§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Croydon)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the statement made by his predecessor in his Memorandum issued 23rd February, 1907, and confirmed by him in his speech of 1st May of the same year, in which it was laid down that, as the Fleets at Home will be combined for war under the order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet, the Channel, Atlantic, and Home Fleets will carry out periodic peace exercises together under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet, still holds good; whether the command of the combined Fleets has at any time been entrusted to the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum, and, if not, why not; and whether the practice of withholding from the officer who will command in war the opportunity of commanding in peace the force with which he will be entrusted in time of war is followed in any country except our own.
§ MR. MCKENNAThe present Board have not renewed, and do not regard 958 themselves as bound by, the statement referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The command of the combined fleets was entrusted to the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet in October, 1907.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not the fact that on the occasion when the Commander-in-Chief took over his command a large proportion of the vessels was under the command of somebody else. He also asked the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the last part of his Question.
§ MR. MCKENNAIn the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question it is assumed as a fact that in other countries in every case all the ships which would be placed under the command of the Commander-in-Chief in time of war are, in fact, placed under his command in time of peace. I do not agree with that assumption. I can only refer to the most recent case of a serious war when, as a matter of fact, the Japanese Admiral was superseded by Admiral Togo when war was considered imminent.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered either of my questions. May I ask him whether it is the fact that, when the Commander-in-Chief nominally received command of the whole force, half the force was under the command of somebody else, and whether, as he has quoted an illustration, the Commander-in-Chief of the German North Sea Fleet in time of peace is not the Commander-in-Chief in the event of war?
§ MR. MCKENNAI have no knowledge of who will command in the event of war in the case of the German Fleet. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's other question, the statement I have made that the combined Fleets were placed under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet in October, 1907, is strictly accurate.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERMay I ask for an answer to my question whether, when the vessels were nominally placed 959 under the command of the Commander-in-Chief, he was deprived of the command of half of them?
§ MR. MCKENNAHe may have been deprived of command of them for a time, but the whole of the ships were placed under his command on mobilisation.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)For how long?
§ MR. MCKENNAI cannot say without notice.
§ MR. BELLAIRS (Lynn Regis)asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had informed the Commander-in-Chief that the present Board were not bound by the specific declaration made by a previous Board, and, furthermore, whether he would state to the House why the official request of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet to be allowed to exercise this Fleet last August was refused by the Admiralty.
§ MR. MCKENNAThe hon. Gentleman's second Question does not arise out of the Question on the Paper, and, as it would involve matters of considerable discussion I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give me notice. With regard to his first Question, the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet has been informed that the statement referred to was not adhered to.