To TER EDITOR OF TER "SPECTATOR.'] Six, — The views which Sir
George Lambert expressed in his letter published in your issue of January 12th are well known. They have been published repeatedly in the Times and else- where when discussions have arisen in regard to the constitu- tion and working of the Board of Admiralty ; the other side has been represented by writers as experienced and well informed; and it has been explained that in practice the "whole responsibility for the Navy" has not been "in the hands of a civilian" First Lord at any other period in the same sense that it was under Mr. Childers. My statement obviously was intended to convey that idea and no other. It did not raise or discuss the question of absolute agreement between modern Admiralty administration and the Admiralty patent, Sir George Lambert will agree that others beside himself possess a knowledge of the history of the subject, and are entitled to form their own opinions. An admirable discussion of the question will be found in Sir Vesey Hamilton's little book on "Naval Administration."
Messrs. Chapman and Hall in the same issue of the Spectator write at some length respecting my allusion to the pamphlet entitled "The Truth about the Navy." They allege, and doubtless have been informed by the author, that "the matter [in that pamphlet] is drawn from official publica- tions issued in this country and in Germany, and where other matter is introduced its source is indicated." They explain that the pamphlet was issued " because the public do not read Blue-books." As one of those few people who do read Blue-books dealing with naval subjects, I reaffirm my statement that this pamphlet " contains much detailed information not previously published in regard to Admiralty plans and intentions respecting the distribu- tion and manning of the Fleet and other subjects on which criticism has arisen," and that "it is rich in facts and figures apparently drawn from official archives." These features are apparent throughout the pamphlet, but are especially illustrated in the chapter dealing with the naval position in 1907 and the constitution of the Home Fleet. About the time when the pamphlet appeared official informa- tion was repeatedly refused when questions were asked in Parliament ; but in the pamphlet particulars were given which have since been shown to be accurate by subsequent official announcements. Many other illustrations of "inspiration" might be given, but they are unnecessary. It would occupy your• space unreasonably to reply to the comments made by Messrs. Chapman and Hall on my "reflections as to the authorship of the pamphlet." My remarks were not made hastily or with any personal feeling ; they dealt with an objectionable method of procedure which has been followed extensively during the last two years, and ought to be ended.
Previous page
