" COMMAND OF THE SEA."
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—Reading Mr. Churchill's speech to-day reminded me of a story I once heard told, with his inimitable stutter, by the late Professor Sidgwick. He said he had been arguing an ethical point with a theologian, and concluded, "You see the inference is so and so." "Ah," replied the theologian, "the inference may be so, but I don't draw it." Over six weeks have passed since I wrote to you, " By the time you publish this it may be that the call will have come—from the Council at Malta." After six weeks' delay Mr. Churchill has at last spoken. He has stated the problem in language which is plain enough for any one to read, and which gives official confirmation to all that has been said in your columns as to the extreme gravity of the crisis through which the nation is passing. Yet he has deliberately refrained from giving the call. And what, to my mind, is an even more serious sym- ptom of the national decadence, neither Mr. Balfour, who spoke for the Opposition, nor any of the newspapers I have yet seen ventures to take him seriously to task for not doing so.
I would not, however, ask you for space to examine the various excuses Mr. Churchill puts forward for further pro- crastination, if not for something worse ; they are typified in the parable of the young man who said, "I go, Sir," and went not. Almost in the same breath he talks of keeping up a standard of 1.6 to 1 in battleships against Germany, and then says that his proposals will give us a maximum of 41 and a minimum of 33 against the German 29! He tells us that Parliament has already sanctioned an increase of 2,000 men for the Navy, and that he is now asking for 1,500 more, and he adds these numbers up to make a total in- crease of 5,000 ! But it can hardly be these figures which have lulled Mr. Balfour and the Times to rest : indeed, they both expressly disclaim having taken them into considera- tion at all. What is it then P
In my former letter I called attention to the inexpressible
meanness of our national policy, which habitually seeks to form alliances and friendships only in order to shift part of our burden of empire on to the shoulders of our allies or friends. Now, once again, if possible under more discreditable circumstances than ever, we are trying to do the same thing. It appears that the reason that we need not do anything disquieting yet is that " the ever-darkening cloud threaten- ing us from the European side is balanced—may I say even more than balanced P—by the fact that Canada" is going to take part of our burden on herself.
Will not you, Sir, voice a national protest against this dis- graceful policy P I do not raise the question whether anything Canada or the other Dominions could now do would materially affect the present crisis. And, of course, we shall all of us welcome whatever they do decide to do, for its own sake, but even more for the sake of the loyal spirit in which it is offered. Only, so far from making it an excuse to do less ourselves, we should be vying in generous emulation, and increasing our own burdens at least in proportion as they are increas- ing theirs. We may well hope by their co-operation to win greater security for the Empire ; but if we accept it only in order to save our own pockets, or in order to continue in sloth and indiscipline, I shall be ashamed any longer to bear the name of Englishman.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[By a coincidence which is perhaps not really curious, since the point jumps at once to the eyes, Mr. Dixon adopts almost exactly the attitude towards Mr. Churchill's speech which we have adopted in our leading article. His story of Professor Sidgwick is quite excellent, and we wish it had reached us in time to be used by us instead of our less happy simile of Mr. Churchill's great non sequitur. —En. Spectator.]
Previous page
