TOPICS OF THE DAY.
BRITISH SHIPBUILDING.
'THE statement by the First Lord of the Admiralty in the House of Commons on Tuesday was delivered in a more optimistic manner than the facts warranted. It is most important that public opinion should be kept carefully in- formed upon this subject, for truly none is more vitally important. It is an ironical fact that though we are the chief seafaring nation of the world, and beyond dispute the most accomplished in the craft of seamanship, the realities of naval life are hidden from us because they are generally beyond the horizon. Let us deal first with the unquestion- ably satisfactory side of Sir Eric Geddes's statement. The German ` U '-boats, as all the evidence testifies, are being hunted and hounded about the seas and are being destroyed in ever-increasing numbers. The nature of all the ingenuities and dodges by which the fertile brains of our seamen are circumventing German submarines may not yet be made known, but when they are made known the nation will be astonished. Never before in the history of Great Britain have practical and daring adventurers joined their talents with such good effect to the imagination and resources of men of science. Our own conviction is that the crews of the U '-boats will fail before the shipbuilding resources of the German yards are exhausted. The moral of the German crews is not, and of course could not be, what it was. Professional gossip among the seafaring population of any country is more intense and more significant, because it is more closely related to questions of life and death, than the gossip of any other portion of the population. The gossip that this or that submarine went out on such-and-such a date and has never since been reported must fill the major part of the conver- sation in every German port. No doubt it was for this reason that the German Admiralty arranged, as they are reported to have done, that ' U '-boats should not return to the port from which they sailed.
It was a wonderfully interesting story of vicissitudes which Sir Eric Geddes told. Early in the war we rejected the plan of convoying merchant vessels for what then seemed to be an excellent reason. The speed of a convoy is necessarily the speed of the slowest ship, and it was pointed out that a slow-moving convoy would present an easy target to German torpedoes. But the gradual arming of our merchantmen and the increase in the number of our escorting ships soon changed the conditions. Convoying became the rule. It was found that ' U '-boats hesitated to attack the convoys, which could bring a heavy gunfire to bear from a bewildering variety of angles—gunfire not only from the destroyers but from the merchantmen themselves. Moreover, the convoy system had this advantage, that if the ` U '-boats wanted to sink vessels they had to come to the convoys • thus our ships of war were to a large extent saved the trouble of looking for the 'Ti '-boats. The development of this system almost emptied the deep seas of German submarines and drove them inshore to look for their prey. For a time they relied upon torpedoing vessels quite near our coasts. According to Sir Eric Geddes's latest statement, however, the scene has once again changed. The coastal patrols—the development of which, largely by amateur seamen, has been one of the finest events in recent naval warfare—and the steady searching out of the ' U '-boats by seaplanes and airships, have tended to drive the -German submarine out to sea again. Although it is not permissible to go much into detail, every one has read of the successful use of depth charges. Moreover, the exits of the German submarines from the North Sea have been greatly curtailed by the new huge minefields. The mere construction of the enormous number of mines which are now used has been a labour of years.
Altogether, it seems safe to assume that the German sub- marines are now being destroyed as fast as they can be built, and very likely faster. Nothing in war, however, can be alleged as certain, and if every possible precaution is not taken to ensure ourselves against new discoveries and new methods on the part of the Germans we may yet fail. In a word, our only adequate insurance is the utmost output of merchant vessels which we can possibly compass. The amount of parallel construction of ships of war must of course be left to the Admiralty ; that is a secret with which we cannot deal ; but it is obvious that if our merchant navy is not maintained it will be an empty honour for the Navy to hold command of comparatively deserted seas. " Deserted seas " we say, but we mean of course deserted only by British merchant vessels. We shall look at the matter without apology directly from the British point of view. Sir Eric Geddes told a flattering tale by drawing attention to the fact that the total world.shipbuilding—that is, the construction of all Allied and neutral nations—is in excess of the number of sinkings. That of course is good ' • it mewls that the Germans are definitely failing. But what if success is bought at the price of extinguishing, or at all events crippling, for a generation the pride, the glory, and the prop of British com- merce, which is our Mercantile Marine ? Sir Erie Geddes said that a year ago the net loss of Allied and neutral tonnage which circumstances compelled us to presume was 550,000 tons gross per month. Of that figure 400,000 tons were British. In the last quarter, ended June 30th, that loss of world tonnage had been converted into a net gain of 100,000 tons per month. Simultaneously the British net loss had been reduced to 90,000 tons per month. The figures emphasize what has been already said—the prospect, though good for the world, is bad for Great Britain. The mighty effort of the United States in building merchantmen cannot be praised too highly, nor can we be too grateful for it. But the very goodwill and helpfulness of America combined with the force of circumstances may none the less tend to create a situation for Great Britain that requires the most careful thought. If Great Britain, as the most experienced producer of ships of war in the world, is called upon, and of course quite rightly called upon, to pay more attention than any other of the Allies to building ships of war, we shall find that we shall emerge from the war in a very different position from that which we held at the beginning. The solution of this very difficult and delicate problem depends upon ourselves and upon nobody else. Our Allies, and particularly the United States, are doing exactly what they are asked to do, and what the emergency requires of them. But are we being fair and just to ourselves / Are those responsible for merchant-ship building here screwing up the output of the yards to the. highest possible point ? Are the wisest and the most fruitful methods being adopted ? Are the workers being informed that their objections to labour-saving devices, such as pneu- matic riveters, threaten to destroy the basis of their live- lihood ? These are questions to which doubtful answers must be given even after all the reassuring facts in Sir Eric Geddes's statement have been read and appreciated. Sir Eric Geddes said that during the last twelve months thirty-five thousand additional men had been employed in our shipyards as com- pared with the original estimate. Nevertheless we see that construction is not overtaking destruction. According to the ideal set out by the Admiralty, 160,000 tons a month ought to be built on the merchant slipways. During the past six months only two months have yielded that figure. Yet the thing can be done, for in May nearly 200,000 tons were built. Sir Eric Geddes defended the policy of the National Yards at some length. Our readers may remember the objections to the National Yards which we repeatedly raised several months ago. ' •The National Yards were to be run with the labour of German prisoners and of our soldiers, and were to use starts fabricated in the bridge-building works not far away. Our objections were that the yards had virtually to be created out of the void ; that all the plait for them had to be made, and that this implied the diversion of skilled labour ; and that there was not enough labour and material to satisfy even the demands of the private yards. In fine, we argued that the only sound policy was to provide the labour and the materials for the private yards first, and to consider the ques- tion of the National Yards when that had been done. Many existing private yards were capable, and no doubt still are capable, of extension. Of course, it must be understood that the policy of building fabricated or standard ships in National Yards which have first of all to be created may be justified over a long period. In such an undertaking as this rapid output cannot be expected. It all depends upon how long a view one is taking of the business of shipbuilding. For the purpose of producing ships quickly enough to defeat the German submarine threat of a year ago the policy of the standard yards seemed to us to be a policy of madness. Sir Eric Geddes, however, ardently defended the scheme as good in itself, and he was able to bring to his support the opinion of Lord Pirrie, who is now responsible for merchant-ship building. At one time X4ord Pirrie appeared to have aban- doned the National Yards, but he has evidently now firmly made up his mind in the contrary direction. The work is to go on, though we cannot gather from the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that the private yards even now have anything like the labour they need. In the circum- stances we can only wait on events. Lord Pirrie is a highly experienced- shipbuilder, and it is only fair to trust within reason, the man in command. We hope that events may . justify him, though it cannot be said that the justification is to be found in Sir Eric Geddes's speech. One thing to be said for the National Yards is that, inasmuch as they take a long view, they may help to save our position after the war. In our belief, if the greatest possible freedom and encourage- ment are given to the private shipbuilders they will somehow or other save the situation. It was they out of their boundless enthusiasm and skill who built up our tremendous carrying trade. Unless they are thwarted they will certainly be true to their traditions. Such sentiments as were expressed by - Sir Alfred Booth at the recent meeting of the Cunard Company deserve a word of praise. He pointed out how owners of tramp steamers often sell their vessels in order to get the tremendous prices of these days and go out of the business of shipowning altogether. The great British lines, however, have to keep on building at whatever cost if they put the exist- ence of British institutions before the mere shovelling of money into shareholders' pockets. Criticizing the proposal that the profits of the company should be distributed rather than reinvested in ships at present, he said :— " There is only one logical answer to. this question, and yet you know already, without my telling you, that we are going to do the very thmg which logic and common-sense condemn. But, then, in the really important things in life we never submit to the guidance of pure reason. Another factor—call it sentiment, patriotism, or what you will—comes into play, and there is very little use arguing about it. Each one of us, when he became a shareholder in the Cunard Company, assumed a liability for the maintenance of the company as a shipowning concern."
That is well said, and it is the spirit that will save us if we recognize both the extent and the delicacy of the difficulties ahead of us.
Previous page
