NAVAL NOTES.

Evening Star, Issue 14250, 27 December 1909, Page 3

NAVAL NOTES.

! [COXTKIBUTED. BY THE NAVY LEAGUE, . . ■ Otaqo Branch.]

THE OLD STYLE. Drake nor dovil nor Spaniard feared, eitiee ho put to tho 6ack; He fiingod his Catholic Majesty's'beard, And harried his ships to wrack. He was, playing at Plymouth a rubber of bowls' '. WherTthe great Armada came; But ho feoid, " They must wait their turn, ' good m -s," And ho stooped and finished the game. —Henry Newbolt. THE NEW STYLE. "I am most anxious about tho future. A neighboring country is pushing ahead with tremendous vigor not only with its shipbuilding, but also with its oruanieation for war. . . . Tho Navy "is not properly organised or trained for war, and tio plan of campaign can bo effective unless the ships are there to carrv that plan out. Wo aro dangerously short of many units without which tho Fleet could not act in a campaign. Our initial reverses, through want of proper organisation, would be shocking. By far the worst point connected with the Royal Navy at present is tho system of espionage, favoritism, and intimidation which has been employed for tho last few years in order to carry out tho suggestions" and plans which the majority of naval officers know are imperfect and unsound, both in iheory and practice. If tho country does not wake up to the groat noccssity of ade3uate naval defence shortly, there is no oubt that tho British Empire will be a thini! of tho imt. Tho thinkim! nooiilo in other countries appear to bct ihe danperoue position of Groat Britain far more than our people do.''—Lord Charles Beresford in a letter to Mr Harold Lloyd, -solicitor, Cardiff. A COMMENT OX THE NEW STYLE. Admiral Sir Percy Scott, one of the best-known men in the Navy, a sailor who has seen active, service in tho Ashanti War, the Congo Expedition, the Egyptian War, South Africa, and the China* War, and the inventor of various appliances for Improving heavy gun shooting, etc., speaking at tho annual dinner of tho Scottish Cliifif itoriation, in roplv to tho toast of tho Imperial Forrve, took OCC<t*MOn to answer tho jeremiads of Lord Charles. No names, of course, were mentioned, but the rap was fitted with singular unanimitv. Sir Percy said : " It gives mo great pleasure to replv for the Navy, because I am able to contradict tho idea which has been set afoot that tho Navy is not all that it ought to be. lam certain that I shall be voicing the opinion of all those officers who know the real truth when I tell you that the Navv has never been in such an efficient state as regards organisation, training, and preparation for war as it is at the present moment. —(Cheers.) TJnring the Jast few which havo been proposed for many years, have been effected, and as a consequence a high state of efficiency has been arrived at. These beneficial reforms, however, havo not been introduced without a certain amount of obstruction, friction, and a jealousy being manifested. —Attacks on Naval Officers.— " Tho naval officers serving on the Board of Admiralty have had to endure an existence very analogous to that of the earlv Christians. They havo not been torn to pieces by wild beasts, but the attacks on thorn hud been directed with singular ferocity. Their public and private" life has beon attacked; odious, outrageous. abominable, and cruel charges entirelv uneupporM by ovj^ nfej = ma(]o against tfhem. atld pamphlets circulated broadcast endeavoring to undermine their authoritv. and scandalous imputations have been made both against their honcety and thencapability as administrators. Happily this procedure, so contrary to the custom of the Navy, so adverse to its traditions. and so contrary to good comradeship, has not interefored with tho carrying out of the necesary reforms. Neither has it shaken the loyalty due from all naval officers toproprely constituted authoritv." —(Applause.) ADMIRAL SIR E. SEYMOURS "' OPINION. Possibly some will bo indisposed to accept Sir Percy Scott's answer to Lord Chniles Beresi'orrl. owing to tho known personal feud that exists between the two. It is therefore worth while to hear what Admiral of the Fleet Sir Edward Sevmour has to say. Speaking at the Lord Mavor's Guildhall banquet on November Q Admiral Rcj-mour snicl; " oroyCT 100 YPftrs tllO IIYY xin-cl not had real -opportunity of fee til*ilia great successes at sea, but "the sailors felt that their service was well regarded in the country.—(Cheers.) The present state of the Navy was. he considered, extremely satisfactory. The officers were certainly much better trained, and he believed were more zealous than thev used lo be, and the men were more intelligent. But what was more important, whereas a long time ago the appearance of a ship was considered more than her gunnery and fighting efficiency, now the contrary was the case. (Cheers.) A Dreadnought co.-t more than lour times as much as our first 1 ironclad, and about eighteen times as much as a three-decker of tiie early part of last eonl»'T. Napoleon considered that thirtv sail innVia/\ I,ne "' cre '""* c 'l ulTalc " l «" >omcLiO.OOO troops ashore. Armies had more than doubled in size since then, and one of our newest battleships at sea was now the equivalent to something like 16,000 men in the great game of war. In the last twenty years tne personnel of the Navv had doubled. Flying machines and dirigible balloons were in the air, and were likely to remain so—(laughter)— but he could*not think that the time would come when aerial warfare would supplant warfare on the ocean. • The maxim of the day must be " Never rest content." He was not a politician, and therefore lie knew nothin B about politics, but he did know that all politician did not nmte agree with each other— (laughter)—and if there was ever disagreement between naval officers let them remember that it was the outcome of that zeal without which they would be very soiry to see the Navy."—(Loud cheers.) LORD BRASSKY CONFIRMS.

Lord Brassey, speaking recently at Hasting, in response to the toast of the Warden of the Cinque Ports, indirectly had a hit al Lord Charles Bedford. His lordship ueclared there was no ground for fear. nnelanrl had moro than double Uw <-f permanent sailors possessed ])y anVOtIICV country. There was no question of the supremacy of Eriglantl in ships at the present moment, and they had been assured that iri 1913 we should possess twenty-six Dieaclnoughts against Germany's thirteen. After the closest observation, he was able to declare that we 6tood well in regard to the Navy. Recently he witnessed some extraordinary shooting whilst on board a Dreadnought. A target which looked like a speck and was pulled along hy a torpedo boat was promptly riddled. And what Lord Tirassey, Sir Percy Scott, and Sir K, SfcVlMour LiVA said Mr JLqmlk a „J Vf r M'Kenna and Dr Macnamara have confirmed. "A PARTISAN SCRIMMAGE." Lord Charles's breezy utterances and platform zeal are puzzling to the uninitiated and simple-minded. Either Lord C. Bereford is right and the Government and Admiralty arc wrong—or, rather, deliberately misleading the country—or the Government are right and Lord Charles ought, accord - to Mr W. T. Stead, to be cashiered and tried for mutiny. This bewilderment was given expression by Dr M'Call at the Roval Colonial Institute on November 3, after l«rd C. Bercsford had made another of his fciurtlinsly contradictory rovolations. Dr MCall then said - he regretted to hear that the outlook for the Navy was dark. We had had the distinct assurance of the responsible authorities that we were prepared to. meet any possible emergency which might arise. Surely it was a matter which could be settled by men <jn both sides of politics without any partisan scrimmage."—(Hear, hear.) WHAT LORD CHARLES HAD SAID. For a man who has all an Irishman's love ~* lumior and. his juickness in detecting Jjm

humorous element in. .most things, Lord ,C. Beresford's " talk" at the Colonial Institute was somewhat in the nature of what Mr Wilkins Micawber, who also had marine aspirations, might have termed "a facer:"- " Gentlemen," said Lord Charles, in His most serious Vein, "unless we maintained our supremacy at sea it would be the end of the British Empire. That supremacy had been threatened in words; it might shortly be threatened by deeds. Owing to deferred liabilities, we were many- millions short of what our expenditure should be on ships. It was stupid, he declared, in the true Micawber manner, to have a panic, but he was afraid that in the course of a year or less there would be one in this country, when the people knew ihe truth. Panics were never a good thing, declared the areh-creator of panics. In a panic they paid the highest prico for the worst article, but the time had come to look the facts in the face. There were a lot of people going about saying that the Old Country was decadent. Not a bit of it. There were as many good men in the country as ever, but he was not sure the right lot were on top.—(Laughter and cheers.) He hoped they did not think he was making any political allusions.— (Laughter.) What was wanted were a few big. honest, straight men who said what thev thought and were not afraid to point out*the facts.—(Cheers.) The Navy was a national and not a party affair, and lie hoped that men who got into the House of Commons, on whichever side they sat, would do their level best to keep the service freo from party strife." And then everybody cheered again, and when order was restored Dr M'Call got up to make a few remarks.

LORD CHARLES AND MR ASQUITI-I

Lord Charles has not only been hurling bombs i'rom pln-tiox-jTn (rousing the country), but ho has boon making charges in letters to the Prime Minister, and publishing them in the Press before Mr Asquith has had time to get an answer written. Here, also, partisanship may possibly affect our judgment, but the following summary of the position, as set forth by the ' Manchester Guardian,' has the merit of being fair and capable of proof or disproof by reference to the whole of the documents as published in ' The Times.' Lord Charles accused the Admiralty of inefficiency, dishonesty, and partiaiitv. and his methods in support are thus illustrated :-•- In his letter to Mr Aequith on October 23 Lord Charles Beresford refers to the " intimidation on the one hand and favoritism on the other for. which the Admiralty hnvo of late years been notorious/' and shortly afterwards he adds : When Rear-admiral (then Captain) Sturdee ceased to be my Chief-of-Staff on being appointed to the command of If.M.S. New Zealand, I approached no less than five captains, asking them to succeed Captain Sturdee as Chief of my Staff. They all declined on the ground that their future careers would be prejudiced. I reported this fact officiallv to the Admiraity in Wl"' That is to ray, these officers belit?v-o<i t .hn.tr their enrwrs would suffer if they associated lliemslves with Lord Charles Beresford. That and nothing else, he says, was the reason which they gave him. But what was it that lie actually did say in his letter to the Admiralty in November. 1907 Mr M'Kenna tells us. He said this :

"They stated that they could not afford to lose the chance of being promoted to Hag-rank, citing the case of Captain Sturdee being compelled to leave my staff in order to qualify in sea-time."' Tin's, too, is quite clear. The five officers wished to qualify for flag-rank. To do so they must put in so much time in command of a ship. If any one of them beeame Chief-of-Staff to Lord Charles Beresford he would autoniatieaUv lose his chance. Therefore the-v all refused, r<orcl Charles liorefifrircVii 1« absolutely incompatible with his accusation on October 23. And how does he ■defend himself in his 'final letter to Mr Asquith? Thus:—

"The question of sea-time did not arise in all cases. Again, it should be perfectly well known to Mr M'Kenna that, although the regulations in regard to sea-time press hardly in certain cases, it is quite feasible to avoid the difficulty." What (askes the Manchester ' Guardian ') is to be made of stuff like this? In November. 1907, all five officers refused to serve under Lord Charles Beresford because of the automatic operation of the King's regulations.; on October 23. 1909, it is because they feared that Sir John Fisher would maliciously ruin their careers; on October 30 it, has become neither one thing nor the other. We omit the 'Guardian's' comments; they are painful but free.