THE NAVY ESTIMATES.
WE have no complaint to make of the way in which Mr. McKenna presented his Estimates, nor, speaking generally, of their nature. We believe them to be framed with a sincere regard to the national safety, though there are points of detail, many of them important, about which we should like, as the lawyers say, to have further and better particulars. For example, we by no means feel sure that the number of men voted is sufficient. But though we do not desire to arraign the Estimates or the naval policy of the Government as a whole, we are bound to say that the discussion cannot be called in any true sense satisfactory. Though debates such as we have had during the past week are at any rate better than nothing, the general impression derived from a perusal of the speeches is that the criticism was in- adequate. The critics, whether on the Opposition Front Bench or in the body of the House, are too much inclined to make party scores and adopt the policy of pin- pricks, while on the other hand Ministers in defending their position have recourse to debating points and clever dialectics instead of offering a reasoned defence of their policy. The real interests of the Navy, and therefore of the nation, are apt to be lost in the party wrangle.
We have long entertained, and have on several occasions expressed in these columns the wish, that the House of Commons could get into closer touch with the problems of national defence. The machinery which we advocated in order to secure that closer touch is small Committees of the Commons, charged with the work of taking stock of the provision made by the Government for national insurance. In view of this fact it is with much satis- faction that we note the opinion of so great an authority and so sound an administrator as Lord Esher. In the book of essays just published by him, reviewed by us in our issue of to-day, Lord Esher boldly declares that the House of Commons should not only vote the money for the Army and Navy, but see that it is well and wisely spent. He argues that we might well imitate the Budget Committee of France [he might have added and " of Germany "], and we believe that his argument is perfectly sound:— "There are discussions upon the Navy and Army Estimates in the House itself, and, year after year, the country watches, with sad amusement, painstaking and conscientious Members of Parlia- ment striving for information, being fenced with by Ministers who are wrung with anxiety to preserve proper official reserve and the consequent respect of their Departments. Is it not worth while even for the Mother of Parliaments to examine a custom which has grown up in France, under which the Estimates for the Navy and the Army are submitted to committees representing all sections of the Chamber, with wide powers of examination, extended in some cases to visual tests, and with instructions to report the result of their labours to the Chamber itself? In spite of certain well-known scandals in administration, the French people have the satisfaction of knowing that to the enquiries and
labours of one of these committees was not long ago due the com- pletion of the armaments of the frontier fortresses and their pro- visioning with munitions of war. The educational value of these committees is inestimable, bringing as they do Members of Parlia- ment of all shades of opinion, many of whom are misinformed and some of whom are hostile to all forms of expenditure on arma- ments, into contact with personnel and materiel, which for the first time they begin to realise and to understand."
We desire to endorse every word of this notable piece of advice ; but we wish to lay special stress upon what Lord Esher calls the educational value of these Com- mittees. We believe that if Radical, Socialist, " Peace- at-any-price," and Labour Members were represented. in proper proportions upon Committees charged with the duty of examining in detail the Army and Navy Estimates, we should hear much less grumbling about the uselessness of Army and Navy expenditure. Men brought into touch with the details of the subject would realise in a way which is impossible in a general debate in the House of Commons the tremendous responsibility that rests upon those who advocate proposals which, if they mean anything, mean the ham-stringing of the nation in the matter of defence. Though Labour Members may use wild words, there is no question of their patriotism. They are in reality just as anxious to prevent the conquest aed ruin of this country as any Tory capitalist. As Ben Jenson said long ago, " there is a necessity all men should love their country. He that professeth the contrary may be delighted with his words, but his heart is not there." The fact that a Labour Member may have professed sympathy with the notion that the working, classes have no real interest in Army and Navy expenditure does not trouble us in the least. " His heart is not there." When we Lear of speeches of this nature from such men we do not want to hold up our hands in righteous horror, but merely to get the speakers to think out the meaning of their words in contact with the realities of the subject. In -our opinion, the Committee to consider the Army and Navy Estimates should be a small Committee of, say, not more than twelve Members. All parties should of course be represented. Further, it should be a secret Committee as regards the evidence placed before it, but its Report should be open. Its main work should be stocktaking work,—to see whether the two Depart- ments concerned are really doing what they profess to do, and are giving the nation value for its money. We will give one example of the kind of tasks we should like to see the Committee undertake, both as regards the Navy and the Army. It should put itself in a position to be able to report to Parliament whether or no we possess sufficient stores of ammunition and other essential material, and also sufficient machinery for rapidly turning out such material. Unless such ammu- nition and other material are ready to hand, the money spent upon the Navy and Army is absolutely thrown away. Just as the strength of a chain is that of its weakest link, so the strength of a fleet is that of its ammunition stores. If its supply of ammunition is not adequate, the ships might just as well not exist. They are no better than excursion steamers. Yet, strange as it may seem, there is always a great danger of Governments running risks in the matter of stores, and preferring to have something smart and effective to put in the shop window, or something which will make a show at a grand review. The public never sees the ammunition stores, but it does see, and swells with pride over, a new Dread- nought.' The Committee, to change our metaphor, should be like the Committee of Governors which, unless we are mistaken, goes once a year into the vaults at the Bank of England and makes itself aware by the physical senses of sight and touch that the bullion supposed to be in the Bank is actually there. So we desire that the Armaments Committee of the House of Commons should be deputed to make sure that our shot and shell are actually ready to hand in sufficient quantities, and that the number of rifles in store is ample for all purposes. The Queen during the Crimean War wrote to the Duke of Newcastle asking for detailed answers upon certain points, and added : " The Queen wishes to have the effective state, and not the state upon paper only." The questions she asked were : " What stores of muskets are there here ? When will the new ones be ready ? How much serviceable ammunition is there both of artillery and small arms in the country ? " The official reply is not printed in the Queen's letters, but we may guess its contents,—provided it was truthful :
Answer came there none, And this was scarcely odd because They'd used up every one."
That is the kind of question to which, in our opinion, it is the duty of the House of Commons to get an answer through a Committee. In addition the Committee should, whenever it discovered them, stop "jobs," abuses, or pieces of clumsy or routine extravagance. Its main object in all cases should be to satisfy itself that the country was getting value for its money. We shall, of course, be told that the plan which Lord Esher and we propose is impossible. When we have urged it on former occasions, the stock answer has run somewhat as follows :—" The proposed Committee would weaken the responsibility of the Departments and of the Cabinet. Already they take all the precautions which it is proposed that the Committee should take, and the only result of interference by a House of Commons Committee would either be a work of supererogation, or else interference with, and thus a weakening of the responsibility of, the Cabinet Minister in charge of the Department. He would feel that as long as he could hoodwink or bamboozle the Committee of the Commons into saying that all was well he would be covered, and therefore would not run any risk if things went wrong." In our opinion, this is a very superficial view of the case. We do not believe that there would in reality be any weakening of Ministerial responsibility. On the contrary, we believe that the sense of responsibility would be increased, and that there would also be an increase of vigilance throughout the Departments. " In the old days we could have let the matter of a shortage in shell slide for four or five months, but we dare not do it now, for in six weeks' time we shall have those prying fellows from the House of Commons tying us down to exact statements in their stocktaking excursions. We must be able to show them that we have got plenty of ammunition, not making or ordered, but actually here and in hand." That is the kind of tone which the dread of the House of Commons Committee would inspire in the Services, and, in our opinion, it is a tone which is very much to be encouraged. Again, think of the advantage which a Minister would sometimes have in the Cabinet when he was pressed to let some new and absolutely necessary expenditure stand over for a few months in order that a Budget might be squared, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer not be forced, " this year at any rate," to find an awkward half-million. The remark, " I cannot possibly face the Committee without that half- million," would be a shield and buckler to him.
An incidental advantage of the plan we propose is the restoration of some of its powers to the House of Commons. No observer of our Constitution can have failed to note, and to note with regret, the way in which the power of the House of Commons has been decreasing of late years, and the power of the Cabinet increasing. We are in considerable peril of reaching a state of things under which almost the only real functions left to. the House of Commons will be to choose the Ministry of the day, and till they dismiss it do nothing but carry out its behests. The Legislature is rapidly becoming a Constitutional Monarch unable to act except on the advice of the Ministers it has appointed. That is surely a most undesirable state of affairs, and this tendency might very usefully be checked by the employment of Committees of the House of Commons to take stock of rational armaments. We do not suggest that these Com- mittees should attempt to deal with policy. That they must of course leave to the Cabinet. What they should do is to sal, :—" You assert certain principles and profess to be carrying them into practice. Our business is to see whether your deeds come up to your words." We sincerely trust that Lord Esher, in the pressure of the notable public work which he is doing, will not forget the point he has raised in the passage quoted above. He will, we hope, press it in season and out of season till his demand is carried. If he does, he may be sure of receiving the support of the Spectator.
Previous page
