Granville did not oppose the bill or the goal of an adequate navy, but challenged the claim that higher spending was automatically reassuring. Drawing on earlier Conservative warnings, he argued that conspicuous expansion could prompt other states to spend heavily in response. He also questioned why the government now promised to reach the two-power standard in 1894 after previously claiming that Britain already met it. Laying down many ships together risked their becoming obsolete together, while fixing designs could prevent the Admiralty from adopting improvements during construction. Granville further objected to committing future expenditure outside ordinary annual parliamentary control, even though a later majority could repeal the act. His case exposes the competing risks of delay, arms-race reaction, technological change, and weakened financial scrutiny.
Chapter · 29:42-34:16
Granville warns of arms races and rapid obsolescence
Granville accepts adequate naval defence while questioning expenditure escalation, official assurances, mass obsolescence, and reduced parliamentary control.