Mav TO, i<)i7 
LAND & WATER 
The Naval Crisis 
By Arthur Pollen 
FOR the fnurtli time since the beginning of liostilitics, 
both the constitution and tlie personnel of the Higher 
Command of the Britisli Fleet are now in dispnte. 
This is a crisis on the right nltimate solution of which 
tJie progress of the war and hence the attainment of the 
object we have in view must, to a very great extent, depend. 
I say itUimale and not immediate, because the problem is 
higlily complicated, men are about to be tried in new duties, 
and many of the issues are very obscure, it is far from likely, 
therefore, that we shall rest content with whatever reforms 
and changes are made in the present emergency. 
It is unofficially as.serted that the Prime Minister and the 
First Lord of the Admiraltj^ have been jointly occupied in 
giving their personal attention to the reorganisation of 
Whitehall, that extensive alterations of the system are to be 
carried out, and that considerable and important changes 
are to be made liy ptitting officers, now at sea, either into 
new posts to be created, or into posts now occupied, where 
fresh experience and a new outlook are needed. It is also 
stated that these impending changes will put everything right 
and secure the carrying out of a more vigorous and effective 
nayal policy. So momentous are the issues that it is 
devoutly to be hoped that the expectation raised for us 
by these anonymous communications may be realised. But 
we do not know either the general character or any details 
of the proposed reforms, so that no criticism of them is now 
])ossible. They may be communicated to the public before 
these lines appear. It may be they will be [communicated 
iirst to the House of Commons at the secret session which 
is to take place on the day of publication of this article. 
Perhaps, therefore, the only useful thing one can do is to 
sketch, very b4eily, the sequence of events that has led to 
the present situation. 
On the 19th of last month — ^when I wrote the last article 
of mine that has appeared in this journal — the enemy's sub- 
marine campaign had persisted for over ten weeks at a very 
disconcerting level of efficiency. There were slight variations 
from week to week, but over the whole period we had been 
losing ships at an average of twenty-four a week, while four- 
teen more were the subjects of unsuccessful attack. We were 
not informed either of the total tonnage that was lost, nor 
of the number of ships that were injured without being sunk, 
nor yet of the losses incurred by neutral shipping — so that 
we were entirely uninformed as to the net deduction from 
our carrying power. It was not indeed until last week that 
the figures, given by the Aftenfost, of the Norwegian losses 
were published in tliis country'. From this it appeared that 
during. March and April this single neutral had lost sixty-six 
in the first and seventy ships in the second month. On the 
average, then, Norway was losing seventeen ships a week. 
If the ratio of unsuccessful attacks on Norwegian ships was 
the same as on British, there may have been twelve or thirteen 
weekly. Thus, in addition to the thirty-eight weekly attacks 
■n British ships, there would be thirty on Norwegian, giving 
;in aggregate of over nine a day. This takes no account 
' ither of Allied ships or of those belonging to other neutrals. 
The situation, then, on April 19th, even without knowledge 
as to neutrals, was clearly serious. That the effectiveness of 
the enemy campaign had been multiplied at least by three 
since November 30th, when the present Board of Admiralty 
was appointed, seemed to justify me in the opinion I then 
expressed in the following words : 
" The chiefs of the greatest navy in the world have simply 
failed in so crucial, yet elementary', a duty as protecting 
the sea-borne commerce of a sea-girt people." 
I then went on to state that we had followed a wrong prin- 
riple in changing the personnel of our chief command on 
three occasions during the war, without in any way bringing 
, the system of Admiralty administration into closer harmony 
with the principles that ought to underline the constitution 
of any authority engaged in the direction of fighting forces. 
In our next issue — that of April 26th— there appeared 
a contribution from " Flag Officer," the writer of which, 
after expressing a general endorsement of the opinions ex- 
pressed by me, both in the article I have just quoted and in 
the contributions to these pages during the last few months, 
went on to elaborate the theory that, unless the militar\' 
direction of the fleet in war, and the training and preparing of 
it for war. were completely divorced from the civil admini- 
stration, it was quite impo.ssiblc that those fighting objective:^ 
for which the fleet is brought into being could be obtainerl. 
Simultaneously with the publication of this letter, it was 
announced that the rate of destruction of British ships had 
doubled in the preceding week. Whatever justifica<^on there 
was, therefore, for saying on April 19th that our Higher 
Command had failed, was greatly reinforced when it was 
known that such far graver results had followed from it. It is 
not surprising, therefore, that "Flag Officer's" letter was 
extensively quoted in the press, led to discussions of a most 
interesting character in the Times and elsewhere, and brought 
on a crisis in the administering of the Navy. 
From these discussions my own contribution — intended 
for publication here last week — was excluded by the Chief 
Censor on the ground that it would " prejudice the discipline 
and administration of His Majesty's Naval I'orces ..." 
and be " detrimental to the best interests of the State and an 
encouragement to our enemies." If this were really likely to 
have been the quite unintentional results of a frank statement 
of my opinions, I cannot pretend to regret the article's sup- 
pression. But it is obvious that all adverse criticism of naval 
and military policy is open in a greater or less degree to the 
TPhe King's Proclamation to " Our loving subjects, 
the men and women of Our realm" states that 
the abstention from all unnecessary consumption of 
grain will furnish the surest means of defeating the 
devices of the King's enemies. 
By most careful and economic use of all kinds 
of grain, the country may last out until the 
harvest. But it behoves each and all of us to see that 
this economy is in constant practice in the home. 
This personal duty we owe to our King and Country. 
It is a small return to our gallant sailors and soldiers 
to consent of our own free will to this abstinence. 
Let us make no mistake, Germany is rejoicing that 
the British islands are within sight of starvation. 
There can be no truth in this belief, if at once, while 
there is time, we so alter our manner of living that 
the consumption of grain in ahy form be diminished- 
The duty is one that cannot be delegated ; we a|l 
have to discharge it personally — men. women and 
children. It were cowardly to dodge it. 
Every influence should be brought to bear to 
awaken in all people a sense of patriotism. 
objection that it undermines authority, and encourages the 
foe. Where a critic believes the constituted authorit}' to be 
acting both on a •system and on a theory altogether mistaken, 
and sees no hope of altering either by argument, simply 
because its action is the expression of convictions which are 
unalterable — theii it is almost his professed purpose to shake 
confidence, so as to obtain a more efficient authority in the place 
of that which he undermines. And it is equally obvious that 
it is exactly at this point that the Government of tlie day must 
decide whether it is right or wrong to allow coartroversy of 
this kind to go forward. In the present case, the decision is 
against my promulgating my opinions. Consequently, I 
propose to-ckay to put forward in this matter no judgment of 
my own, but simply to summarise those opinions that have 
been exprefssed either on previous occasions by me or by 
others, in these columns or elsewhere. 
During the last fortnight many speeches have been delivered 
on the situation, notably by Lord Curzon, by the Prime 
Minister -and by General Smuts. The King has issued a 
proclama,tion urging economy in breadstuffs ; the first Lord 
of the Acbniralty has written an important letter to repre- 
sentatives of \arious shipbuilding interesta. The points 
