The debate on the Navy Estimates was resumed in the
House of Commons on Monday. Replying to criticisms of Mr. Robertson, Mr. Pretyman defended the Admiralty against the charge of extravagance, on the ground that expenditure on repairs on ships which were now to be laid up might have been quite justifiable at the time when the repairs were effected, and corrected his own statement that one hundred and sixty vessels had been withdrawn from "the fighting line " ; he should have said "from ships in use and in com- mission," as many of those withdrawn had not been regarded for some time as fighting ships. As to the redistribu- tion of the Fleet, he contended that the mobility and homo- geneous speed of squadrons enabled them to command a very much larger area without a multiplication of bases. Replying to the criticisms of Sir John Colomb and others as to the redistribution of duties at the Admiralty,
he held that undue importance had been attached to the change. The idea had been to relieve the First Sea Lord of detailed duties which could be performed as well by other officials. We may note that the Times on Wednesday, in a long leading article, holds that in face of the Orders in Council, and the immemorial usage and administrative methods of the Admiralty, the First Sea Lord cannot usurp an independent authority over business not originally assigned to him, unless he can find "a colleague who is abject, a First Lord who is supine, and a Board which is both."
Previous page
