NAVAL NOTES

Evening Star, Issue 14525, 29 November 1910, Page 3

NAVAL NOTES

[coxtributto «* the navy league, Otaqo Branch.] IMPERHL MOTHER. imperial Mother, from, whose breasts We drank as babes the pride whereby We question ev"n thine own behests, And judge the© with no flinching eye;— Oft slow to hear when thou dost call, Oft vext with a divided will, , When once a rival seeks thy fall ' We are thy sens and daughters still. The love that halts, tho faith that veers, Ate then deep sank as in tho Sea: The Sea where thou must brook no peers, And halve with none thy sovereignty. —William Watson. Mx Robert Blatchford, in a letter in the •'Daily Mail' headed "The Greatest Issue of All," contends that tho Navy is neglected and that the position in the North Sea is precarious. He 6ays the Germans have the strategical advantages of a fortified coast, naval bases, Dreadnought docks, and a superiority in destroyers.—Cable message, November 24. "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge '/"—Job xxxv iii., 2. LORD "CHARLEY'S" OPEN LETTERS. Lord Charles Beresford, that splendkl sailor, 16 hardly a success as a controversialist. He means well, ho knows what he wants, and every word and act have as their mainspring tho honor and glory of the Empire he loves and for which he has wrought so well. But he has fallen among the politicians, and ho has come to associate an adequate policy of Imperial defence with a party whose pitiful record was so glaringly and disastrously disclosed at the opening of tho Beer War. So from time to tiiuo wo have rousing speeches, denunciatory orations, and open letters, with, generally speaking, somewhat humiliating results to the gallant admiral. What ho promised tlu Portsmouth, electors last January—thereby winning his seat by a record majority and tho well-meant but utterly uncritical congratulations of hundreds of peoplo tho Empire over—amid a tornado of cheering, was a number of " bombs," that were to bo thrown by himself into tho camp of tho enemy—i.e., tho Government. Lord Charles kept his word. The bomta wcro duly thrown, but, in the words of a by no means unfriendly commentator, they proved to be "damp flquibs." Neither in his address to tho liondon Chamber of Commerco nor before tho Committee of Inquiry, nor from His place in Parliament, nor in his last two cpen 'ctters to tho Prime Minister has ho " made good " the more serious of Ids ailogatione. —Assertions, without Proof.— Tn his two September letters to Mr Asquith he affirmed: Jl) "Tho year 1913-14 would mark tho critical moment, because if the country is to bo fully equal to tho contingencies which will then arise due preparations must be begun immediately." 'lhese "contingencies" wcro that Germany will then havo twenty-one Dreadnought ships at sea, Italy four, and Austria-Hun gary four, making twenty-nine for the Triple Alliance, while Great Britain would have but twenty-five. (2) " That, owing to tho wrongheadedness of tho Government in delaying to lay down the ships of this year's programme till the early months of rext year, the resources of the country will not be equal to the task of building and ?rming a further big programme by, 6ay, the autumn of 1913." (3) "Tho admitted superiority in heavy ehips (of Great Britain, that is, which superiority be has been laboring to deny) is largely neutralised by the lack of men, of stores, of docks, or" cruisers, and of torpedo craft, with all of ■which tho Germany Navy is admirably equipped." —Answers, with Proof.— "Quivis" (who is probably that brilliant but virulent Tory journalist Mr Garvin) Answers in detail each of the above assertions in an open letter in the 'Observer' for October 2. Of the first ho says: As to Germany, you are right. As to the other two Powers, you are almost certainly wrong. None of the text books to which you appeal support yon. Of the Italian* Dreadnoughts, tho most that is anticipated is that three may be completed by tho end of 1913. As regards the Austrian ships, Mr Alan Burgoyi..— an accepted authority—says in last year's 'Navy League Annual': "Superhuman efforts might conceivably 'complete a squadron of four ships by tho spring of 1914" As a matter of fact, although ono or two of these shqis have apparently been begun, the Delations have not yet provided the first instalment of their cost. Of tho second ha writes : Tho ordinary text books do not support your fear. I find there aro eleven firms which usually undertake Government contracts for large armored ships. There aro also the Royal Dockyards .at Portsmouth and Devoriport, which will havo ships building under the eutrent programme. Threu private yards will be similarly employed. There remain, therefore, eight yards avadable to undertake work under the programme of 1911. Eight ships can bo begun as soon as the vote is passed—let us say, in July. —The Personal Equation.— And of tho third he says, in part:— The alleged scarcity of stores T will not touch. You failed to prove it before the Committee of Inquiry. . . . I am not, however, prepared to admit that Sir Arthur Wilson, Sir Francis Bridgeman, Sir John Jollicoe. and others aro traitors for whom hanging at tho modern equivalent of the yard-arm is too good. . . . Concerning docks, tho "ordinary text books" show that, apart from tho uncompleted works at Roeyth and the two floating docks which are building, we have twenty-four capable of taking a Dreadnought, as against ten possessed by Germany. . . . But what puzzles me most is your reference to tho men. Tho whole of our commissioned Fleet, including the Third Division of tho Home Fleet and the torpedo flotillas, is fully manned with long-sarviceseamen and marines. . . . The German Hochsee Flotte is to a great extent a training squadron, manned with three-year conscripts, of whom one-third pass each year into the reserve. No one has professed himself a more enthusiastic admirer of the con-tinuous-service seaman that havo you; and no one has been better served by him. Do you now mean to allege that he is inferior to his German short-service lirother? Or do yon merely mean that Gemiany is in a better position to man and mobilise her ships? If that were true, which it is not, it would only mean that Germany has far fewer ships to man and mobilise, and tho balance would still be in our favor. —Mr Blatchiord's Alarm.— Tho ' Observer's'_ retort to Lord Charles Beresford also anticipates the only reply that can be given to Mr Blatchford. On the imperious need that exists to keep the country informed of the urgency of the problem of defence and of compelling reluctant politicians to toe the line we are at one with the editor of the ' Clarion.' But when he asserts that the Navy is neglected and that the position in tho North Sea is precarious and that Germany has all the strategical advantages of a fortified coast, naval bases, Dreadnought docks, and superiority in destroyers, he but repeats Lord Charles Beresford's open-letter charges, which have been shown to have no substantial foundation. He also brings upon himself the further accusation that the First Sea Lord and other Lords of the Admiralty are traitors for whom hanging is too good. (Mr Maxse, of the 'National Review, by the way, was the author of even wilder and sillier ravings during Admiral Fisher's regime.) Inferentially he further affirms that the British Navy, including ships and men, is inferior to that of Germany—which is the veriest nonsense. What is wanted to-day quite as much as more ships and more men is some faith and confidence in those we already have. British seamanship is not what Mr Blatchford implies it is; on the contrary, there is nothing in the world to-day to surpass it. Ut veniant omnes! This more aptly reflects the truth of the position, and

that in no spirit of vainglory or of empty boasting. THE NAVY LEAGUE'S POLICY. On the 12th October last the Executive Committee of the Navy Leaguo adopted tho following resolutions as embodying the policy of the League:—(l) To advocate the laying down as a minimum of two capital ships to evory one commenced by the next strongest naval Power, and the maintenance of the proper complement of men, vessels of other classes, stores, and armaments. (2) To recommend that the expenditure bo met by a naval loan if it should prove to be neceesary to adopt that course. (3) To advocate immediately a national system of training in seamanship open to all classes of the population with a view to augmenting tho naval reserve of the country. THE LEAGUE AND THE ADMIRALTY. 'The Navy' for October, which number also inaugurates a brighter, lighter, more attractively got-up journal, puts the fac's of the case in relation to the Admiralty pertinently and well. There is no noisy and disreputable mud-flinging in the organ of the Navy League. Its faets and its arguments are stated with moderation and courtesy. Mr Blachford would do woll tc study them. Tho editor writes : Tlie Admiralty is working for an allsuflicient Navy, which shad be the safeguard that we need. Therefore, if we adopt tho two-keels-to-one standard, ivc are certainly not exceeding tho wishes of the Admiralty, as we have very good reason to know. It is by educating the people to a realisation of this fact that we shall do good work. If we attack tho Board of Admiralty we under mine its authority and diminish its influence upon the Government, and at the same time we undermine also the spirit of discipline in tho service. As Lord Barham 'of the Board of Admiralty in Nelson's c;iy) said, truo economy is to do and provide everything that is practicable ('nnng peace, while money is cheap and wo have leisure to attend to it. Want of appreciation of that fact is certainly not found at the Admiralty. What the Navy League has, therefore, to do is to advocate and enforce the strong naval policy which tho Admiralty has in view. The Government must be made to understand that public opinion is behind its naval advisers, and is not doubling either their patriotism or their judgment. To bring about this desirable state of affairs it is urgently necessary to pursue energetically the work of educating public opinion.