THE BRITISH NAVY

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 230, 27 March 1912, Page 7

THE BRITISH NAVY

IS OUR NAVY A BROKEN REED? The publication of Lord Charles Beresford's long-expected book, "The Betrayal," will spread a very uneasy feeling among those who wish to think that all is well with the Navy, and have been "sleeping peacefully" on the strength of the assurance given iby Sir John Fisher that the first line of defence is above reproach. Have we really been living in a fool's paradise? If the reading of recent naval policy adopted by Lord Charles Bcresford is correct, we have. So serious, indeed, are the accusations he brings forward that even on his authority one would hesitate to believe that they are nothing more or less than the bitter truth—unless the defence put forward fails to refute his charges. Lord Charles Beresford may, of course, be a mere alarmist, as some of his detractors arc wont to declare, but in "The Betrayal" he makes some very definite statements and raises issues that must be fully answered in Parliament. And the sooner the better. His book, which purports to be a record of facts concerning "Naval Policy and Administration from the year 1902 to the preset time," was suddenly withheld frorr -'blication lastautumn, and the reaso its suspension on that occasion is no" ted to be the existence of a crisis in which the navy was found unprepared.

\ "As the result the First Lord of the Admiralty was removed, the Board of Admiralty was reconstituted, and the formation of a War Staff was announced, and in view of the nature of these events it was decided to suspend the publication of this book during their progress." In his summary Lord Charles states that his facts cannot be .denied, and asks: "What is the conclusion to be drawn from them? I venture to affirm that there is only one conclusion possible. It is that the naval policy of the years 1902 to 1009 was mistaken in every possible particular. From the beginning, the great body of naval opinion held that the new policy was wrong, that it endangered the security of the country and j of the Empire, and that the expense ;of repairing the disastrous effects of a series | of rash, violent and unnecessary experi- [ ments would be immense. Several officers, upon whom fell the disagreeable hut inevitable necessity of expressing to the authorities, in response to official request, views adverse to the policy of the Admiralty, have been placed on halfpay and kept without employment, or their service careers have been summarily terminated. Among them, three offiJ cers would have been ruined by the auth- ' orities for daring to tell the truth when, stt the request of the authorities themselves, they gave evidence with regard to certain matters, had it not been -that ' public opinion intervened in time to save j them from being hunted out of the ser-1 vice."

i These officers, says Lord Charles, were right; the Navy was right, and the authorities' were wrong. Since the end of the period of alleged maladministration, Lord Charles admits that an honest attempt has been made to remedy the evils, but they have, he declares, gone too deep to be cured by palliatives or half-measures. The first steps towards restoration must be to ascertain and understand the full extent of the mischance to be repaired. ' In his view: "First in importance there falls to be considered the education and training of officers, upon whom the whole efficiency of the fleet depends. The scheme of 1902, altered in 1004, 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 force of ships required is the next consideration. I have, of my own personal knowledge, acquired in i commanding fleets in various quarters of the globe, affirmed that . the fleet ! is | gravely deficient in small cruisers and destroyers. Nor can the fleet act effectively so long as the grave deficiencies in coal reserve, in storeß, in docks, are not made up. The lack of proper provision of these items is common knowledge throughout the Navy. The present condition of the trade routes is a national danger. In 1903 there were CO small cruisers placed on foreign stations. Today there are 23. In the interval an event has occurred of the gravest moment to the country. Privateering, abolished by the Declaration of Paris of 1856, has in effect been insidiously revived by the Peace Conference of 1907. There is only one method of securing the safety of the roads of the sua: to station cruisers there on patrol duty. We have, however, thrown away the ships formerly used for that purpose, and a new force is only now beginning slowly to be created. The coaling and repairing stations overseas, which served as naval bases for ships of war on passage and for the cruiser patrols, have been dismantled and their stores have been sold."

And here is the conclusion of the whole matter according to Lord Charles: _ "Wo do not possess a proper organisation for war; the collective responsibility of the Board of Admiralty has been in practice abolished; and until we have a War Staff rightly constituted to organise the Fleet for war, our excellent officers, our skilled crews, and our fine ships are liable to be sacrificed in the most bitter of all sacrifices, that by which nothing is gained; while, what is of less moment—our money may all be spent in vain."