§ SIR HENRY DAVIEsaid, he had a question to put relative to the system of promotion in the dockyard at Chatham; and, having been a Member of the Committee which had inquired into matters of this nature, he hoped he should not be thought presumptuous in having thus put himself before the House. In a morning newspaper of Saturday last, a paragraph appeared, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. The paper was one that had very considerable circulation, and the paragraph was headed thus, "Dockyard appointments—Chatham and Admiralty Hypocrisy," and then it went on:—
The following facts will speak for themselves 377 —A vacancy has recently occurred in the mast-house in the Dockyard, by reason of the superannuation of one Robinson. Two names were, in due course, sent up to the Admiralty—those of Pattison and Baines. Pattison had been preparing himself for the situation for four years, and is a good draftsman and accountant, Baines had been in the mast-house a few weeks. Without any examination, Baines has been appointed, and Pattison rejected. Baines and his family vote for Sir James Stirling, and Pattison for Sir Frederic Smith. So much for the disinterested impartiality of a 'Whig-Conservative' Admiralty.The two questions he wished to put to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, were these: first, whether the facts as here stated, of Baines having been selected, and Pattison having been rejected, were correct; and, secondly, if these facts were correct, upon what ground the rejection of the one and the selection of the other had been made?
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, his hon. Friend had given him notice of his question—he was, therefore, prepared to answer it. It was true, as stated in the paragraph, that on a recent vacancy caused by the retirement of a person named Robinson in Chatham Dockyard, the names of two persons had been sent up, and recommended for the same by the captain superintendent of the yard, and that the names of these persons were the one Baines, and the other Pattison. It was also true, that Baines had been preferred. He would, however, state the circumstances under which Baines had been selected by the Board of Admiralty. He held in his hand the original letter from the captain superintendent of Chatham yard, which, in conformity with the recent regulations, had been sent to the Surveyor of the Navy, and the recommendations in which were limited to these two persons. [The right hon. Baronet then read the letter in question, which was from Captain Richards, superintendent of Chatham dockyard, and was to the effect that the persons whose names it contained were recommended by him for their capability and their good conduct, in the room of Robinson, retired; and that he had placed their names in the order of their respective deserts.] The passage in the Morning Herald stated, that the persons so recommended were Pattison and Baines; the recommendation itself, however, was the reverse of that order of arrangement; for it was a recommendation of Charles Baines, shipwright, and Thomas Pattison, also shipwright. The report of the Surveyor General of the 378 Navy, which he (Sir J. Graham) also held in his hand, and on which the Board of Admiralty acted, recommended these persons in the same order; and Baines, as being the first man, was therefore advanced to the situation. Now, what were the facts of the case? In consequence of reading that notice in the newspaper to which his hon. Friend had referred, he (Sir J. Graham) had communicated with the captain superintendent of Chatham dockyard on the subject, and he would, with the permission of the House, read his answer. [The right hon. Baronet read the answer in question, which was to the effect that the whole responsibility of the recommendation rested on the writer, and that he was willing to abide by it. That the names he had sent up were not in the order Pattison and Baines, but in the order Baines and Pattison. That he sent them up in that order, placing the name of Baines first, because that person had been twenty-nine years in the service, Pattison being only twelve. That he knew nothing of the political leaning of either, having abstained from making any inquiries on the subject since his appointment to the superintendence of the yard, That he had heard subsequently to the paragraph that the leanings of the parties were substantially as they had been described in the newspaper, but that, as no poll book of the Chatham election had been as yet published, he could not tell which way either had voted on the last election. He could, however, he added, safely say that in making the recommendation in question, no other consideration had weighed with him than the relative merits of the men.] It appeared, therefore, that Baines was forty-nine years of age, and had been twenty-nine years in the service; while Pattison was thirty-four years of age, and had been twelve years in the service. There was, however, he admitted, a colour of truth in one part of the statement of the Morning Herald on the subject. It was true that Pattison had been for some time employed in the mast-house, and that Baines had not been so long employed in that department of the yard. But why was this so? Baines, it should be remembered, was put forward as the friend of the Government, and for some short time antecedent to his appointment by the Board it was alleged he was placed in the mast-house. But the reason of Pattison being in the mast-house for so long a period arose from the fact of his having disease of the heart. He had, 379 in short, been allowed to work in the mast-house for that reason, in consequence of the lighter labour to which he was subjected than he would be at the dockside. On the other hand, Baines was a hardworking shipwright, in good health. As the reward therefore, of his greater age, harder work, better health, longer service, and superior fitness, he had been preferred. These were the facts of the case.