The Sun.
London, England, 1871-02-17 00:00:00

rnE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, FE BRU AR Y 17, 1871.

sion for watching over the fulfilment of the rights
and obligations of the Paris Treaty of 1850 will in
suture sit in London instead of in Paris.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—THURSDAY.
Their Lordships assembled at five o'clock.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ADMIRALTY.
Lord HALIFAX appealed to the Duke of Somerset not to
persist with his motion for a committee to inquire into the

RETIREMENT OF SIR SPENCER ROBINSON.
A somewhat angry correspondence connected with
the recent changes at the Admiralty has been pub-
lished by Sir Spencer Robinson. He has not
thought it right to publish Mr. Childers's letters
in his absence, but restricts himself to the paper
.war carried on between himself and Mr. Gladstone.
Sir Spencer Robinson did not propose to retire, and
indeed strongly objected to retiring. He held
that under the alteration in the Board of Admiralty
made in 1869, the office of Contr her of
the Navy was merged in that of Third
Lord of Admiralty, to which his patent ap-
pointed him " during good behaviour." Mr.
Gladstone considers thirsted mistake, as all Lords of
the Admiralty are appo " during pleasure," and
is very resolute in fulfilling Mr. Childers' determi-
nation to eject Sir Spencer from his office, even while
expressing great regret and a full appreciation of his
former services. Sir Spencer claims to see the
memorandum on which his dismissal is
based, declaring that a stigma will attach
to him in consequence, but this Mr.
Gladstone refuses to accede to. His proposal to
retain office until the committee has male its report
meets with no more favour, and at last, Mr. GlaMd-
stone plainly intimates that he shall instruct
r.
Baxter to take the proper steps for a change in the
office. The correspondence ends in a tone of uncon-
cealed irritation on both sides.
THE NEW MEMBER FOR RIPON.
Lieutenant-General the Right Hon. Sir Henry
Knight Storks, G. C. B. &c., who was on Wednesday
elected member for the city of Ripon, is the eldest
son of the late Mr. Sergeant _ Storks. He was
born in 1811, educated at Charterhouse, entered
the army at the age of -seventeen, and has
served in the 61st, 14th, and 38th Regiments. After
serving two years in the lonian Islands, he
proceeded in 1846 to the Cape of Good Hope
on special service, where he distinguished himself in
the field, and was rewarded by his promotion to the
rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, and by a medal for the
his appointedin theltBoss t o
themili-
taryCaffr e
secretaryshipw ar . I n
inlB4 9
thehe wasma urit
cjoumlymtahnedeoaf her Majesty's
meyeari.emovfrceeodtso
cutari, whereand he
in
Smyrna,titari,
held the command of our forces from
the Bosphorus
to Smyrna inclusive, with the rank of Major-
General. In 1856 he superintended the
evacuation
of Turkey by the British army, and was placed on
the list of officers receiving rewards for distinguished
service, and in the January of the following year was
created Knight Commander of the Bath. Almost
immediately afterwards he was appointed Secretary
for Military Correspondence at the War Office, and
during this time he was a member of committees ap-
pointed to inquire into the sanitary condition:and system
of promotion in the army, and was also secretary to
a secret military committee which sat in 1858 to
report on the defence of England. Since then
he has held numerous offices. On resigning
the Governorship of Malta in 1867, he became
Controller-in-Chief of the War Office, and subse-
quently Surveyor-General of the Ordnance and
Under-Secretary of State. Sir Henry last year
contested Colchester with Colonel Learmouth, but
lost the election by some 500 votes.

state of the Board of Admiralty with reference to recent
changes in the constitution of the Board and its prac-
tical working of the department. He entered
at length into arguments to chew that the time was ex-
tremely inopportune for such an inquiry, the First Lord
of the Admiralty being absent. However well Mr.
Childers' colleagues might be acquainted with the business
of the Board, they could not pronounce with confidence
on such a matter without reference to him. The question
at issue between the First Lord and Sir Spencer Robinson

was a personal one, and any inquiry which would in-
volve that question would be unfair in Mr. Childers's
absence. He hoped the First Lord would return next
week. He had offered to resign, but after medical advice
it had been thought possible for him to retain his post.
The DUKE of SOMERSET declined to withdrawn his
motion. He regretted Mr. Childers's absence, but it was
not a a sufficient reason for postponing the inquiry. The
question with Sir Spenoer Robinson had been raised by
Mr. Childers'himself, who had made an attack upon one
of his colleagues, and had sent that attack
to the newspapers without informing his colleague.
He did not object to the division of the Board of Ad-
miralty into departments, but he strongly opposed Mr.
Childers' motion of making the heads of the departments
mere clerks. Previously to the loss of the Captain,
Mr. Childers had said he was responsible for every de-
partment, but when that catastrophe occurred, he said he
was not responsible. He wrote an elaborate minute,
stating that the Controller of the Navy was responsible,
whereas that officer had protested against vessels built on

the principle of the Captain with low freeboards. So had he
(the noble duke). Mr. Childers, in fact, took no counsel
with his colleagues. A deliberation between the various
heads of departments would have prevented
this calamity, but Mr. Childers never allowed this.
Yet were they to postpone this momentous inquiry
because he was away? No doubt Mr. Childers had ably
transacted the portion of business which fell to him. He
had introduced economy into the system, but he could not
be answerable for everything. The noble duke criticised
in detail some late changes effected by the Admiralty, and
argued that this inquiry was absolutely necessary. In case
of war the present plan of the First Lord taking every
thing upon himself would fail altogether. He
desired to restore the consultation of heads of
departments, not to abolish depart mental division.
Lord MELVILLE thought the Admiralty was in a com-
plete state of confusion, and supported the motion for a
committee.
The Earl of CAMPERDOWN complained that the noble
' duke, whilst moving for a committee, had travelled over
the whole ground of navy administration. The present
Board of Admiralty was constructed on the principle that
the First Lord was supreme head of the Admiralty, and
that the heads of departments should be responsible to him
alone. But it was an entire mistake to, say that,
the Board never meets. Previously to Mr. Childers's ill-
ness it met every week, and each head of department
could present any representation he thought fit. The
First Lord did not treat • his colleagues as clerks. The
members of the Board might readily learn what their
colleagues were doing from the minutes of the day's pro-
ceedings, which were laid before them. The supply of
stores sent to Paris was sufficient answer to the
complaint that there were no stores. The
, Secretary of the Admiralty naturally represented
the First Lord to a certain extent during his absence.
He really thought that the committee was unnecessary,
and even injurious.
Earl GREY thought the original system of government
at the Admiralty was the best, and that had the con-
sultations between the heads of departments been kept up
the Captain would not-have been lost. The case for the
inquiry was clearly made out.
The Earl of HARDWIOKE supported the motion.
Lord HALIFAX argued that the consultations between
the First Lord and the heads of departments were still
kept up. As to the loss of the Captain, Sir Spencer
Robinson had, indeed, given his opinion respecting her
unsafety in fighting her guns, but not as to her
safety during navigation. Neither he nor Mr.
Reed had given any warning on this point.
There had been no intimation to the First Lord that the
construction of the vessel was dangerous. He hoped that
if the committee were appointed it would be confined
strictly to the object set forth in the motion. With
that limitation, the Government, though it disapproved
of the inquiry, would not oppose it.
The committee was then agreed to, and the House
adjourned at ten minutes to seven.