THE NAVAL TRIBUNAL.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 99, 28 April 1909, Page 4

THE NAVAL TRIBUNAL.

The announcement that the Britisti Cabinet has appointed a sub-committee to enquire into the disposition and organisation of the Home Fleet is a significant indication of the profound uneasiness which still troubles the public mind weeks after the so-called naval "panic" reached its climax. We were told on Saturday last that the Prime Minister had informed the House of Commons that a statement regarding naval readiness in ■Home waters had been presented to him •by Lord Charles Bcresford, and was about to be considered by the Committee of Imperial (Defence. Now we are told that an enquiry, which, must in part cover the same ground, is to bo undei taken by a committee of the Cabinet. This duplication of , the enquiry enhances the wonder of the course upon which the Cabinet has decided. The 'Committee of Imperial Defence, which is a standing committee of advice upon all the broad issues of naval and military policy, was clearly a proper authority to consult upon the question raised by Lord Charles ißeresford's memorandum. It was also right that the Cabinet upon which the responsibility of accepting or rejecting the advice must ultimately fall, should take whatever other steps it thought proper for testing the soundness of the advice which the expert tribunal might submit. But is it not a remarkable constitutional innovation that the Cabinet should not merely delegate a similar question to a committee of its own members, but should also make a public announcement of the roterence, and should even publish the names? In constitutional theory the Cabinet is ono and undivided, and in its relations with the outer political world the theory is pretty faithfully observed, but the theory cannot long survive such innovations as this. Having heard of the reference and of the referees, the public will surely be entitled to know — and whether entitled or not, it will surely get to know — the decision at which they arrive. And if tho subsequent action of the Cabinet itself is inconsistent with that decision, what will have become of the doctrine of the secrecy and unity of the Cabinet? The fiction of unity can only bo maintained by the reality of secrecy, but both seem to be imperilled by the strange procedure in tho present case. The personnel of the committee is at any rate calculated to inspire confidence. The main thing is that Mr. Winston Churchill is not in it. Next to him, Mr. Lloyd-George is probably the most dangerous member of the Cabinet irom the standpoint of the two-Power standard, and he also remains outside. The three strongest Imperialists in the Cabinet — Mr. Asquith, Sir Edward Grey, and Mr. Haldane — form a three-fifths majority of the committee. Of the other two members Lord Crewe is by no means a Little-Englander, and Lord Morley, by his admirable administration of India, has almost rid himself of the same reproach. Officially, no less than personally, the choice is, subject to one reservation, excellent. Representatives of India and the Colonies in the Cabinet are joined with the Premier, the Foreign Minister, and the Minister for War to form the committee. The surprising feature is the omission of Mr. M'Kenna, the one Minister whose department is specially and primarily concerned. Is it lor that very reason? Has he committed himself too inevocabiy to the policy which it is desired lo revise ? The position is a curious one, and the Government must not be surprised if the enquiry is regarded by many outsiders as implying some want of confidence by the Cabinet in their own First Lord of the Admiralty. As to Lord Charles Beresiord himself, it is gratifying to observe that, despite his trouble with the Admiralty, he is comporting himself with tho dignity and candour befitting an office* and a gentleihuh, Us hua mudu v temccmte etule* j

ment to the Parliamentary Navy Committee, in which he repeats his wellknown distrust of the policy of concentrating on Dreadnoughts. As commodore of the little Condor he once gave a striking proof of the value of a small ship, and it will be interesting to see what effect his protest against orthodox doctrine will now have