THE NAVAL SCANDAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13833, 20 August 1908, Page 7

THE NAVAL SCANDAL.

ANNOYANCE OF THE KING

ADMIRALTY AND LORD CHARLES

BKUKSFOKD.

[FROM oris ow.v capßESPOsaexT.]

Losdo*. July IS. i FROM one in touch with Court circles I hear that King Edward is greatly annoyed at the continuance of the naval scandal. His Majesty is resolved that.it shall be brought to an end. He believes that the affair is likely to have a had effect on the discipline and moral of the navy. Even admirals, the ! King is reported to have said, cannot be allowed to behave like schoolboys. Perhaps some indication of His Majesty's view of the quarrel iray be found in the fact that Mir John Fisher retains Lis esteem and confidence. The quarrel between the First Sea' Lord and the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel fleet has been the general topic of conversation, It is evident that unless the differ- | ence can be composed oi'e or the other must ! go. There are men both in lie navy and out of it who would be glad to see Sjr Joh a Fisher away from the Admiralty, but ibis ! is not the general feeling. The First- Sea Lord commands the confidence of the leaders on both sides of the Mouse. Mr, Balfour has a great admiration for his ability, and lie has deprecated since the accession of the present Government- any attacks on the policy of the Admiralty. Ho long as the First Sea Lord possesses the confidence of the First Lord and the Prime Minister lie is not in the least likely to retire. If therefore anyone m>.(si go it would seem to he Lord Charles Bercsford, and it is stated the Admiral in command of the Channel fleet will probably retire from his position after the present manoeuvres are over. Publication has been given to an incident in connection with the naval manoeuvres of so grave a character that the Daily News says it was unable to publish it without absolute verification. The statement, which is lengthy and detailed, is to the effect that during the past week en order was given of such a character that it could not be carried out as signalled. Whether the signal was the result of a misapprehension of t{ie order, or whether the construction put upon it is incorrect, remains for inquiry. Mr. Arthur-Lee, a former Civil Lord, in a letter to the Times, confirms the statement that Sir John Fisher and Lord Charles Beresford are not on speaking terms, and he asks: "What steps do the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Cabinet propose to take in order to put an end to a grave scandal, which is not only sapping the foundations of discipline and good feeling throughout the service, but constitutes a serious menace to our national security." Some members have expressed the view that the whole unhappy dispute might be ended by both the First Sea Lord and the Commander-in-Chief of the- Channel fleet being superseded. The First Lord of the Admiralty must, it is thought, of necessity uphold his colleague, who is in supreme command, and. if any drastic measure is taken it is certain to be in the direction of relieving Lord Charles of his command. It will be open to the noble and gallant lord to send in his resignation, as ho did in 1338, when he was a member of the Board of Admiralty, because he was not satisfied with the programme of Lord George Hamilton and his colleagues. There is little doubt of one thing—if Lord Charles Beresford is superseded he will, without delay, seek to reenter Parliament. Should he be again returned some lively debates on naval matters will be sure to arise. The trouble, it is said, has developed since the days when Sir John Fisher , and. Lord Charles Beresford were associated , together in the Mediterranean squadron. They- are men of an entirely different type and of entirely different ideals. Lord Charles is the bluff, fearless sailor of the old school, a son of the aristocracy, who started his career with all the social and professional advantages of his class. To him the nation exists for the navy, not the navy for the nation. Sir John Fisher, on. the other hand, belongs to the modern school. Ho has carved out his career by sheer industry and ability. He deals with the navy as a business man, and applies to it the axioms of a business success. As examples of his business methods three subjects are quoted: (1) The reorganisation of the fleet; (2) the reduction of stores, etc.; and (3) his scrapping" of some 150 vessels. Under the heading "A Strange Occurrence in the Channel Fleet," the Times publishes the following account, received from a correspondent, of something that happened last week in the cruiser squadron attached to the Channel fleet, viz. "The Good Hope and Argyll were abeam ,of ono another on a parallel course, 1200 yards apart. Lord Charles Beresford made a signal to them ordering the Argyll to turn 16 points to starboard and the Good Hope to turn 16 points to port. Had the signal been obeyed the Good Hope and Argyll would have collided, as did the Victoria and Camperdown. The Argyll obeyed the signal, the Good Hope, to avert a collision, disobeyed tho signal." There is no doubt that in the scandal the Admiralty and the First Sea Lord have public opinion behind them; it is on this occasion against its one-time idol, Lord Charles Beresford.