CORRESPONDENCE.
THE STATE OF THE NAVY. PLEA FOR INQUIRY.
[To las EDITOR or TER ••SrecivTolt.") SIR,—In the first letter of this series the need for inquiry into recent naval administration was demonstrated. Subsequent letters have furnished many illustrations of hasty and ill- consider•ed action on the part of the Admiralty in making radical changes. It has been shown that the distribution of business amongst members of the Board of Admiralty has been altered fundamentally, and that there has been practical abandonment of a well-tried system at the very time when it was used as a model for War Office reorganisation. The position and power• of the First Sea Lord have become unduly predominant; present naval administration is virtually a "one-man show" ; the independent responsibilities of members of the Board have been affected; the constitutional position of the First Lord has been weakened. Recent policy in regard to shipbuilding and the maintenance of the Fleet has been Proved, from official documents, to have been marked by vacillation and theatrical display. Fictitious economies have been claimed; eminent Cabinet Ministers have been misinformed in regard to naval affairs ; and their public statements on the subject have been erroneous. "Professed secrecy tempered by periodic advertisement" has been shown to be a true description of Admiralty methods. On the personal authority of Mr. Bellaire, M.P., as well as by illustra- tive examples, it has been proved that—while Parliament and the public have been refused information on matters of interest and importance relating to the Royal Navy—free and frequent use has been made of inspired writers in the Press ; whose mission it has been to give highly coloured and laudatory descriptions of Admiralty " reforms," containing facts and figures officially professed to be kept secret " in the public interest" These departures from precedent are un- dignified and repugnant to the national sentiment. An administration which has recourse to such methods, and attempts thereby to influence public opinion, declares its weakness, cannot hope to retain public confidence, and makes investigation of its action absolutely nece-sary.
Notwithstanding recent disclosures, this objectionable pro- cedure is continued. On Wednesday, December 19th, the representative of the Admiralty in the House of Commons admitted (in reply to a question of Mr•. Bellaire) that a recently published pamphlet entitled "The Truth about the Navy " had been issued officially, at the public cost, to his Majesty's ships. The publishers of the pamphlet have since written to the newspapers, at the request of the author, to say that " he had absolutely no expectation of such an [Admiralty] order when the pamphlet was produced" ; they explain that its supply to H.M.'s ships may be considered similar• to the supply of Lord Brassey's "Naval Annual," or other books. An examination of the pamphlet, however, shows that it differs essentially from other books issued to ships' libraries which are mainly useful for information and reference. It is really an inspired explanation and defence of recent Admiralty action. Naval officers of high rank, to whom copies had been sent, in a recent debate at the Royal United Service Institution alluded to the obviously close connexion between the author and the Admiralty. Some of the material used in the pamphlet had been published previously in magazine articles. The writer• of these articles has repeatedly appeared as the champion of recent Admiralty action ; he has been liberally supplied with information not previously available, and this is his chief Claim to notice. It is not clear• whether or not he is identical with " Excubitor," the author• of the pamphlet, but it resembles the articles closely in style, and, like them, contains much detailed information not previously published in regard to Admiralty plans and intentions respecting the distribution and manning of the Fleet and other subjects on
which eriiicism has arisen. It is also rich in facts and figures apparently drawn from official archives, and most difficult of attainment otherwise. "ExCubitor " has nothing but praise for Admiralty methods and policy. Certificates of ability are given by him to Naval Members of the Board and to departmental officials ; for these the recipients may or may not feel grateful. But the fact is undeniable that once more a writer, whose authority and personality are doubtful, has been used by some person or persons in the Admiralty as the vehicle to convey to the public information that should have been contained in an official publication. This ea parte anonymous statement has been issued officially to the Fleet at the public cost, yet the representative of the Admiralty when challenged in Parliament said that "no official approval had been given to its contents"!
The plea for inquiry based on the facts to which attention has been drawn in these letters appears irresistible. It might have been strengthened by statements respecting perpetual changes, made during the last two years, in " reforms " which were declared to be perfect when they were introduced, but which were speedily subjected to considerable alterations,—in their turn described as improvements. There has been unrest in regard to the distribution of fleets in full commission, as to their principal bases, even as to the names given to fleets,— although nomenclature is not of great importance. New plans for "nucleus crews" and for modes of maintaining "ships in Commission in Reserve" have been introduced, before the effects of earlier systems have been ascertained. Thorough reconsideration is required also of action taken hastily and without full inquiry,—in closing depots and dockyards on some important foreign naval stations and abandoning others. High authorities declare this action to be dangerous ; its effects should be ascertained before they become difficult of remedy. Admiralty Papers indicate that this subject did not receive the consideration it deserved, and it would be interesting to have the facts put on record as to the strategical and financial losses sustaiued. The protection of trade and of Imperial interests during peacetime also needs investigation; and the wholesale "weeding out" of smaller classes of ships which occurred in 1905 may have to be amended. Besides these subjects, there are many others which could advantageously be brought ugder• review if an inquiry were set on foot and a competent tribunal appointed.
The "method of inquiry," best adapted to secure practical results and to restore public confidence, will doubtless give rise to differences, of opinion. After full consideration of action taken in the past when the conditions have been critical, the writer suggests that a' Joint Committee of Lords and Commons would be the preferable solution. Such a tribunal would combine strength and impartiality. It is not necessary or desirable that its members should possess technical know- ledge. At the root of the matter• lies the question of recent changes in Admiralty organisation, methods, and procedure. This is an administrative problem which could be dealt with efficiently by a Joint Committee, whose duty it would be to obtain and consider evidence given by witnesses—political, naval, and civilian—having experience in naval affairs. It is absolutely necessary, also, that the facts should be ascertained as to the nature and extent of the inquiries instituted before recent changes in naval administration were made. The Committee must secure the free and full expression of opinion by all classes in the Royal Navy whose position and experi- ence entitle them to give evidence. Hitherto no opportunity has been afforded for such an expression of naval opinion : the traditions of the Service keep men silent whose opinions are adverse to what has been done. Fortunately we have amongst us still ex-First Lords—like Lord Goschen, Lord George Hamilton, and Lord Spencer—and many naval officers who have served as members of Boards of Admiralty, or had ex- perience in the Admiralty and Royal dockyards as well as afloat in high command. The younger school of naval officers should also be heard. It is constantly asserted that they are ardent sup- porters of the new methods, but there is reason to doubt the accur•acy of that statement. Civilians would have their place amongst the witnesses ; many of them have had experience in private firms as well as in the Admiralty service, and could give great assistance to the Committee. Facts and opinions obtained in this way, from men whose evidence represented all shades of thought and experience in naval matters, must form the basis of the verdict on recent action, and of recommendations made for future administra- tion. 'Witnesses must be protected in order that their honest opinions may be obtained. It is probable that some of the evidence will have to be treated as confidential. The Navy and the nation, however, would be prepared to trust such a Committee, and to accept its conclusions and recommenda- tions, although' the whole of the reasons were not published : the precedent of the Hartington Commission proves this to be true. At present doubt and anxiety are widespread—both in the Navy and outside it—in regard to the management of naval affairs, notwithstanding vigorous and continued efforts made to influence public opinion in favour of so-called "reforms."
Present conditions in many respects resemble those of thirty-five years ago. Mr. Childers, as First Lord, introduced many valuable reforms, but he revolutionised Admiralty administration, magnified the position of the First Lord, turned his colleagues on the Board into " assistants," and established a "one-man show." Within two years —the loss of the Captain' having had great influence— public distrust of the new system bad reached such a pitch that a Select Committee of the House of Lords was appointed to investigate the matter. The Duke of Somerset (an ex4irst Lord) was chairman, and the pro- ceedings of the Committee still have great interest. Following upon thisinquiry came the restoration of the old Board system by Mr. Goschen (1872), and on the main lines laid down afresh by him Admiralty work continued until October, 1904. Then (see the second letter of this series) Lord Selborne introduced changes into the distribution, of business which made the First Sea Lord virtual " Mayor of the Palace," and which have resulted in another "one-man show." After twoyears' experi- ence,.this case calls for independent investigation, just as did that under the Childers-regime. There can be little doubt that impartial inquiry will result in a rehabilitation of the well- proved conditions under which the First Sea Lord is not supreme, but simply prima inter pares amongst the Naval Members. The Board system will be again made a reality.
Lord Selborne is responsible for the changes of 1904: Lord Cawdor endorsed them, and Lord Tweedmonth (so far as is known) has left them untouched. In a published Minute (dated May 5th, 1906), alluding to the Cawdor Memorandum, Lord Tweedmouth said : "Most of these measures [series of reforms] were either in actual operation or about to come into operation when the present Board assumed office In such can( a the intention of the new Board has been and is to give the new policy a fair trial, to wait and watch its operation and effect without prejudice, and to make any changes therein that time and experience may show to be necessary." The "new Board," be it observed, includes the Naval Members who served under Lord Cawdor : the new members are Lord Tweedmouth, Mr. Robertson, and Mr. Lambert. Of these, only Mr. Robertson had any previous experience of Admiralty administration, or, indeed, of any important administrative work, and Mr. Robertson used strongly condemnatory language in Parliament when recent "reforms" were under discussion in 1905. Lord Tweedmouth's Minute is not worthy of a statesman occupying the great position of First Lord. To "wait and watch" in existing circum- stances is a 'confession of weakness and want of appreciation of the dangers to our naval supremacy arising from the "new policy." Because it is a " new policy," standing condemned by high authorities, hastily entered upon and executed, and subjected to repeated alterations of important features within two years, it has become imperative to investigate thoroughly its probable results before serious mischief is done. The attempt to prevent investigation and any necessary alterations of recent action by the plea that there must be "continuity of policy" is absurd. Lord Selborne and Sir John Fisher broke down continuity in 1904 by violent changes ; since then we have lived under conditions of absolute discontinuity, arising from feverish baste in introducing further "reforms."
As Lord Tweedmouth has decided to "waif and watch," it becomes necessary to press upon the Government, and especially upon the Prime Minister, the urgent necessity for inquiry. Fortunately, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman has served at the Admiralty. As a member of the Hartington Commission be inquired at a later date into Admiralty administration. His opinion thereon is on record (see Addendum to Further Report of Hartington Commission); in 1890 he wrote—" the Admiralty Board is a model to be copied." This opinion was shared by the late Government, who made it the foundation of Instructions to the Esher Committee, and organised the present Army Council on lines conforming to the Admiralty model as it then existed.
Every inquiry made in the past has confirmed the belief that administration of the Navy by a Board is the only safe and wise course : that no single man, however capable or well meaning, should be permitted to control naval affairs ; that deliberate discussion and full consideration by the Board of all matters of importance should precede action. Progress and amendment are essential as conditions alter : but the experience of a century shows that the Board system is sufficiently flexible and elastic to meet the most radical changes. It is foolish to ignore the teachings of experience and to embark on dangerous experiments, initiated by individuals and not justified by full preliminary inquiry. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman has promised to receive a deputation representing a large number of Members of Parliament, who are convinced that an inquiry is necessary into certain features of naval administration. Let us hope that he will prove himself the statesman needed to deal with present conditions, and make it his duty to institute a com- prehensive inquiry by a competent and impartial tribunal into the whole field of recent Admiralty policy and action.—I am,
Previous page
