ADMIRALS FALL OUT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 239, 2 July 1908, Page 7

ADMIRALS FALL OUT.

BERESFORD AND FISHER, , A REFUSAL TO SHAKE HANDS. THE SIGNALS INCIDENT REVIVED. fcx'-TZIEGitAFH—PEESS ASSOCIATION-rCOrYKIGHT.) London, Juno 30. ilio "Daily Chronicle" states that at a recent levee, -Admiral Sir John Fisher, First Sea Lord; in tho presence of Cabinet Minit sters, and foreign 1 ambassadors, offered to '. shako hands with Lord Charles Beresford, who ostentatiously refused, 'placing his hand behind his back. - . • This; together with Admiral Beresford's attitude 1 towards Rear-Admiral Sir Percy - • Scott, is causing much comment. It is rej ported'that Admiral Beresford will retire afr ter ■ the manoeuvres ' now being held, and will re-enter political life. : -'' ORDER OF THE SIGNALS. After tho outci'y; in November and the -'gene- ' ral ■ censure of-Benr-Admiral Sir Percy Scotthad -subsided, a new;,aspect of the- incident was presented by a. "Naval correspondent" who wrote to "The Times" on .Decoriiber; 17; ' The-following is ; a portion of his letter:— _ ' •'''•i-.'vjt'/'iaa-. been', a., matter--' of .somo. surprise that no authentic or official description or explanation .'of . the disagreement: between' the' Commander-in-Chief of -the Channel Fleet arid the:Ecar-Adtniral commanding the First.Crui-ser-Squadron should have appeared. The information published in 'Tho Times,' on tho responsibility of tho "Western Morning .News,' contains- two signals, one reported to havo been made by the Boar-Admiral to tho. captain of.the Eoxburgh, in the following, terms: 'Paintwork/,appears .to be: more in demand ' ■ than; gunnery, so you'had better come inside the' breakwater in time -to paint your ship and.look/pretty, by .the Btli'; tho other, mado by the; Commander-iri-Chiof - generally to the Fleets was'.prefaced .by tho following words: • 'The-.Lords Commissioner .of' the Admiralty having direojed me'to prepare tho Chniinol Fleet to do norisur to'his Imperial.Majesty, the German Emperor, an • order. was given :to -.I all-the' vessels under my command to be' out. of and paint ship after the manoouvv res.; With reference to my order,.on Monday, November, 4, the Eenr-Admiral commandingFirst Cruiser Squadron, forming part of tho Channel/Fleet, mado the. following signal to the captain of the Eoxburgh.' (Then follows \ the.signal quoted, above, and-its condemnation - as ,'oontemptuons in tone and insubordinate in ■ character.') I - ,- , • " Obviously,' tho impression created- by the publication of. these two signals :was that tho signal, made by tho Kear-Admiral on Monday, November; .4, referred .to the order . issued by '••• tho Commander-in-Chief.on the saino day. for the;/,6hips.~;to;go out' of: routine,-'which is an instruction ; to' cease all gunnery. exercises; and . drills./,': Arid ■ the! foundation,;, for' tho charge of contempt and rested, as explained :in tho signal of the Commander-' in-Chief, upon the supposed reference of tho Eertr-Aimiral's signal to the order to be 'out ofLroutirie.'-" The extraordinary, fact has now been revealed that, on a comparison of tho ■ signal? logs »f. the .various: vessels, ; it is shown that the.Commander-in-Chief's.. order;. to 'go 'out of routine' .was not signalled to the 'ships, . '• of ;the >First' Cruiser :Squadron until; two - hours , after Sir'.; Percy :Scott-had mado'.the signal objected ;to by the Commander-in-Chief. What lias been, called 'the paintwork signal' could not consequently have had any reference to the. order to go out of routine,-and the Com- , ;•: iifafider-in-Chlef's reprimand appears : to.-', have ; been made '-under a misapprehension of the facts. ■ "It ; is curious that this circumstance, . 60 essential to a right-understanding of the i matter;-has not before been made public/ But, - again on' the. authority, of the. 'Western Morn- : ing. News,': it has_ been stated that the general signal ,-of ; reprimand was -."made ' without .any/ previous investigation of .' the circum6t'ancesj'.:and without'. Sir .Percy"- Scott being called upon-for an explanation,of. his message .to tho■Eoxburgh."... '; ;On March' 9, Mr. G. Lambert, TJnder-Secre-tary, to the 'Admiralty, in reply to a .question . ;;i 'in v thei- House,'of Commons," deprecated the suggestion to- publish .'correspondence' relating to the discipline .of 'the Navy, but added that the,( Admiralty had authorised him to say that - they directed the- Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet 1 (Lord Charles Beresford) to convey Eear-Admiral commanding the PiTst. Cruiser Squadron (Sir Percy Scott) "an , ■ expression of their Lordships' grave disappro- / bation of. his: signal to the Eoxburgh on No- ' rember 4'last." . . ....