The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1912. BRITAIN'S NAVAL POWER.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1387, 13 March 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1912. BRITAIN'S NAVAL POWER.

The little book published towards the end of January in which Lohd Charles Beresford pleaded for a more assured naval supremacy met with a rather unfavourable reception. This was not to be wondered at, since he called it The Betrayal and specifically or inferentially accused all the Admiralty authorities and every First Lord from 1902 to 1909 of betraying the interests of the Empire by starving the Navy. Such an indictment set out with characteristic downrightness was bound to antagonise all parties. The Timet handsomely acknowledges the author's patriotism and entire- sincerity, but adds' that "to accept his indictment as proven would be to deny those qualities altogether to all who have held office and responsibility at the Admiralty since 1902, and virtually to declare that they ought one and all to be impeached, together with the statesmen of both parties who have trusted them." But, as the Saturday Review points out, this is not argurnent._ Even if the Admiralty had consistently carried out a continuous policy (which, in some important particulars, it has not), the Admiralty is not infallible. Lord Charles Beresford has raised specific points and these points should be discussed on their merits. Ho has said that the personnel of the Navy is insufficient, that the twoPower standard has been mistakenly abandoned, that the organisation for war direction is defective, that there are not enough cruisers and docks, and that the system of naval education is faulty. He has admitted that "since the end of the period of maladministration" an honest attempt has been made to remedy the mistakes, but he still thinks it necessary to expose in detail evils which, he insists, have gone too deep for palliatives and half-measures. In regard tp the question of manning, he says that ''the key of the policy of economy pursued by the Admiralty from 1901 to 1909 was (he determination to save money by reducing the personnel," and "that, deficiency'will continue in spito of the belated efforts of the authorities

hastily to remedy it, until there exists a War Staff which shall be competent to decide for what purposes the men are required, how many are required, and how they should be distributed." It must be hoped that the War Staff which Mr. Winston Uhuuchul, the new First Lord of the Admiralty, has promised to create will satisfy Lord Charles Bkueseord's ideal requirements. In that case, not only will undernianning probably be at an end, but he will no longer have cause to complain of defective organisation for war direction, and some of the other counts in his indictment of the Admiralty will doubtless lose their force. It is acknowledged, even by The. Times, that "Lord Charles Beresford has done excellent service, now bearing tardy fruit, in his long and strenuous insistence on the need for a War Staff at the Admiralty." The abandonment of the two-Power standard has been admitted, but the Liberals justify it by their formula tha,t "armaments follow policy." They hold that friendship with France and Russia, and even the hopes of a better understanding with Germany may rightly justify reduction of the Naval Estimates. The Estimates, however, as cabled last Monday, are only a million sterling less than last year—£43,250,000 as against £44,392,500, and if Germany carries out her supposed intention to increase her building programme, the Admiralty will build two shins to any single one which Germany builds above the number specified in her present Navy Law. Here again, the gallant Admiral's demands may be found to have been largely conceded. Summarising his complaint as to the smallness of the number of cruisers, he states that, whereas, in 1903, there were _GO small cruisers on foreign stations. there are now only 23, and this reduction constitutes a gravo danger to the trade routes. He points out that the Declaration of London by lessening the restraints upon privateering would greatly increase that danger, but fortunately the House of Lords, by refusing to ratify the Declaration, has at least given the Government and the nation further time to consider the protests which have been made bymany besides the author of The. Betrayal. The Admiralty, it is understood, takes the view that th r safety of the trade routes (which of course involves the food supply of Britain and the trade of the Dominions in time of war) is assured not so much by the direct method of patrolling as by the general naval supremacy which rests largely on the power and number of battleships. Lord Charles Beresford, on the other hand, insists that "the heavy armoured ships depend for .their utility upon their complementary units. Deprived, as they are, of these, they are a present to th> enemy." The layman can only be astonished at such differences of opinion among the experts. There appears to be but too much foundation for the gallant author's criticisms of the present system for the training of officers. He regards this as the most important count in the indictment, as it is upon the officers that the whole efficiency of the fleet depends. "The scheme of 1902, altered in 1904," he says, "is proving utterly impracticable, If the fleet is not to be left gravely deficient in marine and engineer officers, measures must at once be taken to remedy the fatal defects of the existing system." The Times replies that the naval education scheme must now be regarded as a chose jur/ee, but the qualifying clause, "subject to such modifications as time and experience may suggest," almost gives a\v„ay the case for the defence. And, according to the Saturday Review, Admiral Sir. Edward Seymour and the Navy as a whole are dissatisfied with the scheme, and the last Admiralty Board, which took it over from its predecessor, showed no signs of ap proval. What is virtually a defence of the Admiralty against some of the strictures of Lord Charles Beresford (though his name is hot mentioned) appears in the February number of the Financial Review of Reviews over the signature of Mr. Alan Burooyne, M.P., who is most widel; known as the compiler of the A r «i» League Annual. He gives a scric of very interesting tables to show that whether considered in relation to the area of territory, the number of people, or the amount of merchant shipping, to be protected, the British Navy is by far the cheapest in the world, and that the relatively small amount of Imperial funds assigned to naval defence is spent to far better advantage than the Naval budget of any other nation. Apparently, Lord Charles Beresford has compared British naval administration with his ideal, instead of with the record of other countries, but whatever of undue severity there may be in his strictures, he deserves to be congratulated on his continued efforts to keep the British people awake to the supreme importance of their power on the seas.