BERESFORD'S BOOK.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1390, 16 March 1912, Page 14

BERESFORD'S BOOK.

''THE BETRAYAL" ATTACKS THE ADMIRALTY,

,-.',,. SEVERE CRITICISM. Lord Charlee BeresfordV book, "The' Betrayal," which mokes . attacks on the administration , 'of the British Admiralty, lias been awaited with intense interest in naval •circles .throughout the world. It caused'a.greatsensation oven prior to publication, on account of tho withdrawal of tho.'first edition, as a result, it was beiieved.v'of the,direct intervention of tho Government, which insisted upon tho modification. and correction of. certain parts of it- It has been asserted on good uuthority that one reason for tho suppression o_f ) .'the first edition was that the book contained-"ii-"statement; alleging that in July last' England and Gormany were oh tho verge of war. Tho "Central News" ■ says:— , -: .' ,'•'' . _ . . , Even'in the revised nnd expurgated edition of "The.: Betrayal" Lord Charles preBonta in sweeping terms, and without modulation or phrase, 'a.scathing indictment,of British naval policy between the' years ;1902-9, coupled with "sensational" (statements and charges, and personalia of i much 'interest.; : ? In the early pages of his book , Lord Charles gives tho following as the tion in respect of largo amoured ships on April 1, 191-1, as a result of the naval ,policy of the last five years:— . . " Gt. Brit. Ger. Tr.All. Dreadnoughts 22 -16 25 3'nvincibles 10 5 5 Pre-Dreadnqughts (15 years old) .. 23 "•* 18 33 Total 55 ' ' 39 63 "Whofo is the two-Power standard?" ■asks Lord Charles. "Where is tho two-to-one standard? Where is the half-as-inuch-agaln superiority postulated in the Aflmirality memorandum Cd.,5539? And what is the policy of his Majesty's Government? If it consists in maintaining the two-Power standard, it is an utter delusion. ... In five years we havo forfeited the numerical predominance we held in 1905. ... .It .is for Parliament to com,pel Ministers to a definite declaration of policy. JifriCarliamciit fails:in its dntyv tho country must take tho consequences. Fleet Called Inadequate. ' Though "in our own servico individual •, officors, particular crews, and_ single ships have never been 'more- efficient,' Lord •Charles pens, the words, "the fleet as. a whole, taking into consideration its vastly increased responsibilities with regard to tho protection of wealth in transportation, nnd the rise to power of foreign navies, has ■ seldom been less adequate." This charge is brought up to date by Lord Charles inn postcript to the chapter on "Organisation for War," which reads: "As I am passing these pages for press, a flagrant instance of the lack of organisation for war occurs at a time when hostilities might break, out at any moment between Germany and this country. Owing either to ignoranco or (let us hope to patriotism, the state of thing 3 passed almost wholly unnoticed by the newspapers. Although critical relations had existed for some weeks, when the Prime Minister made his important announcement dealing with international affairs, the Admiralty were apparently quite unconscious that alike in disposition and subsidiary arrangements the fleet wa9 unpropared for an emergency. So grave was the situation that <m July 27, I felt it to bo my <luty to indicate the facts of tho case to tho Prime Minister in a letter ...... to which -Mr. Asquith returned a courteous reply marked private." "That the naval policy of tho yenrs 1902 to 1908 was mistaken in every particular," Lord.Charles affirms, is the only conclusion possible from tho facts he puts forward. ■ "The residts. of that policy," he says,, "are still evident. The cruiser force has not been replaced upon' foreign stations; the protection of trado routes is still dangerously inadequate; the foreign stations have not been restored; graving docks havn not been provided on tho east cohst, and the short service system is still in foreo. None of theijo deficiencies cari; be'remedied on tho outbreak of war by improvised means." t Betrayal of Trust Charged. ■ "The Admiralty havo betrayed . their trust" is the closing sentenco of the Dreadnought chapter. In another- place ho writes: "Our published ideas of strategy are supposed to be an attempt to mislead tho foreigner; whereas they are really an endeavour to confuse our own people to tserve the ends of party politicians." Other charges levelled against the Admiralty are thus expressed: "The cynically careless methods employed in dealing with subjects of national importance." l'ho public are deliberately kept in ignorance." "The country is being defrauded." ■'These nro all preferred in respect of a "period of maladministration," at the end of which an "honest .effort has been made- to remedy the chief mistakes." Tho Admiralty are.now trying partially to Temedy errors'; but, so far as can bo discovered, they havo devised no definite plan of operations. The evils have gone too deep to be cured by palliatives nnd halfmeasures." . . . Of tho homo fleet, designed in 1906, Lord •Charles writes:— "I said privately at the time, and I eay publicly now, that the home fleet was a fraud on the public, and a danger to the State. During the two years which elapsed before tho fraud was finally abandoned, so graved was tho disorganisation, demoralisation, nnd confusion that had this country'been suddenly attacked tho navy, in my opinion, would have suffered an initial reverse, if not a crushing defeat."..-/ , . ..' '" ' ' Lord Charles does not hesitate to prefer an allegation-, of the employment of discreditable 'methods' ' Ho asserts that the methods-employed to enforce the new scheme of-'niival Education established in 1902 . . . "consisted in the exercise by the Admiralty ..of their influence upou any person who might bo used to help tho scheme . . . in establishing a system of espionage; officers being requested to report secretly upon their brother officers; . . . and in endeavouring by illicit means to discredit those who, in tho interests of the servico, believed it to be their duty to criticise Admiralty policy. . . That a. Minister of the Crown capable of condoning such conduct should have continued to hold office, affords a very grave reflec-' tion upon tho character of public life today." . Personal Experiences, Lord Charles finds it necessary for tho purposes he has in view to refer not infrequently to affairs in which he was personally invoked during his periods of command.; He recalls his complaint to tho Admiralty four years ago, with reference to an instance of indiscipline, in which his authority nnd his personal character wero involved; and , he refers at 6Oine length to two incidents, of which "highly misleading accounts appeared in the press," during hia tenure of the. command of tho Channel fleet. The first, in 1907, was a breach ot discipline of so grave ii character; "and was committed in so public a manner that it was my duty to mako strong representations to the Admiralty in regard to the offender. Tlioso representations were so far disregarded that the officer in question was permitted to retain his position without haying proffered a public apology for a public offence In January, 1908, thero was sent to overy officer under my command in the Channel fleet a ropy nf a newspaper containing a violent attack upon myself. . . . Tho offence against discipline could not ... bo ignored. The incident wr.s thoroforc reported to the Admiralty.' Their Lohlships, however, did not see fit to take any action. ..." Lord Charles f.lion details subsequent interviews with Mr. M'lvenna, quotes.the Minister's statements to tho Hou-:e of Commons, nnd adds, "Officors and ir.on drew their own conclusions. They assnmod thnt insubordfnation nnd breach cf I ho King's J(ej{ulations were condoned by tho constituted.authorities. It is of the first Importance to-day that the discipline of tho fleet should be restored. Those who arc responsible for the existing conditions must be dealt with by tho proper tribunal which is' Parliament.' 'So'long aa Parliament continues to neglect its plain duty, bo long will the ovil continue and tho oountry will suffer tho certain penalty." A Bargain With the Admiralty. To establish his charge of fraud committed against the public, Lord Charlee in constrained to draw largely upon his own experience?. Ho-recalls that when ho accepted flu , command of the Channel fleet in 1906 the fleet consisted of 1G battleships, 0 armoured cruisers, .3 unarmoured cruisers, 5 attached EUips, 3G torpodo-b.oat

deetroy*r»-a total of 60 v«sseli. Thia statement ia regarded by Lord Charles aa "essential to the right understanding of the eequel in which the gravest national interests were involved and in which disaster was only averted by tho standing luck of the British Empire." Ho then goes on to explain that the fleet suffered a'reduction of two battleships and two oruisers. "A variety of reasons was assigned .by the Admiralty for the change, which, being confidential, cannot bo divulged. Tho loss to the public is tho less because none of tho reasons adduced was tho real Teason. The real reason not having been mentioned hy tho Admiralty it. is not confidential, and may therefore bo stated. Tho whole object of tho reductions w.is to save money by.avoiding the necessity of increasing tho personnel to tho number required to reinforce the reserve crews nnd by economising on the maintenance of ships in full commission. It is for precisely tho snme reason that, although after the strongest representations on my pnr-i and in deference to publio indignation tho policy has been in part—but only in part—reversed, the Mediterranean Fleet remains weakened nnd inadequate, nnd the .whole. Navy is shortof men today." ... ■ The Dreadnought polioy "introduced to the public by means of an organised system of advertisement in the press" is vigorously attacked. . , . . "Tho public were and are 'hypnotised by the Dreadnought policy," sn.vs Lord Charles. "The excessive and vulgar ad-' vertisement lavished upon this experimental vessel was by no means justified. . . . The effect of that advertisement . . . not only led tho British public into a delusion, but created a natural irriration among foreign Powers. In 1900 tho tradition of dignity and courtesy hitherto prevailing in tho servico was rudely violated, and Great Britain proclaimed herself the Bully of the Seas. . . . All that the British Admiralty had accomplished was to publish a new design just in clme to enable other nations to profit bv its defects. ... To tho building of these great ships, necessary as it has become, lias been sacrificed overy other naval requirement: men, small cruisers, <i<;cks, and stores. Without an adequate provision of these essentials the battle feet is useless for fighting purposes, and the money spent on it is a present (o tho futuro. enemy. But.the Admiralty succeeded in concentrating the publio attention upon battleships called Dreadnoughts. That-is tho delusion of the Dreadnought policy. Other essentials do not show, Their need is known only to naval officers. The public naturally enough know nothing of them. They trust the Admiralty to provide what ie necessary." And in the.next sentenco comes tho charge: "The Admiralty have betrayed their trust." The Declaration of London. The Declaration of London is roundly condemned, and again the cry of betrayal is raised. By tho signature of the Treaty of Paris in 1856 "Great Britain, of her own act, relinquished a powerful weapon in maritime warfare and the most potent argument for keeping tho peace known to history. . ... If by means of the constitution of nn International Prize Court Great Britain could bo induced to forfeit her remaining maritimo rights, the labours of foreign maritime Powers insiduously pursued for more than fifty years would at length be crowned with success. That' Sir Edward Grey, w.ho is naturally inexperienced in the real workings of international politics, should havo walked open-eyed into the snare need not cause surprise. But that the Board of Admiralty . . . should actually have assisted the Foreign Secretary to betray his country is monstrous. The thing was done. It was agreed that the International Prize Court of Appeal should be established, in violation of the common law and in derogation of the, authority of the King in Council. . . ■■ "That tho Declaration of London, representing the result of a determined -effort of tho Government peimanently to reduce the Royal Navy, hands over British mari. time rights to a foreign court, fails to forbid privateering, permits tho sinking of untried neutrals, doubles the danger of in case,of war, and, what is even worse, cripples in every way tho action of the British fleet." "Nor, ndds, 'Lord Charles, "can I avoid the reflection- , ' that a country which allows itself to be.i enmeshed in this tangle of sentimental' agreements, illegal treaties, and lawyers' traps in matters w.hich concern the national honour and the national safety, deserves the irromediable catastrophe which will befall it," and he asserts: "It is indeed perfectly obvious that tho time of Ministers is fully occupied in dealing with the domestic and purely• partisan issues of the moment, to. the neglect of that security upon which. all social reform depends."