12 
LANU . & WATER 
.M,ay 17, ..19^7 
is not to close to decisive huh ranges because some of the; 
ships may bo hit by torpedoe**. ' Of wJiaf' jisc is' a greatly ; 
superior fleet if no part ol it is to be risked when the decisive ^ 
moment arrives ? 
" On these salient facts, /'s Ihcrc not reasonahre" ground- 
to believe Hint the directing naval minds during recent years 
have not been imbued laith true conceptions of war, and that 
our present dilliculties are tmceable to that' cause ? Is it 
likely that any chan)-;es in the mechanism of the administration 
uill be of any avail so loni; as the controlling minds believe 
that, even under circumstances fa\()ural)le to victory, the 
safety of our ships is mure important than the destruction of 
the f/KTwy.-'" Admiral Sir Reginald Custance in the 
Times on May 7th. 
THE PRESS 
" Wliijf not necessarily agreeing with all his \ui«>, wc have 
long been nmch impressed with Mr. I'oUens argument lor the 
reorganisation of the Admiralty anil the formation of a proper 
General Staff there, and we notice an endorsement of it by a 
■ Flag OHicer ' in this week's l.ASD & Water which inerits 
special attention in the circmnstances." — Nciv Statesman, 
April -'isth. . ' 
■• It is conceivable that rio other administrative order 
than that wliich at present rules within the Admiralty would 
liave succeeded ; but the present order has failed. A writer 
in Land & Water, apparently exceedingly well infornicd, 
suggests that there is room for a far more scientific division 
of functions among the Sea Lords and the civilian members 
than is at present practised." — Daily Naas leading article, 
JVpril 27th 
" The bare statement of these facts is enough to prove that 
the constitution of the War Staff Ciroup is essentially defective. 
It is saturated with oHice routine and book-knowledge, but 
it knows relatively nothing by experience of the actual condi- 
tions of modern warfare, and although the First Sea Lord is 
an exception, his only action, and his own subsequent com- 
ments upon it prove that it tiiay not be advisable to have at the 
supreme head of a fighting service an officer who, through 
past experience, is necessarlfy imbued above all things with 
the supreme care of materiel born of years of work as an officer 
of supply — work which in itself militates against tlie study 
of war and a realisation and acceptance of the risks that must 
be run if victory is to be achieved." — Truth, May 2nd. 
" We venture to say that this action (the suppression of Mr. 
Pollen's article by the Censor) will excite the most profound 
dissatisfaction in every tlmuglitful mind. Mr. Pollen is beyond 
all ciuestion the best and the ablest writer on naval matters 
not only in this country-but^in all the Allied coimtries. His 
reputation is hardly second to that of the late Admiral Mahan. 
Throughout the war he has consistently expounded the views 
of the Senior Service. He has in our view gone too far in his 
fidelity to the official hierarchy, and in his effort to represent 
everything that has been done or left undone in the most 
favourable light."— S/ar leading article. May 3rd. 
W hy may not Mr. Pollen say, with or without variations, 
what "so many of us have already said ? The only answer 
that I can see to that question is that he went a good deal 
beyond everybody else in dotting his i's and crossing his t's. 
Not content to confine himself to abstract principles of 
administration, he pointed out that various episodes in the 
present war, which the public has been taught to regard as 
glorious victories, have really e.xemplified the vicious results 
of the system wliich he condemns. He impeached a " school " 
which has grown up at Whitehall under the present system ; 
he did not except the First Sea Lord from his criticism ; and 
he insisted that we must not only reform the constitution of 
the Admiralty, but sweep away a " dynasty " in the Russian 
manner. Now all this may sound like sedition in the ears of the 
mandarins ; but it is rather a large order that they should 
take upon themselves to decree that nothing of this nature 
may be uttered in war time. — Scrutator in Truth May.g^th. 
DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT— May ^ti 
Mr. G. Lambert : It seems to me that the Admi^a^'t^y'arc 
showing too great a sensitiveness to criticism. They supp'rt'ilsed , 
or the Censor suppressed, an article in Land & VVater^ think 
it was in last week's issue. I have had the privilege of r&adrng 
that article, and although I disagree with Mr. Pollen, ^%o 
wrote it, there is not one single word in that article wlu^ is 
not inspired by the most patriotic sentiments. It ,is Said 
that to publish this article would give encouragement ^to our 
enemies. I hardly agree, but 1 do say that it exposes the 
Admiralty to the charge of trying to suppress criticisni of 
their owii action when they censor an article like Mr. Pollen's, 
which was inspired only with a desire to spur the Admiralty 
on to greater exertions. 
Mr. Hoiston,: It would lie tlic irony of fate if we, the 
greatest 'iuiyab and-' maritime Power in the world, should be 
winning tlie war on lancl'aiid be* checkmated on the sea, 
and by reason of one branch of naval architecture of which 
the irountry had warning. 
Mr. Houston : The submarine \wi\\ ought to have been 
seen, and was seen. W liy, then, was it not dealt with ? 
liecause the .\dmiralty was in a state of somnolence or sleeping 
sickness for a considerable period. I know a good deal wliich 
1 dare not say, but I would like to know many things iu 
connection with the A<hniralty that were in existence there 
when the |)resenl I'iist Lord went there. 
CoM.MANDiR Kki.i.airs : 1 Would venture to say tp the 
ni)resentatives of the Adniiralt\' that they must not Jlie too 
intolerant towards critics. After all, Mr. Pollen is a very 
responsible critic, aiul he is, in my judgment, one of the best 
informed critics, if not the best informed critic, in, the public 
Press to-Uay. Now that naval officers themselves are- prc- 
.\ented from criticising, and prevented from discussing things 
in public, we caiuiot too much encourage' critics of the calibre 
of Mr. Pollen. 
Mr. Princ.le : An article was writen by Mr. Pollen, a very 
distinguished naval expert, who, 1 think, has written oif 
naval affairs every week continutmsly from the beginning of 
tlie war. He has contributed to many publications, and I 
think he lias established with the publiv, generally, a reputa- 
tion for sobriety and soundness of criticism to which few 
military or naval experts can lay claim. W'cll, one of his 
usual articles was sent to Land 6i Wati;r last week, and the 
right to publish it was refused by the .\dmiralty. We do not 
know the precise grounds ; wc know that this was an article 
criticising the Admiralty administration. We know that 
criticism was ex.pressed in very strong terms. I think the 
article stated — 1 have not seen the article, but I am so told-— 
that the situation in regard to the Admiiralty had become so 
serious, that it was now a question whether the army would 
be able to win the war before the navy lost it. That has 
been said in other periodicals. There is a good deal of justi- 
fication for such a statement. Undoubtedly the inaction 
and negligence of- those at present responsible for the 
Admiralty was subjected to very .seve^fe criticism. What is 
the .situation ? This article was submitted precisely. td the 
people who were, criticised. They naturally decided that the 
criticism was unjustifiable, that it might cause alarm and 
disquiet in the. country and possibly that it would give 
information to our enemies. Apparently these were the 
grounds on which publication was refused. 
We require stjme more detailed defence than has yet been 
given. The country is not at all satisfied with regard to the 
record of the Admiralty in respect to publicity in the past. 
Dr. M.uwamara : I deny any suggestion that we use the 
censorship because we do not want to be criticised. 
Mr. Holt : Do I understand that the Admiralty would 
object to an article which does not show that an officer holding 
-a high naval command is professionally incompetent ? 
Dr. M.\cnamara : The only objection we should take to 
criticism wou.ld 'be based on a sense of public duty. I noticed 
fliat that observation was a source of considerable merriment 
to my hon. Friend. 
Mr. Holt : Yes. 
Dr. M.\cnam.ar,\ : Well, leave it at that! This particular 
article was not in any way one the purpose of which was not 
to attack the civil authorities. The chief Censor came to the 
conclusion deliberately that its publication would be calcu- 
lated to prejudice discipline, and the First Lord fully and 
completely concurred, and gave his view — which I have already 
stated to the House — considering that it would certainly be 
not less calculated to encourage the enemy. That its author, 
like all of us, was patriotically minded, I have no doubt. 
That the last thing he desired to do was to encourage the 
enemy, I have no doubt. 
THE SEQUEL 
On Monday, May 14th, it was announced that Sir John ■ 
Jcllicoe, First Sea Lord, was to have the additional title of 
Chief of the Naval Staff, that Vice- Admiral Sir Henry Oliver 
was to join the Board of Admiralty as Deputy Chief, and 
Rear-Admiral Alexander Duff as Assistant Chief of the Naval 
Staff. Major-General Sir Eric Geddes was to become a 'Vice- 
.\dmiral and Controller of the Navy ; Rear-Admiral Halsey, 
Third Sea Lord and Rear-Admiral Hugh Tothill, Fourth Sea 
Lord. The object of these changes was twofold. The first 
is to free the b'irst Sea Lord and heads of the naval Staff 
" as far as possible for administrative work " so that they 
may concentrate their attention on the naval conduct of the 
war. The second object is to prd^^idc a naval parallel to the 
Ministry of Munition^. Tlie significance of these changes is 
commented on bv Mr. Pollen in his article to-dav- 
