THE BATTLE OF JUTLAND

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10847, 12 March 1921, Page 6

THE BATTLE OF JUTLAND

The battle of Jutland is a subject of considerable controversy. One side, the ostensible leader of which is Captain Bellairs, of the Navy, affirms that the commanding Admiral, Lord Jellicoe, did, on divers, crucial occasions in the battle, the wrong thing. The other side, including several admirals, captains, and other officers, of whom many were present at the battle, affirms with great vigour that on these very occasions the Admiral did the right thing. After four years of this controversy, the Admiralty has published what the world was informed was the whole mass of official dispatches. Before this an investigation had been ordered by Parliamentary authority—we believe, but speak subject to correction on that point—to be conducted by naval experts under the presidency of a. naval officer, Captain Harper. In December and January last the correspondence columns of the “Times’’ contained urgent demands for the publication of this officer’s report, i.e., the report of the investigating body over which he had presided. The last of these demands was made by Admiral Bridgman, a former Sea Lord of the Admiralty. This Admiral, quoting a similar demand by Admiral Wemyse, who had held the highest position at the Admiralty, andjjCiting the concurrence of Lord Jellicoe, asked “in the interest of the service for the production immediately” of Captain Harper’s report —the report above indicated of-the investigating experts—“with original diagrams, without alteration, addition, or omission of any kind.” Later on— March 9th, as stated in a cable message published in Wellington—“ Lord Sydenham, in the House of Lords, urged the -Admiralty to publish Captain Harper’s track charts of the battle of Jutland.”

- The reply he received was: (1) That the" Admiralty had revised the charts “in order that they might be published under ‘the Admiralty’s authority, not that of a particular officer’’; (2) that, in accordance with a promise made to Lord Jellicoe “that no -publication be made regarding the battle of - Jutland, without being first submitted to him for observations, the track charts were being sent to New Zealand.” The reply concluded with the statement that “the Admiralty would then be in a position to make the charts public.” Of these reasons the last commends itself by its spirit of impartial justice. This not only because of the promise made to Lord Jellicoe, which must, of course, be kept at all cost, but afco because of the opportunity given to the Admiral concerned to exercise his undoubted right to place his views on the record side by side with all the things set down about his conduct of the battle. The first reason does not- commend itself to the same extent. The question is not- between the Admiralty and “a particular officer’,’ (Captain Harper) as to the value of the report. The value of the report is in the fact- that it is the report of an impartial body of experts, made after, full consideration, and signed by its chairman, who is not merely “a particular officer,” but the spokesman of the body charged with an important investigation. To style him “a particular officer” is about the same thing as would be the inconceivable act of a judge in styling the foreman of a jury giving the jury’s verdict as “a particular For a judge to claim the right of “revising” such a verdict- would he unthinkable, even on the plea that the court can speak with greater authority than “a particular individual.’’ Whether the Admiralty really claimed the right t-o revise the matter in question, it would not, in view of the errors incidental to the cabling of things, especially of things summarised hastily for purposes of condensation, be advisable to say. It is possible that the Admiralty’s claim in the matter was to do for itself what it was securing an opportunity for Lord Jellicoe to do —to make any observations it- might think right about conclusions (if any) affecting ■ itself. Until we hear more fully, we must, in all fairness, accept this view. As to Lord Jellicoe’s position in the matter, the public will, we feel sure, accept Admiral Bridgman’s statement that Lord Jellicoe was quite ready to permit the publication of this report. At the same time, the public will be glad to realise that the opportunity has been given him of stating his side on any point in his conduct that may require him to do so. This is hut justice. It is also in the interest of historic truth, for the elucidation, for the present generation, and for posterity, of the greatest event in naval warfare.