointed as ever officer was. A strict search had been made to find it, but no such paper could be found at the Admiralty. The following letter, from the Second Secretary of the Admiralty, Captain Hamilton, would, however, give the hon. Gentleman some information on the subject:— New-street, Spring-gardens, April 15. My dear Sir James Graham—From a communication I have had to-day with Mr. Piers, it seems that in my letter to you on the 12th inst., I have confounded the submission of the Surveyor's recommending Wells with another submission from the Surveyor as to an appointment of a draughtsman to his office, and I am reminded that I dealt with his letter precisely as I had supposed I had dealt with the submission recommending Wells; and, as regards the missing minute, I am further reminded by Mr. Piers, that it was given by me into his charge, together with all the other papers in Wells's case, to be kept over until Mr. Stafford's return.—I remain, dear Sir James Graham, yours, "W. A. B. HAMILTON. The papers were thus traced to the hands of Mr. Piers, and from that gentleman the following memorandum had been received:— The original submission of the Surveyor of the Navy, dated September 9, 1852, recommending Mr. Wells for the situation of master-smith at Portsmouth, was, as I perfectly recollect, placed in my hand, together with other papers relating to the case, by Captain Hamilton, who desired me to keep them by me until Mr. Stafford's return from the Mediterranean, Mr. Stafford being then expected back in a few days. On the return of Mr. Stafford to the Admiralty I lost no time in giving all the said papers (including the above-mentioned original submission of the Surveyor of the Navy), either to Mr. Stafford himself, or to his private secretary, Mr. Grant—I cannot positively state which—in accordance with the directions I received from Captain Hamilton. O. BARRINGTON PIERS. April 16, 1853. The private secretary of the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Grant, wrote on the subject, as follows:— I beg to state that as far as my memory serves me, I saw the original submission of the Surveyor of the Navy recommending the appointment of Wells, with the following minute upon it by Admiral Parker:—'Approved, H. P.' This document is not in my possession, and I do not know what has become of it, and from the length of time that has elapsed I am unable to say whether Mr. Piers ever put it into my hand. Now, as to any informality with respect to the appointment of Mr. Wells, that, he presumed, was now done away with, and he certainly thought that this was an appointment which no one was entitled to cancel. Having thus traced the missing order, he would proceed to other topics. The hon. Gentleman had thought proper to impute to Sir Baldwin Walker improper conduct in making use of a private and confidential letter in order to annoy him. Now, he knew Sir Baldwin Walker to be a man of the utmost veracity, and he could state, after inquiry into the case, that he made no use of that private letter, but that, on the contrary, it was locked up in his drawer. Sir Baldwin Walker never showed that letter to any one whatever, but he quoted from a conversation he had with the hon. Gentleman himself at the Admiralty, and those words were again repeated to him by Mr. Grant, the hon. Gentleman's private secretary, who was sent up by the hon. Gentleman to Sir Baldwin Walker positively to see whether he could be turned from his determination not to permit political patronage in the dockyards. This statement did not rest on Sir Baldwin Walker's assertion, alone, for it so happened that the clerk of Sir Baldwin Walker was in the room, and, on his attention being drawn to the subject, he recollected well the matter being talked of, and that Sir Baldwin Walker said nothing would induce him to entertain the question of political jobbing. Then, the hon. Gentleman threw out insinuations against Mr. John Parker. That gentleman was not now in the House; but he would say a more honest and conscientious man never existed than Mr. John Parker. And though Mr. Parker was at the Admiralty much longer than the hon. Gentleman, he was never accused of having dabbled with politics in the dockyards. To recur to the missing document; it was all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say he never saw it—he must have been cognisant of it, and he ought not to have rested till the matter had been cleared up. In the case of any Lord of the Admiralty with whom he had ever served, he was satisfied they would not have rested one moment till they had made the document public, and would not have allowed such a scandal to remain.

Mr. CORRY

said, it would be a work of supererogation on his part to enter upon the defence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) after the convincing statement he had just made. He was satisfied the House would agree with him that if the object in making the Motion had been to bring charges against him, it had signally failed. He must say, also, that the good feeling he had displayed in his speech, and the ability he had displayed in vindicating his conduct and character, could hardly fail to have elevated him highly in -the opinion of Parliament and the estimation of the country. Although he should not on that account enter into the special subject, he would ask the House to grant him its indulgence to correct an erroneous impression which the letter of Sir Baldwin Walker to the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Duke of Northumberland) was calculated to create. It was stated that "this order of 1849 was only reverting to a system which had always been in force prior to 1845, and which was then discontinued, I have reason to believe, on personal grounds." That implied a most serious charge against the Board of Admiralty, with which he had the honour to be connected; but he could assure the House there was no alteration of the original regulations of 1845, and he felt it his duty to remove the impression that might have been created by that statement. He had no recollection of any alteration in the system of promotions and appointments, from 1841 to 1846; and, in order to be accurate, he had applied to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham) to ascertain if the allegations contained in that document were borne out by the records of the Admiralty. He had gone on the previous day to the Admiralty, and had seen Mr. Barrow, and he had ascertained from him that the universal practice in all those years—and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War (Mr. S. Herbert) would bear him out in it—that it always was the practice for the superintendents of the dockyards to make their reports, not to the Surveyor of the Navy, as was established by the circular of 1849, but to the Secretary of the Admiralty. He was, therefore, entitled to give that statement the most unqualified contradiction. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not suppose that he meant to insinuate anything in the slightest degree disrespectful to the honour and character of Sir Baldwin Walker. There did not exist a more honourable man than Sir Baldwin Walker, and he believed that he would be the last man to make any statement that he did not believe to be strictly borne out by the facts of the case. But Sir Baldwin Walker was not attached to the Admiralty in 1845, and must have got his information at secondhand. Not only was the system of reporting these appointments to the Surveyor of the Navy not in existence, but the regulations were that the superintendents should correspond with the Secretary of the Admiralty. With regard to there being any security from political jobbing by sending these reports to the Surveyor of the Navy, he attached very little importance to the assertion. The Surveyor has a very superficial knowledge of the qualifications of those seeking promotions and appointments. He resided at Somerset House, and merely made periodical visits to the dockyards, but he had no information as to the claims or qualifications of those seeking promotion. The superintendents of the dockyards, on the contrary, were superior officers, and men on whose judgment the greatest confidence could be placed. He believed that these reports would be a much higher guarantee than the circular of 1849. In the regulations introduced by Sir Henry Ward, and the able minutes which he had prepared for the management of promotion in the dockyards, the name of the Surveyor of the Navy did not occur, and that system had worked well, and was a guarantee of impartiality and the absence of jobbing.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, it was not his intention to address the House at any length, but he thought that, after the defence which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) had made against the charges of Sir Baldwin Walker, decency and justice would induce the House to grant the Committee. After a letter of a distinguished and hon. officer making such grave charges, and after such charges as those which the hon. Gentleman had brought against Sir Baldwin Walker, and also against Mr. Parker, the justice of the case would not be satisfied if they shuffled off this inquiry. He would make one observation with regard to the personal conduct of the hon. Gentleman with respect to the accuracy of an answer which he had given. It was painful enough to be opposed to hon. Gentlemen upon political grounds, but he hoped no political feelings would ever induce them to forget those feelings which ought to be entertained by gentlemen towards gentlemen. The explanation of the hon. Gentleman was hardly required to satisfy them that he had had no intention whatever of giving an inaccurate answer. The hon. Gentleman had said that, as long as Sir Henry Ward was at the Admiralty things went well, but when Mr. Parker came, an order was issued to satisfy a particular party. Now, that order was issued under his (Sir F. Baring's) administration of the Admiralty, and, as far as Mr. Parker was concerned, he might say that it was not his (Sir F. Baring's) habit to allow orders to be issued by the Secretary without the knowledge of the Board, whatever any subsequent Board might have done. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke asserted that the old practice was that the superintendents of yards should recommend men for appointments; that the recommendations never went through the Surveyor; and that in his time no alteration in that practice was made. Now, he thought when the right hon. Gentleman said so that he was wrong, for, upon turning to some papers with which he happened to be furnished, he found among them the following documents:— The several superintendents of Her Majesty's dockyards have been directed to report all vacancies for artificers and labourers in the yards under their superintendence to you, and to send no return of these vacancies to the Secretary of the Admiralty, and you are to forward the returns from the respective dockyards, with any remarks you may have to offer upon them, as soon after you have received them as possible. You are to report all vacancies without exception that occur in the dockyard, and when any vacancy occasioned by promotion or otherwise shall occur, you are, after consulting the officer in whose department such vacancy may happen, to forward to the Admiralty the names of persons belonging to the yard fit from ability and character to succeed to the vacancy; but no person whatever is to be promoted or entered on the establishment of the yard in any vacancy or otherwise, as officer, clerk, artificer, or labourer, without our express authority. The orders were dated the 25th October, 1841. It was quite true that, in order to put a stop to jobbing, it was recommended that all representations for vacancies should come through the Surveyor, but that the Admiralty never abandoned their power or their check over the Surveyor. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) that, when this order was cancelled, the impression was entertained by the persons in the dockyards that the days of jobbing were come again. He was far from saying that was the intention of those who cancelled that order, but he believed it would be found upon inquiry, that such was the impression in the different dockyards; and if they inquired (and he did not think they would now do without inquiry), they would find this to be the case. Examine the several superintendents of the dockyards, and ask them what they think—ask them what was the effect of cancelling this order—put to them the straightforward and simple question, whether they had found any difference in consequence of the different mode in which patronage is now distributed. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) said, this order was issued to secure Whig domination in the dockyards. For his own part, he was not the least afraid that such would be found to have been the case. He did not know where the hon. Gentleman obtained his information; but if he relied upon the letters with which he had favoured the House, he would only say that those were such letters as he supposed every First Lord of the Admiralty, and Secretary to the Admi- ralty, had received from time immemorial. He had little doubt but that the very same party had told the very same story to him (Sir F. Baring). But the most desirable course was, that the Committee should call the writers of those letters before them and examine them. The hon. Gentleman spoke about private letters being used. He (Sir F. Baring) had, when First Lord, communicated frequently with the officers at the heads of the different departments—with Sir Baldwin Walker and the rest—but his communications were entirely concerning the business of their respective departments—he had no other kind of communication with them, either by writing or by word of mouth; and, so far from there being any notion of confidence or secrecy as regarded his intercourse with them, he had publicly declared that all those persons were at perfect liberty to produce any scrap of paper he had ever written to them, and to narrate any conversation he had ever had with them, without the slightest reserve; and, in return, he hoped those officers would be asked to tell the Committee what was their opinion of the conduct which had been pursued by the late Board of Admiralty, and whether they did not believe that it was his earnest wish, when First Lord, and the wish of the then Board, that the power and patronage placed in their hands should not be used for political purposes. He would much wish that they were all called, and he should like the Committee to ask them upon what condition they took office, and what was the nature of their pledge. As regarded Sir Baldwin Walker, he had no acquaintance whatever with that gentleman when he took office; indeed, he did not think he had ever seen him. He did not know at the present moment what Sir Baldwin Walker's politics were, or that he had any; for it frequently happened that naval men who gave themselves up to their profession took no part in politics. He thought it, however, but right and fair to say, that a more straightforward, honest, laborious, trustworthy public servant it had never been his lot to meet with. When one was giving his testimony in behalf of one who had not been very handsomely treated—though he had great claims on the public—it sometimes happened that there was too much warmth exhibited. He would further add, that of this he felt equally sure, that, whatever the result of the inquiry might be, Sir Baldwin Walker's character would appear as that of an upright and honourable man. He was sorry to have gone thus far into the case; but his own conduct having been brought into discussion, he had felt it to be his duty to trespass longer on the House than he would otherwise have done. He felt rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) should have relied so much upon Sir Baldwin Walker's way of doing business. He should have thought that was not the hon. Gentleman's forte. He did not think extreme regularity of business was one of the characteristics of the late Board of Admiralty. One secretary did not seem to know what the other secretary had done. One member of a department was ignorant of what another had done, though both should be equally well informed on the point. He believed the House would not be satisfied unless there was inquiry—he believed the public would not be satisfied without a searching inquiry. It was for the character of public men—for the reputation of the public departments—for the good of the public service—that they should go at once, and without reserve, into that investigation; and if he might be allowed as a party, whose conduct had been made the subject of remark, he would call upon them to make the scrutiny as ample as possible.

SIR FREDERIC THESIGER

said, he must beg to express his thanks to the right hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat for having done justice to his (Sir F. Thesiger's) hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) in that part of the case which affected his personal honour and character. He did this the more readily, because he had certainly received a very painful impression from some of the observations made by the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Admiral Berkeley), who very distinctly indeed charged his hon. Friend with having evaded the question put to him, and insinuated that there had been a suppression of some documents in the Admiralty, which suppression he more than insinuated was the act of his hon. Friend. Now it seemed, from what the right hon. Baronet said, that he was of opinion that this Committee ought to be granted, and that the public would not be satisfied unless there was a searching investigation. Let him ask, an inquiry into what? Because it appeared to him, upon the explanation given by his hon. Friend, that with regard to three at least of the four heads in the Resolution, the House was in possession of all the in- formation which it could possibly receive. He knew very well that the friends of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) were liable to misconstruction by attempting in any way to prevent the House from granting a Committee on the present occasion. And yet he (Sir F. Thesiger) felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to what were the ordinary functions of a Committee, and to ask whether it would not be a superfluous work to impose upon any Committee the necessity of inquiry into these matters after the explanation which had been given by his hon. Friend. Take the last Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Marylebone. It proposed to inquire "generally into the exercise of the influence and patronage of the Admiralty in the Dockyards and Government Departments connected with the several Parliamentary Boroughs since the 19th day of April, 1852." Now, if there were to be a Committee of Inquiry, he contended that it would be most unjust to limit the Resolutions in that manner. And the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Baring) seemed to be of the same opinion, because he intimated it would be necessary to make a searching and extensive inquiry, and he was prepared to defend his own conduct with regard to the disposition of patronage during the time he was at the head of the Admiralty. If, then, the Committee were to be granted, and in the present temper of the House it seemed difficult to resist it, he should certainly propose, as an Amendment to the last head of the Resolution, the omission of all the words after the words "Parliamentary Boroughs," so as to make it a general inquiry into "the exercise of the influence and patronage of the Admiralty in the Dockyards and Government Departments connected with the several Parliamentary Boroughs." Surely there could be no objection to that. If the Committee were to be appointed at all, their inquiries must be extended as far as that. But what he wished to point out was with respect to the three other heads of the Motion of the hon. Member for Marylebone, that there was nothing whatever for the House to inquire into, after reference had been made to the different documents before the House, and the explanations of his hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) that night. Let them take a specimen. The hon. Member for Marylebone proposed to call the attention of the House to the contents of the three Parliamentary papers, and to Move "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which 'a circular, sent to the Superintendent of Her Majesty's Dockyards, dated September 26, 1849,' was cancelled on the 10th day of April, 1852, without any Order or Minute of the Board." As he understood this Resolution, the objection which the hon. Member for Marylebone raised to the Order of the 19th April was, that it was issued without an Order or Minute of the Board; that, in fact, it emanated from the authority of the Secretary to the Admiralty himself. Now his hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) had clearly explained to the House, that inasmuch as the Order of 1849 was passed, not as a Board Minute, but as a Minute which was merely inserted in the book and signed by the Secretary—that his hon. Friend adopted the same course in reference to the Order of April 19,1852; but that, in point of fact, that Order was sanctioned by the Board assembled on the 26th of April following, because they adopted that Order, and called it the Circular of the Board. If, therefore, the objection was, that his hon. Friend issued that Order without the sanction of the Board, his hon. Friend had not only explained that he had that sanction, but had pointed to documents in possession of the House which were sufficient to enable every hon. Member to decide that question. Where, then, was the necessity for sending this to a Committee of Inquiry? If the Order of April, 1852, cancelled the Order of 1849, his hon. Friend had explained the grounds upon which the Board cancelled that Order, and brought back the state of things to that which it was under the instructions of the year 1847, end which had been so justly praised by the hon. Member for Marylebone. And in confirmation of the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford), they had the fact that the correspondence of the Superintendents of the Dockyards before 1847 was not with the Surveyor of the Navy, but with the Secretary of the Admiralty direct. There seemed, therefore, to be no ground whatever for supposing, if a Committee were granted, that they could put the House in a better position to form a judgment on the matter than it occupied at that moment. The next point of inquiry was, "The circumstances under which a Letter, addressed by Sir Baldwin Walker to Mr. Stafford, as Secretary to the Admiralty, in which letter Sir Baldwin Walker tendered his resigna- tion as Surveyor of the Navy, was withheld from the Board. "Now, this was a part of the question upon which he (Sir F. Thesiger) felt the most deeply; because, notwithstanding the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) had, he must say, stated in the most free, candid, and forbearing manner the case against his (Sir F. Thesiger's) hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford), it was quite clear that the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Admiral Berkeley) had endeavoured to produce an impression upon the House that his hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) had not dealt fairly by the House, and that he had evaded the questions put to him with regard to the resignation of Sir Baldwin Walker. Well, what were the questions put to, and what the answers given by, his hon. Friend? First, he was asked," Had Sir Baldwin Walker tendered his resignation as Surveyor of the Navy? "His answer was," No; he had not. "The next question was," Was there any correspondence in the Admiralty upon the subject of the resignation of Sir Baldwin Walker? "His hon. Friend replied that" there was no correspondence at all in the records of the Admiralty. "Then it was supposed that his hon. Friend had evaded the questions, and was guilty of some subterfuge or some prevarication. ["No, no!"] He had received, he must say, a very painful impression from the expressions used by the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Admiral Berkeley), and certainly, when his hon. Friend was charged with having evaded the question, it was impossible to put any other interpretation upon the words than that. Now, what were the facts of the case? On the 19th of April, 1852, the Board Order or Minute, as he had a right to call it, was issued; and it appeared that subsequently Sir Baldwin Walker had a correspondence with his (Sir F. Thesiger's) hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford), and that private letters passed between them upon the subject of this Order. On the 26th of April, the First Lord of the Admiralty informed Mr. Stafford that Sir Baldwin Walker was annoyed at the Board Minute of the 19th of April, and had expressed some intention of resigning his office; and his hon. Friend was requested to see Sir Baldwin Walker, who was at that time with Admiral Hyde Parker. His hon. Friend went and saw Sir Baldwin Walker at Admiral Hyde Parker's; and he then prepared the Circular of the 26th of April, which he communicated to Sir Baldwin Walker for his approval. Sir Baldwin Walker having made some trifling alterations, that Circular was adopted by the Board; and, as his hon. Friend believed, Sir Baldwin Walker was perfectly satisfied with the explanation given to the Board Minute of the 19th of April by the Minute of the 26th of April, to which he had given his assent. Now, Admiral Hyde Parker was the friend of Sir Baldwin Walker; and he was intrusted with a letter of the 21st of April, which upon the issue of the Board Minute of the 19th Sir Baldwin Walker had written, expressive of his intention to give in his resignation: "I must therefore beg to tender to their Lordships my resignation." This letter was addressed to his (Sir F. Thesiger's) hon. Friend the then Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Stafford); but it was placed in the hands of Admiral Hyde Parker, who, knowing perfectly well that there was no intention by the Board Minute of the 19th of April to affix the slightest stigma on Sir Baldwin Walker, and thinking, probably, that the letter was hasty and imprudent, did not place it in the hands of his hon. Friend, but kept it in his own possession, he having authority from Sir Baldwin Walker to act with regard to that letter as he might think proper. When, however, the Minute of the 26th of April had been submitted to and approved of by Sir Baldwin Walker, Admiral Hyde Parker necessarily supposed that all objections on his part to the Minute of the 19th April had vanished—that the necessity for delivering that letter to his hon. Friend, as a tender of the resignation of Sir Bald-win Walker, was entirely at an end; and, therefore, as it appeared from a private letter of Admiral Hyde Parker, he put it in the fire. It was remarkable, as a proof that the course adopted by Admiral Hyde Parker was approved of by Sir Baldwin Walker himself, that on the 10th of May, Sir Baldwin Walker wrote a private letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty, which his hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) never saw until a copy of it was produced in the papers laid upon the table, and in which letter it was not suggested in a single paragraph that he had tendered, or entertained any intention of tendering, his resignation. What then happened? Why, nothing whatever occurred until the month of November, when questions were put to his hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) in that House, and to which questions he returned the answer he had mentioned to-night, and he (Sir. F. Thesiger) had repeated. Subsequently, on the 25th of November, Sir Baldwin Walker writes this letter to his friend:— Sir—Having observed in the public papers that the Secretary of the Admiralty is reported to have stated in the House of Commons, on the evening of the 23rd instant, in reply to certain questions asked by Admiral Berkeley and Sir George Pechell, that there was no correspondence with the Surveyor of the Navy on the subject of the promotions in the dockyards, and also that the Surveyor of the Navy had not tendered his resignation, I desire, through you, to draw the attention of my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to letters from me, bearing date the 21st of April and 10th of May last.—I have, &c, (Signed) "B. W. WALKER, Surveyor of the Navy. To Augustus Stafford, Esq., M.P., Secretary to the Admiralty. In reply to this letter, his hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) wrote to Sir Baldwin Walker on the 26th of November, as follows:— With reference to your letter of the 25th inst., I am to acquaint you that your letters of the 21st April and 10th May, referred to by you, do not appear to have reached the Record department of this office; and my Lords, therefore, request you will transmit copies of these letters. Now, it was quite apparent that Sir Baldwin Walker had at that time copies of the letters in his possession; that, he (Sir F. Thesiger) would prove to the satisfaction of the House; but on the 29th of November he wrote— With reference to your letter of the 26th inst., I beg to acquaint you that, since my communication of the 25th inst., I have been informed that my letter of the 21st of April, addressed to the Secretary to the Admiralty, which was delivered to Vice-Admiral Hyde Parker, was not brought before the Board; and, with reference to the letter of the 10th of May, it was a communication addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and not to the Secretary.—I have, &c. B. W. WALKER. Augustus Stafford, Esq., M.P., Secretary to the Admiralty. Now, could anything more extraordinary be conceived than this answer? Of course, as the letter of the 21st of April contained a tender of his resignation, it was perfectly impossible that it could have been "brought before the Board" without some notice being taken of it by the Board. It was clear, therefore, that Sir Baldwin Walker must have been aware, before the month of November, that his letters were not brought before the Board. Now, why did he (Sir F. Thesiger) say that Sir Baldwin Walker had copies of the two letters of the 21st of April and the 10th of May in his possession, when he was requested by the Board to furnish them with copies? Because the House of Commons had in the present Session called for Copies of all correspondence during the year 1852 between the Board of Admiralty and the Surveyor of the Navy in reference to the resignation of his office. And had further ordered, that In case such correspondence should not be in the office, that the Surveyor should be directed to furnish copies of any letter or letters addressed by him to the Secretary, or the First Lord of the Admiralty, on such subject. On the 16th of March, 1853, a letter was addressed by the Board of Admiralty of that day to Sir Baldwin Walker, stating that neither of his letters had reached the Minute or Record department of the office; and on that very clay Sir Baldwin Walker, who, in November, 1852, had been asked for copies of these letters, and had replied that he had none, enclosed copies of the same to the Board of Admiralty which succeeded it. He (Sir P. Thesiger) felt bound at this point to refer to the evidence given by Sir Baldwin Walker himself on this subject before the Chatham Election Committee, because his answers on that occasion left an impression upon the public mind that there had been a wilful suppression of these letters—that of the 21st of April especially—for an. improper purpose. He said, in reply to the previous question put to him, that he had discovered that the letter of April 21 had not been brought before the Board; that he had delivered it to a senior officer of the Board of Admiralty; that he discovered it had not been delivered only some months after, in reference to a question that had been asked in the House of Commons; that he had made inquiries on the subject, but could not ascertain what had become of the letter; that it ought to have been laid before the Board; and, finally, that he had reason to believe it had been withheld for a purpose which affected him, personally, namely, his removal. He (Sir F. Thesiger) asked the House to consider these answers made on oath, and then say whether or not they did not convey the impression of wilful wrong on the part of the late Board of Admiralty. He (Sir F. Thesiger) acquitted Sir Baldwin Walker of intent to create the impression that what had taken place was with a sinister object; but he could not say that his statements were not of a very unguarded nature. The question for the House to decide, however, was not concerning the personal impressions of Sir Baldwin Walker, but concerning the personal honour and character of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford). The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Baring) had acquitted his hon. Friend on the point of his personal character. Could any man, after what had parsed, be satisfied with a judgment in the case which would leave the slightest reflection upon the honour and character of his (Sir F. Thesiger's) hon. Friend in this instance? Had his hon. Friend any knowledge that the resignation of Sir Baldwin Walker had been tendered? He had not. And, therefore, when he said he did not know it had been tendered, he was guilty of no evasion or mental reservation, as the answer was founded on facts. When his hon. Friend was asked, did he know of the correspondence of Sir Baldwin Walker with the Admiralty on the subject, he said no, because there was none. The letter which Sir Baldwin Walker placed in the hands of Admiral Hyde Parker had, in fact, never passed into the records of the Admiralty, and he never saw any copy of the letter of the 16th of March, which was produced by Sir Baldwin Walker, on the application of the present Board. When his hon. Friend said there was no correspondence on the subject, he clearly stated the fact, for the resignation was evidently never intended to be persevered in, and was not, therefore, preserved in the archives of the office. He was, therefore, perfectly justified in his answers on the subject. No inquiry of the Committee could, consequently, place the question in a better position for a decision of the House. It was, however, rather hard on his (Sir F. Thesiger's) hon. Friend to be charged with making an attack upon the character of Sir Baldwin Walker, when he was simply vindicating his own character by bringing forward the necessary facts for his case, especially as he confined himself strictly to the documents before the House. What could be the use, therefore, of a Committee of Inquiry into the circumstances of these letters of Sir Baldwin Walker which were withheld? Turning to the next charge against his hon. Friend—namely, the removal of Mr. James Wells, and the appointment in his place of Mr. Cotsell, how stood the facts? The hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Berkeley) had led the House to suppose that he had detected his (Sir F. Thesiger's) hon. Friend in some suppression of the fact—some concealment of documents, which ought to have been at the Admiralty; but it appeared that his discovery was that the original of the letter of the 9th of September, 1852, formed part of the Parliamentary paper No. 271, laid before the House. A corrupt motive had been suggested for this removal and this appointment; and it was but fair to his hon. Friend, therefore, that all the facts should be stated. There was, as had been shown, a particular form of appointment by the Board of Admiralty to situations in the dockyards, especially to that of master smith. This form had been complied with in the cases of Smale, Balls, and Bailey, as would be seen in the Parliamentary paper. There was, however, nothing more in the case of Mr. Wells than the recommendation of the Surveyor of the Navy, which recommendation was in itself rather extraordinary, inasmuch as it stated that the Board had ordered the appointment of a master smith in August, and no decision of the Board to that effect could be found, though a strict search for it had been made. An application was made to Sir Baldwin Walker for a copy of this Order; but he stated in reply that he had no copy of it. He (Sir F. Thesiger) was bound to assume, therefore, that Sir Baldwin Walker was under a mistake, as no order could be discovered. But did Sir Baldwin Walker know anything about Mr. Wells, whom he brought into the service as a foreigner, displacing others who had been there previously? He said Mr. Wells had been recommended by Mr. Black, the master smith of Woolwich dockyard, who had known him through working with him in a private yard in Liverpool. In Mr. Wells's memorial, page 6, paper 271, he stated that he was induced to accept the situation after an interview with Sir Baldwin Walker; and as Sir Baldwin Walker forwarded that memorial, of course he was aware of its particular contents. But Sir Baldwin Walker stated that Mr. Wells was directed to proceed to Somerset House, where he was examined by himself and the chief engineer; and that his qualifications were so satisfactory that he appointed him to the situation of master smith. In his evidence before the Committee, however, Sir Baldwin Walker stated that he never saw Mr. Wells until after he had been dismissed from the appointment in question; and on being asked as to his qualifications, he said he did not know whether there was any machinery in the private yard in Liverpool, where he had worked with Mr. Black, or if he ever had forged an anchor. Sir Baldwin Walker must, therefore, have made another serious mistake in this instance, either in his letter or in his evidence. That being so, the House, he conceived, was called on to inquire why Mr. Wells was superseded, and why Mr. Cotsell was appointed in his stead. Mr. Wells had no regular official notification of his employment; but a very extraordinary course, and a very unusual one, too, was adopted in this instance; for the Surveyor of the Navy, instead of waiting for the other steps to be taken to complete the appointment, wrote to Mr. Black to inform his friend that he had been appointed master smith in Portsmouth dockyard. Mr. Wells went down on the 22nd of September, and remained until he was discharged on the 2nd of October—exactly ten days. But in the letter of Sir Baldwin Walker it was stated that Mr. Wells had given universal satisfaction in the discharge of his duties, though Sir Baldwin Walker's duty lying chiefly at Somerset House, it was probable he had not been down to the dockyard during those ten days. The Admiral had, however, an officer, a trustworthy man, who had faithfully performed his duty in the service of the Crown as master smith of Chatham; and, as it was in the regular routine, Mr. Cotsell was transferred to Portsmouth, leaving room for the appointment by promotion of no less than four other deserving officers. Where was the corrupt motive here? and if no such motive could be imputed, what, then, was the need of asking for a Committee to inquire into these two appointments? Now, he must say, with regard to the last of the four heads of inquiry, that it seemed to be conceded upon all hands that if a Committee was to be appointed that its scope ought to be enlarged so as to embrace the distribution of patronage generally by the Board; for they must not withhold from themselves facts which were perfectly familiar with regard to the mode in which Government patronage was invariably bestowed. He maintained, then, that they ought to inquire generally how the Admiralty patronage was distributed to those boroughs wherein the Government had influence. Well, suppose then that the inquiry was to be extended into the mode in which the patronage of the Treasury was disposed of; that there was to be inquiry into the mode in which the Board of Control, or any other of the Government departments, bestowed its patronage. Why, it was known very well by every Member of that House, that over and over again applications were made expressly upon the ground of services rendered at the time of elections for a share in the patronage at the disposal of Government. And if there was any Gentleman free from such applications, he must say that he seemed to him to occupy a very extraordinary and a very unusual position. Why should the fact be disguised that a very ready answer was always open to the Gentlemen who did not happen to sit upon the sunny side of the House when they received such applications, that they were unable to comply with them, as it would not be consistent with their position? He (Sir P. Thesiger) must say that the answer had often proved exceedingly inconvenient—perhaps it was the only advantage arising from being in opposition. Why really, with regard to the Government patronage, there should not be this affectation of such extraordinary purity. Hon. Gentlemen must be candid, open, and fair in dealing with the question, and therefore they must acknowledge that they did not want a Select Committee to ascertain how Government patronage was disposed of. It was perfectly well known that the Government of the day were in the habit of conferring upon hon. Members all the offices connected with the Excise and the Post Office within the county or the borough which they happened to represent. Well, then, having attained such experience of how such matters were managed, were they gravely called upon to appoint a Committee to inquire into the way in which the Admiralty disposed of its dockyard patronage in the several boroughs under its control? He ventured to submit that such a course was the merest affectation. Well, he hoped that he had as great an objection as any one could have to bribery and corruption; but he really was unable to see how the disposal of patronage by the Government was to be obviated, unless the Committee recommended that in future it should be placed at the disposal of their (the Opposition) side of the House. He could not imagine that any good whatever could come from the appointment of a Committee to inquire into facts which were perfectly notorious. For, with regard to the specific charges against his hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), they had been met by a distinct and straightforward repudiation. He maintained, then, that the inquiry would be worse than Useless—that it would be ridiculous and absurd; that it would be hypocritical, and therefore, in every respect, unworthy of the House of Commons.

Amendment proposed, "To leave out from the word 'Boroughs' to the end of the Question."

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

Sir, the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down has said that we should be free, open, and candid; but I confess that—after having listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member, and also to that of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford)—at this moment I cannot divine whether they mean to support or to resist the appointment of this Committee. I am very unwilling to be dragged into this discussion, and am ready to admit that in our representative form of government, which naturally entails frequent changes of the governing powers, with respect to a great department like that of the Admiralty, I see great inconvenience and evil to the public service in bringing succeeding Boards into hostile collision, thereby breaking the thread of administration, and introducing angry discord and disorganisation. It has always been my endeavour, to the utmost extent consistently with my duty, not to interfere with the acts of my predecessors, or to show a hostile tone or bearing towards them. I think that what is to myself the most agreeable performance of my duty in what relates to the public, is what I should hold generally to be most advantageous for the public good. I am relieved from one painful feeling in at once declaring that, having listened attentively to this debate, all doubt—I could not allow that doubt to weigh upon my mind, considering my acquaintance with the hon. Member for Northamptonshire—but all doubt, if a shadow of doubt did ever exist, with respect to the personal honour of the hon. Member, is fully and completely removed. It is quite certain that a misunderstanding did arise between honourable men who were officially associated together. The Surveyor of the Navy (Sir Baldwin Walker) wrote a letter, addressed to the Secretary of the Admiralty, which he thought a sense of duty compelled him to write. That letter was not put into the hands of the hon. Gentleman opposite, nor, as is the ordinary course, was it sent through the customary channel; but it was placed in the hands of the senior naval Lord. He, as I believe, communicated it to the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Duke of Northumberland; and the First Lord having read the letter, requested Admiral Hyde Parker to communicate at the same time with the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) and Sir Baldwin Walker, in the hope of adjusting the differences, and preventing the resignation of the latter gentleman from being carried into effect. Admiral Parker requested an interview with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty. The interview took place, and a discussion of some length ensued. Admiral Parker tells me he had never heard that the hon. Member had read the letter in question, though it appears he was cognisant of its substance. A discussion took place between Sir Baldwin Walker and the hon. Member with regard to the substance of that letter; and after a discussion of considerable length it was agreed that a circular which had been prepared by the Secretary of the Admiralty, before he came into the room, should be carried into effect. This circular was framed to save the honour of Sir Baldwin Walker with regard to the revocation of an order which had been previously in force; and Sir Baldwin Walker, upon the whole, after some consideration, accepted that arrangement as satisfactory. Here then arises a difference which I think it would be very important that Sir Baldwin Walker should have an opportunity of explaining; and this is one of the reasons why I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) in thinking that, even upon the first head of the Motion, some inquiry is indispensable. Sir Baldwin Walker declares he never believed, or had reason to believe, that his letter was not to be put on record when he accepted the other arrangement with regard to the circular; he never, in fact, withdrew the letter. I am bound also to say, having been cognisant of the mode of transacting business at the Board of Admiralty for some time, that upon the face of it, it appears a very strange measure that the hon. Gentleman should upon the 10th of April have written a letter as Secretary, purporting to be by command of the Lords of the Admiralty, to revoke the Order of the former Board without any evidence—I believe the fact being otherwise—of the consent of the Board to such revocation. I am bound to say of the general practice of that Board—and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) will confirm me in the fact—that from time to time it is indispensable that the First Lord should in his private room constitute a Board, give an order, and sometimes, even without that form, give directions to the Secretary to issue a circular, he himself being responsible for the character of the order. It would not be possible to conduct the business, if this mode of proceeding were not occasionally adopted. I have not the least doubt that the First Lord of the Admiralty was in this case cognisant of the circular written by the hon. Gentleman. I look upon it as a ministerial act upon his part; and the confirmation afterwards by the full Board would make it, in my opinion, a transaction which it would be very unfair and ungenerous to fix personally and individually upon the hon. Gentleman. I think, at the same time, it is a matter to be inquired into and cleared up, what was the reason of the revocation, because I am bound to state, with all my cognisance of the facts which bear immediately upon the question both of the original Order and the revocation, that I think it is impossible to give too high praise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth for the Order issued in 1849. If it would not be tedious to the House I will state shortly what the circumstances are with reference to the series of orders. In the year 1833, when the Navy Board and the Victualling Board were abolished, a new arrangement was made with regard to the dockyards and the victualling establishments. The arrangement was, that the officers superintending those yards should, when vacancies or promotions arose, consult the superior officers of the different branches, and recommend to the Secretary of the Admiralty the person whom the Superintendent of the dockyard might consider most fit for the appointment. It is quite true that the proceedings were to be by recommendation to the Secretary of the Board; but there was a practical direction that all letters to the Admiralty from the dockyards should pass through the hands of the Surveyor of the Navy, in Somerset House, so that the Surveyor was cognisant of the recommendations before they were laid before the Board. This went on from the year 1834 until the year 1844, and in that year a change was made. An Order was issued that the Superintendents of the different yards should send up a list of two persons as candidates to fill a vacancy, but without recommendation. This was a material change. The change did not work well. It led, certainly, to an exercise of favour, not in the yards, but at the Admiralty, and it led to such abuses as to attract public notice. Among others I myself called the attention of my noble Friend the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) in the year 1847, to the then state of promotions in the dockyards. My noble Friend gave me a direct assurance that a remedy should be applied to the evil; and in consequence of his recommendation, Lord Auckland, then at the head of the Admiralty, Mr. Ward being Secretary, directed the attention of the Board to the subject, and the Order of 1847 was issued. That Order reverted in the main to the original arrangement of 1833. It directed that the Superintendents should propose the names of the persons they thought most fit; but the arrangement was that two names should be reserved for the choice of the Admiralty; but the recommendation came not to the Surveyor, as had been the case from 1844, but to the Secretary of the Admiralty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth found that that arrangement was imperfect. Upon the recommendation of Sir Baldwin Walker—I have the letter here—it was suggested that an alteration should be made; that the recommendations should not come from the dockyard direct to the Admiralty, but should be made from the dockyard to the Surveyor, and that the Surveyor should report them to the Secretary. That recommendation was adopted by a Board Order. It illustrates what I have said before. Technically it did not pass in the shape of a Board Order; it was a Minute countersigned by my right hon. Friend himself, then the First Lord (Sir F. Baring), and was issued by the Secretary. No alteration ever affected the working of the department better than that alteration so made by my right hon. Friend; and my opinion and belief is, that the revocation of that Order by the late Board was an error. I think, then, this is fit subject for inquiry. What was the effect of the changes I have already pointed out? Which is preferable? Which is it desirable to retain? Does the Order in Council which I had the honour to recommend to the Crown give any stronger effect to the Order of the Board, and is it right or wrong? The whole of this subject is, I think, quite ripe for full inquiry by a Committee of this House; and I think there ought to be the Report of a Committee of this House upon the first branch of the Motion. I now pass on to another head. I have touched upon the two first heads—promotion in the dockyards, and the letter of Sir Baldwin Walker, tendering his resignation. But I should not do justice to my feelings upon this part of the subject, namely, the conduct of Sir Baldwin Walker, if I did not express concurrence in every word that fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth with regard to that gallant officer. Until I went to the Board of Admiralty two or three months ago, I had not the honour of his acquaintance. Like my right hon. Friend, I do not know what are the politics of Sir Baldwin Walker; I only know that a more assiduous, faithful, and able public servant I never had the honour of acting with. What is his condition now? Well, I have heard expressions as to his extraordinary misapprehensions, his unguarded manner of giving evidence on oath, of variances pointed out between his testimony upon the Chatham Election Committee and his recorded opinions in the correspondence upon the table. Considering the character of the gallant officer, considering his station and the important functions he has to discharge, I say this House will act most unjustly towards the gallant officer if they fail to give him an opportunity of removing any variance which may appear to arise between what he has written and what he has said. It has been said by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford)—a statement which I heard with great pain and great regret—that Sir Baldwin Walker had made improper use of a private letter. Now, Sir, so anxious was I to avoid all undue or premature interference with this case—which I regret upon private grounds, and I have stated the public grounds why I do not think it desirable that hostile conflict should be permitted in the administration of great public departments—that I declare that, until Sir Baldwin Walker's letters were printed and laid upon the table, I had refused to read them; and I read them for the first time when they were about to be presented to the House. But I must say, that having had communications with Sir Baldwin Walker lately with regard to this approaching discussion, I then hoard that allegations had been made, that he had in his first letter, tendering his resignation, abused private confidence, and made use of a private letter. He has authorised me to state most solemnly to the House, that that is not the fact—that he carefully avoided all reference to the letter in question, when he wrote his public letter, and that his public letter refers to a conversation he had with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford), in which the hon. Gentleman pressed him to depart from his rule with regard to political considerations. The hon. Gentleman, he says, pressed him so to do; and it has been represented by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucester (Admiral Berkeley), that failing in the personal communication, he sent to Sir Baldwin Walker his private secretary, Mr, Grant, from the Admiralty to Somerset House; that Mr. Grant there repeated solicitations of that description to Sir Baldwin Walker; hut, as Sir Baldwin Walker says, he rejected the proposal with considerable indignation, and that he rejected it, as it happens, in the presence of a third person. I am sure after what has been said of the improper use of private letters, it is only just to Sir Baldwin Walker that further inquiry should be made; at all events I should say it would be impossible for hon. Gentlemen opposite, I should imagine, to resist an inquiry when it is demanded under such circumstances. If what I have alleged be untrue, it is impossible that Sir Baldwin Walker can fitly and honourably discharge the duties of the high office he now holds, and the sooner he is removed from it the better; but, upon the other hand, if he should be able to substantiate what I have said then I am quite sure the hon Gentletleman the Member for Northamptonshire will be glad to retract the accusation he has made—that there has been an improper use of a private letter. I will now shortly pass over the third head of inquiry, namely, the question with regard to the appointment of Mr. Wells. Here I think, also, there is an absolute necessity for inquiry. There is a document missing. It is not a document of small importance; it is a document termed a submission of the Surveyor of the Navy recommending the appointment—the original document, the first document, upon which it is made. I believe it bears date the 9th of September. It is, as I have said, the original document written by Sir Baldwin Walker to Admiral Hyde Parker, recommending the appointment of Mr. Wells. It was countersigned by Admiral Parker with his initials, and was put into the hands of the then acting Secretary of the Admiralty, Captain Hamilton, and was signed by him. My hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Berkeley) has read the letter of Captain Hamilton, who has a distinct recollection of the document; he countersigned it, kept it in his posession before he put it into execution, and he gave it to a particular clerk at the Admiralty, whose duty it was to record the appointment. Mr. Piers is his name We have investigated this both before and since the document was lost. Captain Hamilton says he remembers giving it to Mr. Piers; and Mr. Piers has been asked what he did with it. Mr. Piers has stated in writing that he gave the document to one of two persons, either to Mr. Grant, the private secretary of the hon. Gentleman, or to the hon. Gentleman himself. This is distinctly stated. I attach no undue importance to this document, but it becomes of importance from what has been stated by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall). There is a witness who is prepared to depose, if you grant the Committee, that he saw this document himself at the Admiralty; that it was in the presence of a gentleman whom he does not name, and that it was lying upon a table. Still the document is lost. It is traced either into the possession of Mr. Grant, or of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford); and there is evidence ready to be adduced that Mr. Cotsell has declared he saw it upon a table at the Admiralty, and saw it removed. Recollect that this touches the character of a great department, and the conduct of the clerks in that department—men, I must say, of as high honour as any Gentleman in this House. It casts suspicion upon the whole body. It is impossible to conduct the affairs of the Admiralty if you have not confidence in these gentlemen. It tarnishes their honour; the character of the Surveyor of the Navy is touched, and also that of the clerks in the most confidential departments; and I say this House will act most unwisely if it refuse to inquire into this branch of the subject also. Then the hon. Gentleman says it was necessary to have a warrant to appoint Mr. Wells to the situation of master smith in Portsmouth yard. It was not so. All military appointments are held by warrant; all civil appointments of a permanent character are held by warrant; but this appointment of Mr. Wells was temporary; it was upon probation, and being an appointment temporary, and upon probation, it was not held by warrant, but by a simple letter of nomination from the Board. Then we had some cavil about the word "appointment." But the hon. Gentleman used the words, "the appointment is cancelled." The letter first announced the nomination of Mr. Wells; it called it an appointment, and the hon. Gentleman, in his letter of October, says the "appointment" is cancelled. That, however, is a small point, and I wish rather to speak to the merits of this case. In the first place, it would be unseemly that Sir Baldwin Walker should have political objects in view. But with regard to Mr. Wells, from whom did his recommendation come? I have here the circumstances under which my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth made the appointment of the master smith at Woolwich dockyard. He was brought from Liverpool on the recommendation of Mr. Black, who in his turn was recommended by Mr. Horsfall, a gentleman who I do not think was any warm partisan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth. But what was the cause of that appointment? I had almost said the disgraceful state of the smitheries in Her Majesty's dockyards when contrasted with those of private dockyards. My right hon. Friend while First Lord of the Admiralty, was strongly recommended by Capt. Eden to send to Liverpool for one of the most skilful blacksmiths; and he did so. Something has been said about Mr. Black never having made an anchor: be that as it may, Mr. Black was a person strongly recommended as conversant with the manufacture of marine steam machinery, and was appointed upon trial; and after a trial of six months Capt. Eden said it was the most satisfactory appointment that could possibly be desired, and that the most marked improvements had taken place at Woolwich in consequence of that appointment. There was a fresh vacancy at Portsmouth, and the Surveyor of the Navy, seeing the success of the experiment at Woolwich, recommended the Admiralty again to make the appointment from a private yard, and Mr. Black was applied to recommend a person most competent to fill that vacancy. His recommendation was taken; Mr. Wells was the person whose name he suggested. Full inquiries were made at Liverpool on the subject, and on public grounds—and public grounds only—the appointment of Mr. Wells was made. That appointment was reversed on the return of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) from a tour in the Mediterranean; and now the right hon. Gentleman says that no appointment had taken place; but he must pardon me when I say that it was considered in the light of an appointment at the time by all parties concerned. I do not wish to prejudge the case; but I think that political considerations did sway the hon. Gentleman in preferring Mr. Cotsell to Mr. Wells; and the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down will pardon me when I say that Mr. Cotsell was not promoted. It was not a question of promotion, but of removal. [Sir F. THESIGER: Portsmouth is the highest.] No; the salary is the same. He was master smith at Chatham, and it was a mere question of removal, and not of promotion. Far be it from me to grudge promotion to deserving servants in the dockyards. I have always said if you will exclude political influence, and rely upon merit, you may expect everything from merit, and from the praiseworthy exertions of the public servants in the yards. It is only political considerations that destroy the efficiency of the appointments there. But it is alleged that there was a political motive for the removal of Mr. Wells, and the transfer of Mr. Cotsell from Chatham to Portsmouth. It is said that the removal took place for the purpose of giving effect to promotions throughout the yard; and if there had been no political feeling connected with the transaction, the removal would have been a legitimate proceeding; but it is alleged that it was immediately connected with contested elections at Chatham and Liverpool. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down talks of all inquiries of this kind with scorn and utter contempt; he said they were absurd, foolish, and hypocritical; that universal corruption taints all political parties; and that it was vain to inquire into matters of this kind. Now, I am no purist; and I do say it is impossible to conduct a Government without giving a fair preference to the friends and supporters of the Government; but I say it matters little with reference to the dockyards from whom the nominations emanate; nomination may come in the first instance from political friends; but if you will steadily adhere to the strict examination of all nominees, and to a strict probationary service before they shall be appointed, I care not from whom the nominations emanate; but it is of vital importance when once you admit persons within the yards, that promotion should proceed on the ground of merit, and of merit only. After appointments have taken place, political preferences must be excluded, for without such exclusion there will be no good service. I know the tendency is great—almost irresistible—in favour of the pleasure of acting in cordiality with political friends, and listening to their solicitations, so far as principle and duty will allow; I know the pressure there must have been on the hon. Gentleman. I know not whether the Duke of Northumberland acted wisely or not, but I believe he consulted his own comfort by consenting to leave all his patronage at the Admiralty in the hands of the hon. Gentleman. Well, then, the general election came, and we all know the pressure at a general election—political friends coming and saying you are deserting and betraying us if you do not give to us this nomination or make that appointment in favour of our friend—I am, therefore, disposed to make the largest allowance at such a time. All I desire is, that great precaution shall take place in future; and I think an inquiry conducted by dispassionate men would meet the justice of the case. [An Hon. MEMBER: Not conducted by enemies.] I do not believe the hon. Gentleman has an enemy in this House. What the hon. and learned Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) says is true; I never yet saw a question affecting the personal feelings and the honour of a Member of this House conducted in any other way in this House than with a proper regard to the feelings of the accused. I think the hon. Gentleman's honour is intact, and quite vindicated by what has taken place to-night. I think there may have been some error of judgment; but, for the sake of the public good, after all that has happened, and for the sake of the honour of a gallant officer whose honour, I believe, is unimpeachable, and who I believe, after such an inquiry, will retire from it unstained, I do hope from all sides of the House that there will be a willingness to grant this inquiry without limiting the sphere of it; and I think, so far from narrowing it, the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone would act discreetly if, accepting the recommendation of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford, he enlarged the terms of his Motion, by which the inquiry would be rendered a satisfactory one.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, this question, during the discussion, has assumed a various and varying aspect. It has now taken, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham), the form somewhat of an allegation of corrupt administration on the part of the late Government. I must make one remark with reference to the individual who has been mentioned but rarely, but, from the position which he occupied, is much mixed up with it. I need not say I mean the distinguished Nobleman who was then First Lord of the Admiralty. I could have wished, Sir, that almost any other department of the late Administration should be called in question on such a head sooner than the Admiralty, for I can most solemnly and sincerely say, that no individual ever yet presided over any department of the State who had a more conscientious sense of duty, or who was more anxious to exercise his patronage for the good of the service, and of the country at large. I will not say that the Duke of Northumberland is not a partisan: he is, of course, as much a partisan as any other English gentleman; and it is only because he was a member of a great political connexion that he was appealed to by the noble Lord who was called upon to form a Government under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty, to accept in his Administration the responsibility of a great department. Sir, the Duke of Northumberland made great personal sacrifices in accepting that trust. He entered upon the duties of that office with a distinct understanding that he should exercise the patronage of his department for the advantage of the country. I am sure that I might appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who was his predecessor as to the feelings with which the Duke of Northumberland accepted office. I am unwilling to refer to details of this kind, but I think it is my duty to notice them, because it is of great importance that the characters of eminent individuals should not be misunderstood, nor their conduct misinterpreted in this House. Why, now, take this very fact—the Duke of Northumberland, when he acceded to office, was, of course, extremely anxious that he should have the assistance of a competent private secretary—himself not being used to the details of office—of an officer highly qualified for the responsible duties of such a post. The Duke of Northumberland did not inquire respecting his politics; he only inquired into the mode of obtaining the most able and most competent person for that office. He appointed Captain Pelham to that office, although Captain Pelham belonged to a family whose politics were those of the Whig party. Well, that showed the feeling with which the Duke of Northumberland accepted and entered upon office. And what was the next step of the Duke of Northumberland? As First Lord of the Admiralty, he recommended the appointment of Admiral Hyde Parker as First Naval Lord; and the condition that Admiral Hyde Parker made, on accepting the post offered to him, was, that he should be free from all political bias whatever, and that he should not in his conduct be regulated by any party interests. The Duke of Northumberland thought that it was of so much importance to the country and to the naval service that that distinguished officer should take the post of First Naval Lord, that he instantly complied with these conditions, which were communicated to his Colleagues; and so completely did Admiral Hyde Parker fulfil the expectations that were entertained, and so scrupulously were his feelings considered in that regard, that those who succeeded us invited him to continue his labours for the public service, and they at last have sanctioned the excellence of the appointment of which his Grace the Duke of Northumberland was the author and originator. Well now, Sir, I am not anxious to trouble the House with details of this kind, but I think that this is an occasion on which they ought to be noticed. I am quite certain that never were appointments of great importance and preferment of the highest distinction more attentively considered than they were during the ten months in which the late Administration directed the naval affairs of this country. Take the instance of an officer wanted for a special service of importance. Captain Loch, for instance, was selected by the late Administration. Captain Loch was sent to the war at Burmah, where he realised all the expectations of his friends in his regard. Unfortunately his career was brief, but it was one which reflected honour upon his country. But were they the political opinions of Captain Loch that recommended him to the notice of the Duke of Northumberland? Captain Loch was a member of a family whose political opinions were eminently favourable to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Well, I might give instance after instance to show that the Duke of Northumberland considered the patronage that was placed under his care as a solemn trust. I am sure it is an invidious and disagreeable office to refer to the names of the officers whom he appointed to ships, but I could mention the names, without difficulty, of three or four gentlemen appointed to the command of ships of the highest class, all members of the Whig party. I feel, Sir, that it is my duty to refer to these circumstances. I will enter into no invidious comparison of those who have preceded, or of those who may follow, the Duke of Northumberland in the office of First Lord of the Admiralty; but I will say this of him that there never was a First Lord of the Admiralty who had a higher sense of duty, or who performed the duties of his office in a more pure and honourable spirit. Sir, I say that this question which we have under notice tonight has assumed, in the course of the evening, very various aspects. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger), that if you consider the three allegations that are contained or referred to in the Motion of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), I see no reason why the House should not decide upon those statements without referring the matter to a Committee. I do not say that the hon. Baronet has no case. I have my opinion upon that; but I say, all the facts are before us, and the House is competent to decide upon the facts before them. My hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) has explained the circumstances under which the Circular of 1847 was cancelled on the 19th of April, without any order or minute of the Board. You may think his explanation satisfactory, or you may think it insufficient; but you are quite competent, without referring the matter to a Committee, to decide upon that question. With regard to the other point, you have heard the explanation respecting the letter, addressed to my hon. Friend, which never reached him. I thought my hon. Friend went into unnecessary length on that topic. I can easily understand the motives and temper of mind which induced him to dwell upon that point. As for myself, I f6el, what I hope all here feel, that where a question of personal veracity is concerned, no matter where any hon. Gentleman may sit, if he rise in this House, and gives the House his word as to a fact, there is no more reasoning upon the subject. That, I am sure, is the feeling that animates us all; and I am quite convinced, if ever we relax our faith in that principle, our discussions will not continue to be pervaded by that amicable spirit which characterises them. That is the second point. Well, now, there is the third. We state, with regard to the case of Mr. Wells, that he was never duly appointed. We say that Mr. Wells never had a warrant. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) said, that it was impossible that he could have a warrant because he was not a warrant officer. The master smith, says the right hon. Baronet, is not a warrant officer, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire had—

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

I said there could be no warrant in Mr. Wells's case.

MR. DISRAELI

Well, but then I find this document in reference to Mr. Wells:— By the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.—To Mr. William Wells—Whereas we think fit to appoint you to be master smith in Her Majesty's dockyard at Portsmouth, and you are hereby directed to receive forthwith and take upon yourself the duties of that station, and follow such orders and directions as you shall receive from the superintendents of the said dockyard, or from any other superior officer for the time being. For which this shall be your warrant. And the most curious part of this matter is, that it is signed under your hand by W. Hamilton, on the 28th day of January, 1853. Why, it is your own warrant. However, that is of no great consequence; but I think it cannot be said that there is not a warrant in the case. My hon. Friend, I thought, went into the whole case of Wells and Cotsell. Gentlemen opposite may not consider his statement satisfactory. They may consider that in that statement he has not met the allegations which have been brought against him. That, however, is matter of opinion. That is a point upon which the House has to decide. I do not see that it is necessary at all, therefore, to bring the matter before a Committee. All I can say is, that, so far as political appointments are concerned, it reaches my ear that Mr. Wells was a professor of the most orthodox political opinions, and that he was supported by a great many friends on the Ministerial side of the House. With regard to Mr. Cotsell, all I can say is, that I know, from circumstances of which I am personally cognisant, that my hon. Friend was anxious that that individual should be promoted; for though Cotsell by the removal would get no increase of salary, yet it was the great object of his life to be master smith at Portsmouth. My hon. Friend had often spoken to me on that topic. He felt a difficulty which the right hon. Baronet, and any one connected with the Admiralty will feel, namely, the difficulty of inducing men engaged in the Government dockyards not to accept the higher salaries offered to them by the owners of private yards. The right hon. Gentleman himself (Sir J. Graham) at the beginning of the Session deplored the fact that in our Government dockyards the wages are lower than in private establishments, and stated that the only way of counteracting the temptation which higher wages offered to men employed in the Government dockyards would be by rigidly adhering to the system of promotion that we have established for compensating those who receive less wages, by appointing them to posts such as that given to Mr. Cotsell. My hon. Friend, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, was extremely anxious that all promotion should be reserved for those of our own yards, and that strangers should not be brought in from private yards, where they were receiving higher wages than the generality of our workmen. Well, then, there is another point of which this reminds me, in reference to the administration of the Duke of Northumberland, to which I must advert, and that is, the Committee which was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the best means of manning Her Majesty's Navy. Now, if you look to the composition of that Committee, you certainly will not see any spirit of party actuating the appointment of the Members who sat upon it. I must express my own opinion, that if I had been called upon to decide on this topic, after having heard the charge of the hon. Member for Marylebone, made in, I freely acknowledge, a mild and temperate manner, which I am sure the House quite appreciates—having listened to the ample and complete vindication of my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire, who, I think, not only vindicated his honour, but vindicated the administration of his office as far as he was concerned (for he did not appear to leave a single point unexplained), I should not desire any further inquiry by a Committee. But I admit that as the question has gone on, it has assumed a different form. It is quite impossible that a vote of the House of Commons can decide upon such questions as those which refer to the conduct of Sir Baldwin Walker. I regret that much that has been brought into the discussion with respect to Sir Baldwin Walker was, I think, highly unnecessary; but after what has taken place, it would be most invidious, and perhaps unjust on our part, to omit any means by which that gallant officer will be able to enter into those explanations which have become necessary. For my own part, I have no personal acquaintance with Sir Baldwin Walker. I know him only by reputation, and that is the reputation of a distinguished officer, and, I believe, an honourable man. I have no doubt that he will enter into those explanations that will be satisfactory to himself and just to others. As a public officer, and a public officer of importance, I feel that the discussion of to-night cannot close, as regards Sir Baldwin Walker, without some investigation. Therefore I should recommend my hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) not to oppose the appointment of this Committee, nor shall I seek in any way to limit the operation of that Committee, although in assenting to it I do so entirely with the view of giving Sir Baldwin Walker an opportunity of vindicating his own honour.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I rise chiefly, Sir, for the purpose of saying, that if I thought in the terms of the appointment of the Committee there was any imputation on the personal honour of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire, I should certainly move for the omission of those terms. I do not find that the words contain any imputation, and I can only say I think the hon. Gentleman has successfully vindicated himself. I cannot say I am of the same opinion with respect to the judgment he displayed in cancelling the Minute of the Board of 1849. It appears to me a great principle is involved in the maintenance of that Minute, because the real efficiency of the public service depends on rewards being given in the dockyards for merit only, and on that Minute the whole utility of the dockyards rests. I deny that it resolves itself into a mere question of the exercise of patronage, for I hold that public servants have a right to expect that reward should be given for merit only, and I believe that that is the only method by which they can get officers to work for the public as efficiently as they do in private dockyards. I will only state that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) seems to me to have very needlessly vindicated the character of the Duke of Northumberland, upon whom I conceive no imputation has been cast. It does not appear in any part of this discussion that any charge is made against him. The Duke of Northumberland and Admiral Hyde Parker seem to have wished to prevent Sir Baldwin Walker feeling hurt at the stop which was taken; and on the other hand not to leave any record which they thought on other grounds would be objectionable. At the same time it is very unfortunate, I think, that the matter was not explained to Sir Baldwin Walker at the time, and that he was not made acquainted with all the circumstances of the case. With these observations I shall readily give my vote for the appointment of the Committee.

CAPTAIN DUNCOMBE

said, that as a member of the late Board of Admiralty, he thought the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) had most ably and satisfactorily vindicated himself from the charges brought against him. He had the honour and the pleasure of knowing Sir Baldwin Walker, having been associated with him in service, and he believed him to be a most able officer, and a most honourable man. At the same time he was bound to say, looking at the evidence Sir Baldwin Walker had given before the Chatham Committee, and at the contents of papers which had been laid before that House, there were discrepancies between the two, which he hoped that officer would be able to explain most satisfactorily, and consistently with his honour as a gentleman.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that he was anxious that the House should consider gravely the course they were invited to adopt, which it appeared to him would establish a most dangerous precedent, if they were going to appoint a Committee to investigate facts which had already been fully detailed by an impartial tribunal, composed of members themselves sworn to decide according to the evidence adduced before them, who examined witnesses upon their oaths. The Committee they were now about to appoint were not empowered to take evidence upon oath. He could not fail to deprecate the conduct pursued by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) with respect to this subject. Sir Baldwin Walker was examined before the Committee by order of that right hon. Gentleman; but after the case for the petitioners against the return from the Chatham Election had closed by the following observation of Sir Baldwin Walker, "That when the circular, vindicating his conduct, had been issued by the Admiralty, he thought that was sum- cient," the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) appeared not to have thought that at all sufficient, and, although the case of the petitioner had closed, sent down Sir Baldwin Walker to tender further evidence on the subject. He (Mr. Newdegate) must say that he could not give the right hon. Baronet credit for not wishing to impugn the conduct of the late Board of Admiralty.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, he must beg to say a few words in reply to what had just been stated by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. It was not very regular to impute motives, either with respect to his past conduct, to his conduct that night, or to the conduct he would pursue in future. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had laid it down as a canon that was always observed in that House, that every Gentleman, while worthy of sitting there, was to be believed when he made an assertion. He (Sir J. Graham) disclaimed the motives imputed to him by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate); and he might without any impropriety give a proof with respect to the past, which he hoped the House would receive as an earnest for his future conduct with respect to this painful inquiry. When he was informed that evidence would be required from the Admiralty by the Chatham Election Committee, Sir Baldwin Walker asked his advice as to the course he should pursue in circumstances so painful, and involving imputations upon the late Government. He (Sir J. Graham) told him that his course was easy; he advised him to go down to the Committee to answer every question that was put to him, but to tender nothing that would give facility, unless he was asked for anything, in the nature of an attack on the former Government. That was the course he had pursued; and he asked the hon. Gentleman if he should not be more cautious in imputing motives of that kind to him?

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he could not see why the authorities at the Admiralty should have sent Sir Baldwin Walker down to tender documentary evidence concerning circumstances which had passed in relation to himself, after that gentleman had declared himself satisfied with what had taken place. He thought that the right hon. Baronet had thus placed Sir Baldwin Walker in a most unfavourable position; and he must excuse him (Mr. Newdegate) if he retained the impression which he had at first expressed.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

said, he wished to ask whether it would not be as well to leave out of the inquiry the circumstances connected with the appointment of Mr. Wells and Mr. Cotsell?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL,

in reply, said that he was willing to acquiesce in the desire expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) and in that expressed by his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), and he therefore proposed to strike out all the words after the word "boroughs," in his Motion. He was unwilling to make an attack upon anybody, and would wish to frame his Motion accordingly.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question" put, and negatived.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.