On Monday, on the motion to go into supply on
the Navy Estimates, Mr. Arnold-Forster proposed a resolution asking for an assurance that the Estimates were "based upon a con- sideration of the needs of possible war by sea and land, and upon the consideration of advice tendered in that behalf by the naval officer selected for the conduct of the naval opera- tions in case of war." In the course of his speech, Mr. Arnold. Forster mentioned a very remarkable fact. During the scare of war with Russia in 1885, the Admiralty asked a. distin- guished officer to report to them as to the best scheme of coast defence that could be improvised if war occurred. This of course means that the Admiralty had no plan already worked out and pigeon-holed ready for instant use. Does not thie show that a brain for the Navy is urgently needed ? Mr. Robertson, who replied for the Admiralty, declared as to the first part of Mr. Arnold-Forster's resolution that he would give the required assurance without hesitation. A.s to the second part, if it meant that the Admiralty ought to have an expert adviser who had control of the general organisation of the Navy, his answer was that we had such an officer already in the First Naval Lord. We wish we had; for as we have endeavoured to show elsewhere, this would give us a satisfactory naval organisation. Finally, Mr. Arnold- Forster withdrew his resolution, considering the generally satisfactory nature of the reply. We believe that, on the whole, the discussion will turn out to have been most useful. The Admiralty and the Government are " pinned " to two most important things,—Estimates based on war considera- tions, and a single responsible official head of the Navy. It will now be the business of bodies like the Navy League, and Members of Parliament like Mr. Arnold-Forster and Sir George Chesney, to screw the Admiralty up to the standard which they have admitted to be the true one.
