The Naval debate in the House of Lords on Tuesday
was one of the few illuminating discussions which we have had this Session. Both Houses are at their best on a Naval question, and certainly nothing could have been more moderate and statesmanlike than Lord Spencer's speech in moving for papers. He confessed that the growth of expendi- ture on the Fleet in recent years made him uneasy, but he did not ask for reduction, but only for explanation. It would be highly desirable to arrive at some standard of naval strength, some fixed relation towards neighbouring arma- ments. The. two-Power standard was nominally in force, but had actually been exceeded.—Lord Spencer, by the way, attributed this standard to Mr. Cobden, but it was not officially accepted and. announced till comparatively lately, we believe by Lord George Hamilton in 1889.—Further, a naval Power might be strong to-day, and, like Russia, negligible to-morrow, and could also count in all likelihood on allies. He regretted that large sums should have been spent on ships which were now condemned as useless in war, but he congratulated the First Lord on the rearrangement of the Navy, and insisted on tho importance of an adequate Reserve. Lord' Goschen, who followed, argued that the last fifteen years had changed the whole balance of power, and that the two-Power standard could not be regarded as some- thing sacrosanct and final. Our standard must change to meet altered conditions abroad. He approved generally of the Admiralty policy, and indicated certain points in which economy might be possible. The chief thing was the main- tenance of our naval power, and no expenditure was unjusti- fied to secure this end.
Previous page
