Selborne Scheme
The Selborne Scheme (also known as the Selborne-Fisher Scheme) was introduced in 1903 whereby the Royal Navy consolidated initial entry and training for officers of the Military Branch, Engineer Branch and Royal Marine Forces into one Common Entry (by which name the scheme was also known). The scheme was named for the First Lord of the Admiralty of the day, the Earl of Selborne, although the driving force behind the scheme was the Second Sea Lord, Admiral Sir John A. Fisher.
Boys entered as Naval Cadets between the age of 12 and 13 studied for two years at the Royal Naval College, Osborne, two years at Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, and a period in a training cruiser at sea before joining the Fleet as Midshipmen. Officers then could specialise in Engineering or the Marines as a Sub-Lieutenant, or in Engineering as a Lieutenant in the same manner as Gunnery, Torpedo and Navigation. The engineering officers had (E) after their rank to distinguish them from their Engineer Branch counterparts of the old scheme.
As envisaged the officers of the various specialisations were meant to be interchangeable, but it was eventually that this would not be feasible. Separate entry for the Royal Marines ended in 1909 but was reintroduced in 1911. In 1922 selection for engineering specialisation was introduced at the rating of Midshipman, at which point those selected went to the Royal Naval College, Keyham for four years' study. In 1925 engineering again became a separate branch with purple distinction braid between the stripes. (E) officers were compelled to revert to the executive branch or remain.
Main Features
In his memorandum of 16 December, 1902, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Earl of Selborne announced:
It has been decided henceforth—
1. All Officers for the Executive and Engineer branches of the Navy and for the Royal Marines shall enter the Service as Naval Cadets under exactly the same conditions between the ages of 12 and 13;
2. That these Cadets shall be trained on exactly the same system until they shall have passed for the rank of Sub-Lieutenant between the ages of 19 and 20;
3. That at about the age of 20 these Sub-Lieutenants shall be distributed between the three branches of the Service which are essential to the fighting efficiency of the Fleet—the Executive, the Engineer, and the Marine.[1]
Ages of Entry
In the first entry in September, 1903, the limits of age were 12 to 13. For the next entry, January, 1904, the lower limit of age was raised to 12 years and four months.[2] In November, 1913, the lower and upper limits were narrowed to 13 years four months and 13 years eight months respectively.[3]
Interviews
All candidates except Colonial Candidates had "to present himself before a Committee, which will interview each applicant separately".
A system of grading was utilised by the first five committees:[4]
| Category. | Classification. |
|---|---|
| Fit. | α+, α, α- |
| Doubtful, though promising. | β+, β, β- |
| Unsuitable. | γ |
Lord Helmsley, the First Lord's political Private Secretary, thought that in some cases it was too difficult to classify some of the boys using + and - signs, and proposed five classifications A, B, C, D, E, where C represented the average.[5] However, according to Vincent W. Baddeley, Assistant Private Secretary to the First Lord, on the sixth committee which sat in February, 1905: "The present Committee found that so far from having much difficulty in classifying the candidates, it could safely subdivide the large middle or β Class still further".[6]
Entrance Examination
Length of Training
In Selborne's 1902 memorandum it was envisaged that "Cadets will remain under instruction at the Royal Naval College for four years before going to sea".[7]
Reactions
Captain Rosslyn Wemyss of Osborne noted in a 1905 letter to Fisher:
[A] tendency on the part of the parents of some of the cadets at Osborne to hope at least that their sons might never become Lieutenants (E), with no chance of commanding ships or fleets, and I have a suspicion that, that for this reason, they have in some cases even discouraged their sons in their engineering studies.[8]
Speaking before the Douglas Committee in 1906, Admiral Sir Lewis A. Beaumont, Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth, opined:
The fundamental change which has been brought about by the common entry has already disturbed the Service in a great measure, and, speaking for myself, I do not think that it has the good will of the Service generally. I do not mean the common entry alone, but what follows from common entry.[9]
In their minority report on the Douglas Committee, Rear-Admiral Login, Commodore Briggs and Captain Bacon, in opposing the inclusion of the Engineer Branch in the Military Branch, made direct reference to the Selborne Scheme reforms:
As officers in touch with the sea-going Fleets, we would also remind their Lordships that the great changes which have taken place in the Navy during the past two years have created a great feeling of unrest and uncertainty which only loyalty has in a measure recently soothed. It is very undesirable, therefore, to introduce at the present moment any further important changes which are not absolutely necessary.[10]
Results
Executive
The first officer from Osborne promoted to the rank of Captain was Harold T. C. Walker on 31 December, 1931.[11][12]
Engineers
The first 17 officers selected to specialise in engineering were appointed to the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, on 1 October, 1913.[13] The first promotions to the rank of Captain (E) occurred on 30 June, 1936, with the promotion of J. B. Sidgwick and D. C. Ford, who had entered Osborne in January, 1904, and September, 1903, respectively.[14]
Assessment
There can be no doubt that there was strong opposition to the Selborne scheme. However, what Marder termed "objections of a snobbish nature" aside, it is also clear that much opposition was based on incorrect information regarding the scheme. It is all very well for Marder to damn "people who had not informed themselves as to the real nature of the Admiralty scheme",[15] but it suggests a real failure on the part of the Admiralty to present the case for and the details of the Selborne Scheme not only to the public but to the Navy itself.
Footnotes
- ↑ Memorandum Dealing with the Entry, Training, and Employment of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and of the Royal Marines. pp. 3-4.
- ↑ Report of the Director of Naval Education, for the Year 1904. p. 4.
- ↑ The Navy List, Corrected to the 18th March, 1914. pp. 856-861.
- ↑ Selection of Candidates for Nomination as Naval Cadets: Reports of Members of the Interview Committees. p. 5. Selection of Candidates for Nomination as Naval Cadets: Further Reports of Members of the Interview Committees. p. 12.
- ↑ Selection of Candidates for Nomination as Naval Cadets: Further Reports of Members of the Interview Committees. p. 12.
- ↑ Selection of Candidates for Nomination as Naval Cadets: Further Reports of Members of the Interview Committees. p. 17.
- ↑ Memorandum Dealing with the Entry, Training, and Employment of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and of the Royal Marines. p. 4.
- ↑ Quoted in Marder. p. 47.
- ↑ Douglas Committee Report. ADM 116/832. p. 127.
- ↑ Douglas Committee Report. ADM 116/862. pp. 43-44.
- ↑ "Royal Navy" (Official Appointments and Notices). The Times. Friday, 1 January, 1932. Issue 46019, col B, p. 16.
- ↑ "Royal Navy" (Official Appointments and Notices). The Times. Thursday, 14 January, 1932. Issue 46030, col G, p. 6.
- ↑ "Royal Navy" (Official Appointments and Notices). The Times. Friday, 18 August, 1933. Issue 46526, col F, p. 5.
- ↑ "Royal Navy" (Official Appointments and Notices). The Times. Thursday, 2 July, 1936. Issue 47416, col F, p. 25.
- ↑ Marder. p. 47.
Bibliography
- Marder, Arthur J. (1961). From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow, The Royal Navy in the Fisher Era, 1904-1919: The Road to War, 1904-1914. Volume I. London: Oxford University Press.
