XI.

Report of the Committee on the French

Navy Estimates for 1889.

By M. GERVILLE-RÉACHE, Member of the Chamber of Deputies.

I.

The Credits demanded by the Naval Department with a view to Navy Estiprovide for the Expenditure of the Fleet in 1889 are as follows:

The proposed Expenditure for 1889 shows an excess over the previous year amounting to £229,256.

The Votes proposed for the year 1889 show an excess over the Expenditure upon the Navy in the most prosperous years. Deducting the War Expenditure, the Votes for the Navy were as follows:

mates for 1889.

The Commission on the Navy Estimates invited the attention of the Minister of Marine to the increasing scale of expenditure in his Department, as proposed in the Scheme submitted to Parliament.

The Minister stated in reply that the Commission investigated his Estimates from a different point of view from that which he himself occupied. While he aimed to make good the maritime defences of the country, it was the primary aim of the Commission to effect economies in the spending Department.

If we may draw any inference from the debates which have from

Position of the First

Lord of the Ad

England.

time to time taken place in Parliament on the subject of the Navy since the July Government, there is reason to fear that successive Ministers of Marine have shown a comparative indifference with respect to their administrative duties. The responsibility for this state of things does not rest wholly with Ministers; it lies rather with the legislative authority, which has never devoted serious attention to the due distribution of official duties and functions.

The English Legislature has been more far-seeing, and has determined with precision the duties of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the authority with which he is invested. The fundamental law miralty in which establishes the appropriate functions of the office of First Lord is set out in an old Table dating from the fourteenth century. In this document it is stated, "That the Ministers are to direct and to superintend their departments, and to deal with all the political and administrative questions connected with their office. They are responsible for promotions, the award of honorary distinctions, the appointment of civil functionaries, the selection of officers to command ships and squadrons; and they are charged with the conservation of the river Mersey." This distribution of duties, maintained in all particulars save the last mentioned down to our own day, was further developed by arrangements explained by Lord Beaconsfield in the House of Commons on the 13th March, 1876, on the occasion of a debate on the Estimates.

Lord

Beacons

field's explanations.

Position of

the Mini

sters of

Marine in

France.

The noble Lord spoke as follows:-" The Minister of Marine is responsible to Parliament for the amounts voted under the Naval Estimates. He deals with all political and administrative questions connected with the Fleet. He is responsible for the distribution of squadrons and ships, and for all the decisions which may from time to time be taken in connection with this subject. He is responsible for the good management of dockyards and storehouses, in which are employed from fifteen to twenty thousand men. It is his duty to take care that the money voted by Parliament shall be expended as profitably and economically as possible."

It results from this enumeration that in England the main duties of the First Lord of the Admiralty are of an administrative character. In France, the ministerial functions, not having been fixed with precision by an Act of Parliament, have been variously exercised according to the temperament and the personal tastes of successive Ministers. In France, where the rule is different from that which obtains in England, the French Ministers of Marine, holding a high rank in the Navy, have been naturally disposed to consider themselves as commanders-in-chief of the forces afloat.

the French

One Minister, relying on his knowledge of naval architecture, has Results of taken upon himself duties which properly belong to the Council of system. Construction. Another, with equal confidence in his own professional knowledge, has pronounced authoritatively on some question of naval tactics, without caring to consult his naval advisers.

Thus it has happened that the unity and consistency of view which might have been secured by boards of experts sitting permanently has been more or less lost from the changeable and sometimes contradictory views of successive Ministers. The result has been to lay increasing burdens upon the Treasury, without any corresponding advantage to the Navy.

This idea that the Minister is the chief of the Navy is a cherished tradition in the Sea-service. The treatise on the Administration of the Navy, written by Commissary-General Fournier, defines the Minister of Marine as "the Chief, the superior officer, in the hierarchy of the Navy." It is evident that this conception is unconstitutional. The Minister of Marine is no more the Chief of the Sea-service than is the Minister of War the Chief of the Army. The one and the other are nothing more than the administrators of their respective Departments. As the head both of the Army and of the Navy, the Chief of the State can delegate his power of command either to the Minister, as the administrative head, or to the Commander-in-Chief. Instances are not wanting of the results which may follow from the false conception which has been entertained.

A che

rished tra

dition.

1870.

In 1870, the then Minister of Marine being desirous of taking What hapthe chief command of the squadron sent to the North Sea, the pened in movements of ships in the Port of Cherbourg were most seriously hampered, while the vessels of the German Navy were able with impunity to leave the coasts of England and to return to the Baltic Ports.

We see the consequences of the theory to which we have referred in the excessive concentration of the control of naval affairs in Paris, and in the weakening of the responsibilities which properly belong to the Boards of technical advisers.

tive Board

cessary.

In our view, it is desirable to go further on the lines upon which Consultathe Department has already begun to move. The proper duties of Admiwhich belong to each individual must be clearly defined and firmly ralty neinsisted upon. It is necessary to have a strong permanent staff for the careful study of naval questions. It is necessary to have a consultative Board at the Admiralty to which every Legislative proposal, every measure relating to the naval defences of France, or

Statement of mismanagement.

the organisation of any branch of the service, should be referred. It is necessary to have a Minister to deal with the resources placed at his disposal by the Parliament, with the view to combine in the highest attainable measure economy with efficiency.

Reorganised on the lines thus suggested, the Department will certainly make the expenditure of the Estimates more effective, and will command more readily that mutual confidence which it is so necessary to maintain between the administrative services and the Parliament.

The fact that the Ministers have treated their administrative duties as of secondary importance has had prejudicial consequences on the conduct of the naval affairs. Genius has not unfrequently been displayed in initiating improvements in organisation. In all branches of the service men of exceptional ability have been found. In the practical execution of duties many failures have been seen. There has been want of system in the negotiation of contracts, and a laxity in their performance. We have seen efforts made to spend all the money voted by the Houses of Parliament with the most reckless indifference as to the result. We have seen an excessive accumulation and consequent deterioration of stores, and a defective organisation of labour in the ports. Estimates have been imperfectly prepared, and the accounts of Expenditure have been inaccurate. We shall give proof of the assertions we make by quoting facts. This done, we shall examine the relative position of the French Fleet side by side with the principal navies of Europe. We shall examine the organisation of the naval defences of France. We shall compare the Estimates of the French and foreign navies.

[N.B.-Lengthy sections of the Report are here omitted dealing with the mode of putting out ships to contract, with the undue anxiety to spend fully all the money voted for the Navy in Parliament, the excessive accumulation and deterioration of stores, the defective organisation of labour in the dockyards, and with other kindred subjects. The faults with which French naval administration is charged are similar in kind to those of which we hear in England. We have certainly nothing to lose by a comparison of results with France.]

II.

COMPARISON OF THE FRENCH FLEET WITH THE PRINCIPAL FLEETS
OF EUROPE.

[N.B.-See pp. 66 et seq. of the French Official Report.]

Attention must not be confined to the administrative questions which have been considered in the previous section of this report. The necessary standard of strength for our fleet, and the condition of our maritime defence generally, are subjects of yet more grave importance.

Parlia

We shall not attempt to reconstruct the very complete table Lord Charles presented to the House of Commons on the 17th May, 1886, on the Beresmotion of Lord Charles Beresford, giving a detailed enumeration of ford's the fleets of England, France, Russia, Italy, Austria, and Germany. mentary It will, however, be useful to put before the country a comparison of the principal navies of Europe, with a view to establish the necessity for the heavy burdens laid upon the taxpayer for the maintenance of the fleet.

Return.

quire

The standard of strength which it would seem desirable to maintain French for the French Navy should be such as to make our fleet equal in Navy renumbers to the two most powerful navies of continental Europe, ments. observing that in England it is considered necessary to maintain a fleet superior to a combination of any two of the Continental navies. Unhappily we are very far below the standard we have laid down for ourselves. Our weakness is to be attributed partly to the misuse of resources, to which we have already called attention, and partly to the limitation upon naval expenditure, to which we are bound to submit in view of the more urgent necessity for strengthening our army.

England possesses at the present time 383 vessels, completed and capable of rendering service with the fleet. France has 191 ships; Russia, 185; Italy, 152; Germany, 139; Austria, 84, with 3 vessels in process of being built. The total numbers which we have given may be classified as in table on p. 628.

to the list

and com

We have to complete the table by adding vessels building and Additions completing. To a certain extent, though by no means sufficiently, of ships the work in progress will fill up the gaps and deficiencies in building our list of ships. The vessels in course of construction are 93 in pleting. France, 44 in Italy, 31 in England, 27 in Germany, 8 in Russia, 7 in Austria. Some doubt exists as to the accuracy of the figures