We have, in a former article,[1] referred to these works of Mr Childers, and alluded to their pernicious effect upon the navy. When taxed with them, during a recent debate in the House of Commons, that right honourable gentleman excused himself in a manner which will not add to his reputation as a statesman. He said that when he took office as First Lord of the Admiralty he found that the practice already existed; that the naval members did not consider themselves responsible; that they acted only as the assistants and advisers of the First Lord, who for some time past had taken all the responsibility on himself; and that by his orders in Council he only confirmed what he found already existing.
Here then we have the spectacle of a very worthy civilian, assumed for some reasons or other to be a statesman, who finding himself suddenly placed at the head of that great and ancient service, upon which (according to the preamble to the Naval Discipline Act) "the wealth, safety, and strength of the kingdom chiefly depends," discovers that during long years of naval peace a certain practice has crept into the administration of that service, a practice contrary to the spirit and letter of the Act upon which its administration is founded. And what does he do?
Instead of using his influence to correct this error; instead of insisting that the combatant officers of a Board appointed to rule over a combatant and very technical service, shall resume without loss of time that responsibility of which they had gradually been deprived, and which during more urgent times, and under the influence of wiser councils, the nation had deliberately intrusted to them, – this so-called statesman gets an Order in Council to confirm and make legal this lapse of trained professional government, and puts it all into the hands of a civilian – himself, to wit. And then, by way of accentuating his act, he hoists his flag as Lord High Admiral, and proceeds to sea in command of a fleet, to the amusement of the whole naval service.
Sir Arthur Hood was no doubt technically quite correct in saying that "it was not his duty to form an opinion as to the requirements of the country;" and it is well that his views on. the subject have been brought to light; for the country could scarcely have been previously aware of the true state of the case, or have imagined that the Board of Admiralty was not a Board at all, but only a number of assistants to a party politician, who has to trim his sails to catch the popular vote of the hour upon all sorts of irrelevant questions.
We see to-day the present First Lord of the Admiralty (in spite of a very large extra shipbuilding vote asked for by his predecessor) forced to acknowledge that the navy is inadequate for the defence of the country and the protection of its commerce, but resorting to the old, old practice of laying all the blame at the doors of previous Boards of Admiralty, and saying that if the country will only leave him alone, and give him time to carry out his own views as to how a navy should be provided, he will, at some future date not specially mentioned, provide it with a navy worthy of its proud position. Why, we have heard all this before – several times before; and each successive First
- ↑ "Our Naval Policy," 'Maga,' April 1888.
