THE NAVY-YESTERDAY AND TO-DAY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 59, 3 April 1909, Page 4

THE NAVY-YESTERDAY AND TO-DAY.

. LEAVES KKO.M A LIKE OX THE OCEAN WAVE. (By Admirul the Hon. Sir Edmund Fremantle, C.L'.li., K.C.8., J.IM To the young middy of the present day who has reason to dread th e ordeal of an examination, the somewhat informal manner in which I joined tile Royal Xavy should commend itself. 1 went to \\ ooiwich, which was then a dockyard, with my uncle, a captain in tne Itoyai Xavy, as i understood, siuiply to "join the Xavy." During the journey from town I was rather siartled Dy my ' unc-J e saying something about au "examination," for it had never struck me that it would be accessary to pass one. 1 began to wonder in what subjects I should be examined, when my uncle relieved my mind by saying, "Can you write English dictation, and do you know the rule of three if" 1 asserted confidently enough that 1 could. "Then, Eddy," said he, "I think you will pass." And he was right. SIMPLE SL'ilS FOR JACK. The maiter of the Admiralty yacht, tins .black Eagle, conducted my examination in a very simple manner. He gave me a few lines ol dictation, and asked me to solve tile following problem, which he was pleased to call the rule of three:

"If a yard of cloth costs Is 4d, how much will three yards cost 1" And so I paused my examination with flying colors! Oi course, this simple method of entering the Navy no longer exists; 1 am speaking of fifty years ago, and during my fifty years of service 1 saw many cnaages take place. The first ship 1 served iu was the Queen, a three-decker, of 110 guns, Hagship of Sir William Parker. In those early days a battleship often had to stay in harbor weeks, ancl even months, after commissioning, owing to the ditliculties of getting her manned and fitted out. It was the common custom to advertise for men by means of placards at various recruiting-stations—or "rendezvous," as they were called. Here is a spA'iluen of a placard which had obtained some notoriety in my early days: "Wanted, for H.M.S. Grampus, fiftyguns, Captain H. B. Martin (not Fly J, fitting out for the Pacific Station, petty Officers andaab e seamen.—Apply." THE "FLY" ADMIRAL.

Xow, by the "not Fly" hangs a tale. Captain H. B. Martin was the brother ot that distinguished officer, Sir William Martin, who was subsequently Comman-der-in-Chief in the Mediterranean and Plymouth, and did so much for discipline and system in the Xavy. But at that time Jack generally looked for a ship known as a "happy ship"—that is, one in which the discipline was far from strict. Now, Sir William had the reputation of being a martinet, and, indeed, was generally known in the Service at "Fly Martin," hence the words in the placard, "not Fly," an artless device to attract a quick entry; but it led, I believe, to a coolness for some time between the two brothers.

Nowadays, of course, thc discipline in every ship in the Xavy is of a pretty level character; but at the time I am writing of neither the Admiralty nor the admirals interfered much with the interior economy of ships, as tliey do at present; in one the discipline might be very severe, whilst in another there might be no discipline at all. Both conditions were equally bad for the Service.

In 1851 we were anchored in Uosas Bay, on the coast of Spain, with tlie squadron. I had been asked to breakfast with the admiral at 8.30, and, as "top midshipman," I had to go into the maintop when yards were being crossed. The -weather was rather warm, and the rigging had been blacked down not long betore; 60, in a weak moment, I put, on a pair of old white kid gloves to keep my hands clean. As I went aloft before thu men, I heard our captain, "Charley Wise, hailing in th e usual way, "Main rigging, there!" which at first I did not think applied to nie; so I took no notice till the hail was' repeated in rather an angry torn*-, then I looked down, on which Charley Wise shouted, ''Take those <1 d things off!'' I at once saw in what my offence consisted, and promptly took off my kid gloves and threw' them overboard, by * which I think I purged my offence; but I fear my hands were not very clean whea I sat down at the admiral's table. PROMOTION BY MERIT.

- One of the most important steps in my career was when I became Haglieutenant to mv uncle, Sir Charles Fremantle. To the uninitiated it will lie well to explain about flag-lieutenancies. At that time it was a rule in the Service that any admiral, on striking 3iis

Hag, was allowed a haul-down vacancy—'i.e., the right to claim a promotion to commander. This was usually given to the flag-lieutenant—often a relation. Frequently, no doubt, the young oflicer so promoted had no merit, and his promotion was a gross injustice to better men. On the other hand, his early promotion was often a strong incentive to a young officer to qualify for high command. I may mention that such distinguished men as Sir Geoffrey Hornby, Lord Alcester, and the present Lord Charles Beresford all owed their early promotion to liauling-down vacancies. Tlie custom, however, has been —and rightly, I think—abolished. Whilst on this subject, 1 may say that I entirely disagree with the distinguished naval officer who once remarked that success in the Navy was one-third interest and two-thirds luck. There is, of course, such a thing ae interest iu tlie Navy, but not anything like as much as there was thirty or forty years ago; and no doubt there is an dement of luck in achieving rapid promotion in the Xavy, but not more than there is in achieving rapid advancement in any other profession. I should certainly say that success in the Navy is mainly won br| sheer merit. j

Iu 1885 the development or the tor-pedo-boat created a tremendous stir in the naval world. Many experts thought that cumbersome ironclads were doomed and would only in future be used as depots for torpedoes, a theory strongly advocated by that brilliant French waiter, M. Gabriel Charm e*. strongly was this notion held by many people in this country that Mr. ShawLefevre, now Lord Eardley, moved, in 1880, in the House of Commons, that the construction of the Xile and Trafalgar, then recently commenced, should be suspended. The motion, which was supported by several naval officers in the House, was opposed by Mr. Ilibbert. the then Secretary of the Admiralty: but he admitted that they were probably the last two ironclads we should ever build. OVER-ESTIMATED SUBMARINES.

I did not take this view of the situation at all, but in one or two magazine article strongly maintained that, though the new departure would of necessity modify tactics, we should continue to build even larger ironclads: aud I have had the satisfaction since of seeing my views generally adopted by all nations. Just in the same way. I hold that, though in the submarine the big ship has nowadays an even more dangerous rival, the power of the subhiarißc is really much magnified in public estimation. This' remark may even be applied to airships and aeroplanes. One popular improvement in the regulations of the modern Navy is the arrangement which enables the men to either draw their pay monthly or to dispose of it as it becomes due. Xow a man can either "allot" to his wite, or other person, a portion of his pay every month, Or lie can e ve n huy postal orders from the paymaster, so that no one need know to whom he is sending the anoney. Or, again, Jack can, if he -wishes, put his money, as it becomes due, into the savings bank on board, leaving it to accumulate there at interest, ready to be drawn out at short notice. Prior to these beneficial arrangements, a sailor had to wait for most of his pav until the ship was paid off.

Comparing the new Navy with tli»ld, 1 have said that much has been changed, but modem ideas are leavened bv the old spirit. The graift traditions of the past, Of devotion to the Service, zeal, energy, and self-sacrifice remain. Duty is,- in the main, acknowledged to have the first claim, ami neither officers nor men are given to growling at any sudden call to service, however inconvenient or hazardous. HALF-PAY GRIEVANCE. With officers it is just the same. The old sen dog no longer exists. But there is a higher general level of intelligence snil conduct: while the modern Service k far more strenuous WW than it was .ii my early days, a-.ul demands a man's whole capacities. The fine real grievance in the Navy to-day is half-pav. Half-pay is a peculi- ■ nritv of the British Navy. To this day. nn offieer. in paying-off his ship, is placed on lialf-pav. after a short period of "full-pav leave.'' and this applies lo 4 officers of even lieutenant'* rank. Tn no other Navv but our own does such a jyatem east,' If ft change in European

polities made a big reduction in our t naval force possible, a large percentage of the eighteen hundred lieutenants n"w mostly employed on full-pay would liii'l themselves placed on a nominal halfpay of four shillings a day. Half-pay is not only a grievance; it directly militates against clliciracy, and is simply a relic of the tini s when the Navy was more a militia than a regular Service.— "Answers." SHALL BRITANNIA RULE? THE CIEIiJIAN MENACE. POSITION IX THREE YEARS' TIME. The danger of the naval position was put very clearly hv a writer in the National Review in July of last year, as follows: "No diplomacy, however skilful, is a reliable substitute for national strength. The nation, who depends on the assistance of other nations is a nation in decay. There is great and growing anxiety concerning the future of our sea-power. Apart from the continuing mischief caused by the autocracy of Sir John Fisher, who regards the lleet as his private and particular preserve, ami exercises hin enormous patronage exclusively for his own purposes—incidentally establishing a tremendous hold over all politicians, jourmilistis, and "agitators" with relations iu the service—■ this year is admitted to be a critical year in the. history of British shipbuilding. The Naval Estimates to be adopted in the autumn will largely determine our naval anil national future. The Admiralty is now face to face with the fruits of the cheeseparing policy pursued since 1004; because, though it may suit political partisan s to ascribe our present plight exclusively to His Majesty's present Ministers, we should in fairness remember that the late Government invented Sir John Fisher, made him 'boss' of the Admiralty, and initiated those perilous raids on'the Estimates whidi have simply acted as so many incentives to German ambition. The infantile idea that if w.' set a good exam'ple by disarming, other Powers would follow suit, has been eom'pletely exploded for all time by the German reply, which has taken the form of increasing German expenditure by about as manyi millions as we have knocked off ours; this year Germany has adopted and is executing our discarded Cawdor programme of four big armored ships, while our programme lias sunk to two. The combined results of British contraction, ami German expansion were graphically shown in th* table recently given bv the Berlin correspondent of'the Westminster Gazette, who pan safely be discounted as an atermfet, seeing that for years he has made it his business to minimise the German menace and to ridicule the apprehensions of those who have treated it seriously. We make no apology for again reproducingt'liis highly instructive table. 'Let. us agree,' he says, 'that the date March, 1912, must lie constantly kept in view bv the British public; by the end of 11)12 England must again, be in\a position of overwhelmingly superiority oil. the sea, as .slie now is. li.'t me uut'the question plainly as follows, not counting in the 1!)0!) programme :- In 1900 Britain will hsive completed: 7 Dreadnoughts plus 3 Dreadnoughttype cruisers i.e., 10 Dread-nought-type bigi ships. Germany will have: 1 Dreadnought. In 191 ft Britain will haw: ; 10 Dreadn'ought-type big ships. Germany will have: . 1 D plus 3 Ds plus 1 Dreadnoughttype cruiser, which equals 5 Dreadnouglit-ty'pe ships. In 1911 Britain will have: I mOre Dreadnought —i.e., 11 Dread-nought-type ships. Germany will have: I D plus 3 Ds plus 3Ds plus 1. Dreud-nought-typo cruis-jr, equal 8 Dreadnought-type ship 6. In 1912, by the end of February, not counting the 1909 programme, Britain will have: II Dreadnought-type ships —i.e., S Dreadnoughts, 3 Dreadnought'type cruisers; to which we shall add the Agamemnon and Lord Nelson. Bv March, 1912, Gi'rni'any will have: "l D plus 3 Ds plus 3 Ds plus 3 Ds pins 1 DC plus 1 DC plus 1 DC. 'which equals 10 Dreadnoughts, J Dreadnought-type cruisers i.e.. 13 Dreadnouglit-type ships.

'That is to say, within four years, on present programmes, the so-called -Mistress of the .Seas will possess 11 vessels of the Dreadnought type to Germany's 13.'

"From these incontestable facts the writer iuvlted Englishmen to draw the inevitable inference. 'From the above sketch British taxpayers will eonclu.ie that they cannot avoid a building programing in 1909 of not than six Dreadnought*, provided that the programmes of other nation* remain the same; and there is so far no sign of a modification thvreiu. Taking the price of Dreadnoughts into account, it is hardly likely that the British Naval Estimates for next year can. Ik* much less than 41 millions of pounds/ As our reader* are aw,are, it in not only Dreadnoughts that are wanting. There is. indeed, a. very able school of naval experts who condemn the whole Dreadnought development, and would revert to a smaller type of battleship, as being less costly and more, serviceable. Upon such points we cannot process to decide. But we do know that .almost every the Admiralty in recent years in order to curry favOr with the politicians—repairs, cruisers, destroyers, docks, etc., So much so that, as may be gathered from a valuable article of Sir Kowland Ulennerhassett, in the same review, on: 'Xuval Training and Administration.' the very lirst duty of Mr. Asquith'n Government, in wliich they would be warmly supported bv public opinion, is to institute an enquiry into the present i regime, «ueh as those eminent ex-Sea Lords Sir Frederick Richards and Sir 11. Yesey Hamilton have advised. "In any event." concludes the writer, "'there must Ik* a substantial increase of expenditure next year, unless we are to abandon our naval supremacy in home water*, as we have already abandoned it in remoter oceans."