ADMIRALTY POLICY AND NAVAL ENGINEERS.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] Si,—In the Spectator of March 17th your correspondent "Naval Officer (Retired)," still maintains his point that when the new scheme of training was introduced it was decided that there should be no interchangeability. To support his case, he gives two extracts from Lord Selborne's speeches in the House of Lords, one of which he "cannot for the moment locate." Fortunately, I can locate that extract, and, strangely enough, it is to be found in the Press reports of the speech of May 8th, which he quotes ! The full quotation absolutely disproves the statement that "Naval Officer (Retired)" has made, and demolishes his case. It is as follows :— "Now, my Lords, I come to what I quite agree is one of the most interesting and important points in the whole scheme. I will take the Engineers first. Are the officers who have taken the Engineer branch to be interchangeable with the Executive branch ? As the scheme now stands they will not be interchange- able; that was specially laid down for this reason—it was not essential to decide the matter now. If it had been decided that they were to be interchangeable, and the Cadets had come into the College on that understanding, no Board of Admiralty could have gone back on that decision. If, on the other hand, in the scheme under which the Cadets entered they were not inter- changeable, then the Board of Admiralty would be absolutely free on further consideration to make them interchangeable. There is no doubt, therefore, how the scheme stands at present. Nevertheless, /fully believe and hope that they will be made inter- changeable, and that Engineers as a special branch will disappear altogether, and Diat specialised Engineer Lieutenants will be only known by the letter E after their name."
If this should not be sufficiently explicit as to the inten- tions of the Board of Admiralty at the time, perhaps the following letter published hi the Times in January, 1903, will further enlighten your correspondent:— "January 9th, 1903. DEAR Ma. —,—In reply to the inquiries you have made, I have to say that the words in my Memorandum, to the effect that the division of the Sub-Lieutenants into the three branches—Execu- tive, Engineer, and Royal Marine—shall be definite and final, mean exactly what they say as regards the intention of the present Board. The point could not be left doubtful. Either there will be interchangeability hereafter between the three branches or there will not. Either an Engineer Officer, for instance, will be able to rise to the command of a ship or squadron, or he will not. These are questions which time and experience alone can answer. And the Board, in framing the present scheme, had to be prepared for either event, Their object is to leave future Boards unfettered to act in this matter for the greatest advantage of the Service. If it had now been announced that there would hereafter be complete interchangeability, and that an Engineer Officer, for instance, could rise to command a ship, future Boards would have been bound by this pledge to Cadets entering the Service, and never could have gone back on it, whatever might be the teaching of experience. The announcement made that the division will be definite and final can apply only to the principles by which the present Board must be guided in providing recruits for the three branches, and leaves a future Board perfectly free to relax the rule if it thinks fit; but it follows, of course, that unless a future Board does think fit in the interests of the Service to relax the rule, the division will remain definite and final, and there will be no interchangeability. No useful purpose can be served by speculating on what a Board may do ten years hence or more ; the essential thing is that they should be free to do what- ever in their time is best for the Service. This essential freedom of action will be secured by the present scheme.—Believe me,
So much for the definite allotment of officers to separate branches.
The other points touched upon by" Naval Officer (Retired) " are equally open to the imputation of inaccuracy; notably that there is a consensus of professional opinion against the scheme. This is, however, a profitless discussion, since it is obviously impossible to take a plebiscite of the Service; but in my own experience of officers on the Active List, there is an overwhelming majority who are in favour of the broad principles of the new scheme. I will grant that its opponents are the more vociferous and noisy.
It is also a poor argument to put forward that because the system cannot be guaranteed to be absolutely final it should not be accepted. Were this generally adopted, no progress could be made in any direction. The curiosity as to the pro- fessional officers who have endorsed the scheme will soon be gratified, since Lord Tweedmouth has undertaken to publish the Report of Admiral Sir A. Douglas's Committee, and in the meantime it seems unnecessary to imply, as "Naval Officer (Retired) "does, that they are lacking in qualifications and sea experience, especially as behind them they have three successive Boards of Admiralty, with their professional advisers, against whom I presume even "Naval Officer (Retired) " will not bring any charge of lack of capacity or knowledge of the requirements of the Service.—I am, Sir, 8tc.,
ANOTHER NAVAL OFPICER.
Previous page
