LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE NEW SCHEME OF NAVAL TRAINING.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:1 Sin,—As an old student of naval affairs, may I ask your indulgence to draw attention to some points in connection with the new scheme of naval training not perhaps immedi- ately obvious to the majority of the nation, who, lacking the time and opportunity to devote to the investigation of naval polity and practice, must perforce leave them to be managed by the Committee of gentlemen at the Admiralty appointed for that purpose ? The professional classes have their own business to attend to; the House of Commons, which is supposed to repre- sent their interests, is notably indifferent to the Navy, and I may even go further, and assert boldly that its Members are systematically kept in ignorance of the true posture of naval affairs and details of administration by the officials responsible therefor. Hence it is that Lord Selborne (who, be it remem- bered, is a civilian and a politician) is able to put forward a scheme which, plausible and " statesmanlike " on the face of it, is so constructed that a little reflection with a little knowledge cannot but write it down as a piece of reckless gambling with the most vital interests of the nation :— (1) The cadets of the three branches of the Service, the mili- tary, the engineering, and the marine, are' together to receive seven years' training irrespective of what branch they elect, at the end of the seven years, to adopt. Will it be credited that the announcement of a revolu- tion so drastic and sweeping is wholly unaccom- panied by any suggestion of what that training is to be? It is to be the same training,—that is all we know. The rest is "under consideration." I wish their Lordships joy of their cogitations ! They are in a dilemma. Either they are to teach three distinct profes- sions in the minimum time usually allotted to learning one, or they are to teach one profession (which is apparently to be mechanical engineering) for seven years ; and then' if the " Sub-Lieutenant" elects to join one of the other two branches, he is allowed two years in which to learn his business. Now, it is perfectly obvious to any one who has the least knowledge of the subject that both the military (executive) branch and the engineering branch require a seven to nine years' training (the marine we may for the present leave out of the question). I submit, Sir, that the nation has a right to more satisfaction on this crucial point than an airy official "under consideration." The consideration should have come earlier. A few weeks ago I had the honour of pub- lishing in the Morning Post a series of articles suggesting certain lines of reform in the training of the military cadet which I think I may safely say agreed with the views of experienced naval officers with the interests of the Service at heart. The course was seven years—it was not a day too long—and still it could not admit of the attainment of a proficiency in engineering.
(2) It is proposed to rank the engineers as Admiral (E), Commander (E), Captain (E), &e. There will, then, be two Admirals, two Commanders, and two Captains • in the same ship. What will become of the discipline of that ship? Discipline must be vested ultimately in one person, or it ceases to exist. That here is a real and must serious danger would, I have no hesitation in saying, be the affirmation of the majority of officers on the Active List, could they be heard ! But they are muzzled by the Ring's Regulations ; while for years the engineers have been agitating--often by means the most unscrupulous—to obtain this very change, and hitherto it has been rightly refused them on the ground of it being subversive to discipline. The engineer is not a combatant officer, and what will it profit him to be called Captain (E), when under no circumstances could he command a ship? And how does Lord Selborne justify the appropriation by mechanical engineers of titles of rank which have been exclusively borne for five hundred honourable years by the military officers of the Royal Navy? But, says the Memo- randum, the ship is a "box of machines,"—therefore every officer should be a mechanician. Has it not occurred to the conscientious civilians who are allowed to control naval affairs that it is one profession to learn to make the box- work and quite another to learn and to practise the uses to which that box should be put ; and that—by a mysterious dispensation of Providence—one life is too brief therein to learn both ? Such, however, is the unpleasant fact.
And, again, how does Lord Selborne justify the omission of all reference in the Memorandum to the official Report of the United States Navy, in which what may be called the " trinity-in-unity " scheme has been in operation for years? In that Report Admiral Melville, who was himself instru- mental in bringing the scheme about, has to condemn it as a disastrous failure. Perhaps Lord Selborne has not remarked the gleefully sarcastic comments of the American Press on the matter. They are, if "irresponsible," still, instructive.
Eminent gentlemen are discussing in the Times whether the First Lord is responsible for the scheme, or the whole Board. Lord Rosebery has told us that Sir John Fisher is the author. I will hazard a guess that Lord Rosebery is right. I will hazard another,—that the Admiralty dare not publish the names of those who voted for, and those who voted against, the scheme, and who was neutral. But I think we have a right to know. Let us not forget that by the time this doubtful and reckless experiment is showing results Ger- many will be in a position to meet us at sea on approximately equal terms. Of course Lord Selborne, as a member of the Government, would hardly be expected to take Germany and herclesigns into consideration; and I will hazard another guess,—that Lord Selborne in making himself responsible for the scheme little knows what he has done. As Mr. Bowles justly remarks, he has begun reform by establishing chaos ; he is going on to experiment with "trinity in unity,' —scarce an experiment for mortal man to risk ; he may end with the name of having done his best—with the best in- tentions—to destroy the efficiency of the three branches ef the finest Service in the world. If this conclusion be doubted, let the naval officers on the Active List be called into counsel before a Royal Commission or a Parliamentary Committee, and let the nation judge.
[We publish Mr. Cope Cornford's letter because the subject he discusses is of vital importance to the nation, and it is therefore of special importance to hear all sides. We cannot, however, say that we find his arguments in any way Con- vincing, and we greatly dislike his tone towards the engineers. We also entirely dissent from the attitude he takes up when he suggests that because Lord Selborne is "a civilian and a politician" he is incapable of producing a sound scheme. If be is well advised, and also capable of exercising a wise judgment on the fitcts before him, a pure civilian is often a better administrator and reformer in naval and military matters than the ablest expert. We believe Lord Selborne to be both,—i.e., well advised, and also a man of sound judgment. Mr. Cope Cornford's objections to the engineers being put on an equality with the "military officers" of the Navy were in former days applicable to the men who sailed and navigated our ships, yet no terrible results followed from allowing them the honours due to combatant ,officers.— ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
