[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—I happened to read
your issue of December 8th only quite lately, so you must pardon me for being so tardy in asking your permission to answer " Civis's " article, entitled "The State of the Navy." I cannot help remarking that it
is a thousand pities that a correspondent who takes upon him- self the responsibility of firing broadside after broadside at the Admiralty and its administration should not nail his colours to the mast and let us know whose flag he is flying. He may be a naval officer ; if he is one, I for one should feel inclined to weigh his opinions with more deliberation ; but if he is a civilian, I can only say that be is running his ship into dangerous navigation, or amongst the enemy's submerged mines, and neither "short circuits" nor "long circuits" will clear him of an explosion.
" Civis's " main attack in Article IV. is directed against Naval Committees and their composition. In short, in dealing with the designs of warships, their construction, the multi- farious arrangements below, as to distribution of weights, economy of space, protection of armament, machinery, and last, but not least, general success resulting from the applica- tion of knowledge gained by professional experience as to what is best adapted for sea-service, particularly during war, he considers that the civilian element ought to be more largely introduced, and that less of the Navy (particularly of the Admiralty) should • sit on these Committees. I disagree in toto. One might just as well be asked to believe it wise to call in the advice of the greatest racehorse-trainer in England to give his opinion as to whether the composition of a Daimler or a Napier motor-car was best adapted for general purposes. For my part, considering that the Board of Admiralty are not required by statute or otherwise to call in any opinion from outsiders, so to speak, in any matter connected with or appertaining to the Navy, I consider it a grand innovation that they should have broken through the antiquated red-tape principle of "the Board of Admiralty, and nothing but the Board of Admiralty," by calling in the opinions of some of the finest junior officers of the Service, of up-to-date qualifications, and of younger blood. There are few civilians who would not have been nonplussed in this society, and who would not have retarded ultimate decision owing to their unfortunate want of knowledge of the A B C of the subject.
" Civis " thinks undue haste was evinced in presenting the 'Dreadnought' to the country ; that the First Sea Lord, as President of so many Committees, added to his multifarious duties, could not have weighed matters sufficiently. Well, does he consider the 'Dreadnought' a failure ? Does be consider the redistribution of fleets—all self-supporting, with near bases—a failure ? Does be consider it a failure to have succeeded in forming four fleets that can be mobilised for immediate action in less than three days ? Does he think it a failure to have rid the Service of vessels useless for fighting purposes, that wasted money yearly in repairs and in the upkeep of antiquated dockyards abroad, that would not hold a toothpick, and that were more or less useless even in the days of Benbow, and cost the country Heaven knows what ? Is the new scheme of education and training of young officers a failure ? It certainly has not matured as yet, but it will ; it is growing well and growing fast. The 'Dreadnought' is not only a pronounced success, but her success has so paralysed foreign navies that they have cried " Halt !" to all battleship- building. This has put us a year ahead already ! and all honour to those of the Committee of experts who have pre- sented us with this new child, the envy of the world.
It is not my province as a naval man to compare this Board of Admiralty with any other. I have never known one that has not succeeded in keeping bp the Navy in the highest
state of efficiency. We have only to look back to history to find that these scares of false economy owe their origin to the fact of politics and vote-catching being the order of the day. But I assert at once, with long experience of the Navy, that the excellent work performed by the Admiralty since Lord Selborne's reign up to date has never been surpassed, and I think it adverse to the interests of the Service for civilians, and still more for a few naval officers, to be constantly pin- pricking details of Admiralty administration. Our fleets were never in a better state of preparation, the ratio of efficiency of
our officers is incomparably higher, and the training and conduct of the bluejacket are far superior.
One word more. " Civis " tells us that many authorities on naval matters "urge the necessity, while there is yet time, for thorough examination of the Admiralty machinery by impartial authorities," &c., &c. Good heavens ! Who are to be these impartial authorities ? Is the first shoemaker that comes along to show my tailor how to cut my clothes ?—I am, Sir, V. A. MONTAGU (Admiral). 43 Rutland Gate, S.W.
[If Admiral Montagu will read "Civis's " fifth letter, pub- lished to-day, be will, we think, admit that " Civis," whoever he may be, is at any rate no ignorant landsman whose criticisms of the details of naval policy are not worth con- sidering.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
