The Dominion. SATURDAY, JANUARY 4, 1908. THE BERESFORD=SCOTT INCIDENT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 86, 4 January 1908, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, JANUARY 4, 1908. THE BERESFORD=SCOTT INCIDENT.

Most people in 'the Dominion are, 'probably, now fully acquainted with i the details of the affair of signals, which has come to be. known as the Beresford-Scott incident.' There is no to .recapitulate them,' but, with a view to what herein follows, it is necessary to point out that subsequent information made it plain that licar-Admiral Scott's i" look pretty" signal was made prior to the general fleet signal of the Commander-in-Chief,, Admiral Lord C. Beresford, and not as a consequence of that signal as : at first reported. The distinction is of importance, because the flying- of Eear-Ad-miral Scott's signal, prior to that of Lord Beresford would /seem to lend greater weight to the statement's which are current in the Navy at Home at the present time of the existence of unfriendly, even hostile, feelings between the two Admirals referred to. To put it plainly, it is said to be wellknown in the Service that Bear-Admi-ral Scott ; is a pro-I'isher, while Admiral Beresford is an anti-Fisher; or, in other words, that Admiral Scott is a supporter of the policy of the present .Admiralty, while Admiral Beresford is strongly_ opposed to it, and has no hesitation in .saying so whenever opportunity offers. Accepting this view of matters, it would appear as if RearAdmirnl Scott, having become aware of Lord. Berer,ford's intention to direct the Fleet to " paint ship," and deeming it a personal order from that Admiral, and not an Admiralty order, indulged in a little malicious satire at what he supposed was his superior officer's expense. Probably n'o one was more surprised than Admiral Scott when he subsequently found that it was the Admiralty he had scoffed at, instead of his immediate chief, Admiral Beresford.

A writer in the " Daily Mail" says that the " incident " was but the climax and culmination of a quarrel which has been long in progress. "It dates bank," lie says, " five or six years, to the time when Admiral Sir •John Fisher and Lord Charles Beresford were the commander-in-chief, and the second in command respectively in the Mediterranean Fleet. .Both are men of determined .character, with little in common in their naval views, and it may even be that each was inclined to outspoken comment upon the acts of the other." When Sir John Fisher became First Sea Lord, it is well-known that his schemes met with the declared disapproval of Lord Charles Beresford; especially the retrenchments in the Service, and the " scrapping " of still serviceable ships. But Sir John was surrounded by a number of strong partisans, among whom Admiral Sir Percy Scott was one of the most conspicuous figures. The Fisher-Beresford quarrel became serious when last October Lord Charles Beresford was offered the command of the Channel Fleet and accepted it. But it was then declared that the fleet which was to be placed under his orders was very different to that of which Sir Arthur Wilson had given over command. Then it consisted of seventeen battleships, six armoured cruisers, seven small cruisers, and thirty-six destroyers; but Lord Charles was only to command fourteen battleships, four' armoured cruisers, three smaller cruisers, and no torpedo craft at all. Lord Charles Beresford and his friends of the. Service held that this fleet was inadequate to command the North Sea, and, it is alleged, that Lord Charles threatened resignation unless his representations on the subject were heeded. The outcome was that the Admiralty retreated from the position it had taken up, and conceded Admiral Beresford's demand for a far superior fleet. The passage at arms between the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet and the First Sea Lord, however, did not add to the friendly feelings on cither side, and accentuated the division in the Navy— the pro-Fisher and the anti-Fisher officers took sides in the controversy, and journalistic attacks appeared upon Lord Charles Beresford and upon Sir John Fisher respectively.

When Sir Percy Scott was appointed to the command of the First Armoured Cruiser Squadron, which forms part of the Channel Fleet, he came, as a pronounced supporter of Sir John Fisher,

into collision with tlie. other party in the Fleet, the larger majority ■ being staunch believers in Lord ' Charles litres ford, and opposed to the Fjsher school. There was constant and great l friction, and the tension finally terminated in the affair of the signals). At this distance there will be, iu addition .to regret at the inharmonious relations pervading the Service, a sense °f uneasiness at the existence of .this divided loyalty to authority, Strangely enough, , exactly a similar state .of affairs in the French Navy lias only, recently been exposed, and strongly animadverted upon, in the French, Press, and by French Admirals df note. Such a condition of things was held, and rightly so, to be a menace, to efficiency in times of stress, and steps were at once taken by the French Ministry of Marine to minimise the evil as far as possible. This spectacle of the British Navy washing its. dirty linen; in public, and its officers. wrangling among themselves like a parcel of children, is a sorry one for the, nation, and must cause considerable ■ malicious • enjoyment to our German cousins and It is to be hoped that better counsels, will prevail, and that party feelings, and professional ..animosities,-., will' /be; sunk in the one great common ideal of making the British Navy the solid bulwark of protection ..to the United Kingdom and her dependencies which it has always claimed to be.