FEUD AT ADMIRALTY

Evening Star, Issue 21934, 22 January 1935, Page 7

FEUD AT ADMIRALTY

LORD FISHER V. SIR ROGER KEYES It seems to be almost inevitable that most important war memoirs should contain certain disclosures of personal feuds. Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes reveals in his ‘ Naval Memoirs; 1910-15 ’ that strained relations between Lord Fisher and himself, extending over a number of years, considerably affected his career and resulted in his being sent to the Dardanelles in February. 1815, as Chief of Staff to the Admiral Commanding the Allied Naval Forces. Ironically, Lord Fisher’s hostility, arose in the first place from an unfortunate misunderstanding. In 1907. Sir Roger declares, I was at home on leave, and at a court ball at Buckingham Palace I found myself alongside Sir John (Lord Fisher); remembering his kindness two years before, I spoke to him and was about to* introduce him to my wife, but refrained, as he gave me a most ferocious glare and turned his backl

Sir Roger immediately made inquiries and discovered that Fisher was under the impression he (Sir Roger) had tried to get an article into ‘ The Times ’ in favour of Lord Charles Beresford during the Beresford-Fisher controversy. The name of Beresford's Naval Secretary was John Keys. Whoever went to ‘ The Times ’ must have described himself as Lord Charles’s secretary. Tb« mischievous busybody in ‘ The Times office must have found John Keys a name in the Navy List, and then told Fisher that Keys was trying to get an article against him published. . - ■ I learnt some years later from John Keys that it was not he who went to ‘ Tho Times ’ on Lord Charles’s behalf, but the latter’s stenographer. UNHAPPY ENCOUNTER. Sir Roger had another unhappy encounter with Lord Fisher when he was in. command of the submarine service and the latter arrived at Portsmouth in July, 1914, to inspect our latest vessel. He arrived in a very aggressive mood, showed no interest in the submarine I took him to, but, looking at me very sourly, .asked me why we had not built more submarines. Sir Roger retorted that, if we had not built more, the responsibility was Fisher’s. He said sortie frank things about the Admiralty’s policy regarding the bigger type, and pointed out that Fisher had given Vickers and their periscope makers an absolute monopoly; all Vickers’ resources for some years had been devoted to building submarines, which in mv opinion would be of little value to us on war. Vickers and Chatham dockyard . . . had entirely failed to keep pace with our requirements, witK the result that we had fallen behind Germany., . . . His policy had, in fact, had disastrous effects on our capacity to build. Lord Fisher said, with scathing emphasis, “ Very interesting!” turned his back on me, and went away without looking at anything or speaking another word. Fisher’s retaliation to this frank criticism occurred four months later, when we were at war. and he was appointed to succeed Prince Louis of Battenburg as First Sea Lord. Those who had ever dared to differ from him. writes Sir Roger, must, of course, be eliminated. He made no secret of his dislikes, and took pride in his ruthless vindictiveness—in fact, boasted that no one who fell foul of him ever escaped. He was very bitter against Sturdee. I do not know whv. but it was a longstanding feud; he had every reason to disapprove of me, after I had tho temerity to give him my views about submarines, so Sturdee and I were to be got rid of at once. But' he reckoned without the First Lord, who was not disposed to let him Pave a free hand to wreak his vengeance or get rid of his victims, at any rate, imtil suitable appointments could be found for them.

. Fisher, Sir Roger declares, dealt with bis case with characteristic vigour. He gave orders that a certain officer commanding a cruiser in the North Sea was to come to the Admiralty to succeed him. Two days later Fisher arranged a meeting of principal Admiralty officials,over which Vfe presided. Sir Roger was summoned from Harwich, and attended with his technical assistant, Harrison. TALK OF “ HARA-KIRI." There must have been something of the mad hatter’s tea party about that portentous war-time meeting. Fisher opened it by explaining his intentions as to future submarine construction, and, turning to the superintendent of contracts, said he would make his wife a widow and his house a dunghill if he brought paper or red tape into the business; he wanted submarines, not contracts. He meant to have them built in eight months; if he did not get 1 them m eight months he would commit hara-kiri. Addison, in an aside which I think Lord Fisher must have heard, remarked: “ Now we know exactly how long he has to live!” I latfghed, and I suppose looked incredulous, It seemed absurd; we had not been able to wring submarines out of Vickers and Chatham dockyard under two and a-half years. He fixed me with a ferocious glare, and said: “If anyone thwarts me he had better commit hara-kiri, too.” Sir Roger stood to his guns, reiterated his views of four months previously, and went back to Harwich' to await events. For a week an engagement was fought over his future. To one of his men Fisher declared: “If that young man (Churchill) who write# minutes in red ink, thinks he is going to run the submarine service he is mistaken; I shall g 0 to the Cabinet.” To another he said: “ Why can’t that fellow Keyes go to sea and fight like Tyrwhittl”—a remark which was meant for Sir Roger’s ears, and meant to hurt. He had a written order forbidding him to go to sea in a destroyer, and they would not give him a cruiser; nevertheless. Sir Roger took the earliest opportunity of “ getting a breath of fresh salt air in the Heligoland Bight.” It would be difficult to exaggerate, ho says, the extent of the stir which Lord Fisher’s re-entry into the naval administration caused in the Admiralty and throughout the service. His retirement four years earlier had been hailed with a sigh of relief by the Navy generally. ...