SCOTT AND BERESFORD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1106, 7 June 1913, Page 4

SCOTT AND BERESFORD.

SLASHING ATTACK BY RETIRED ADMIRAL.

Admiral Sir Percy Scott lost no time in grasping the opportunity of replying to the attacks made upon him by Lord Charles Beresford. His retirement from active service was gazetted only on Tuesday night, March 25th, and, his lips being thus unsealed, his apologia appeared on Thursday in the British Review.

Sir Percy Scott prefaces his story by declaring that he entered upon his command of the cruiser squadron attached to the Channel Fleet in October, 1907, in ‘‘an atmosphere of suspicion, animosity and discord.” Lord Charles Beresford, as Commander-in-chief of the Channel Fleet, was known to hold opinions antagonistic to the administration of the Admirably, and made no secret ot bis hostility to the First Sea Lord. “It was soon made apparent to me,” says Sir Percy, “that I was expected to acquiesce in the views of the malcontents, and to join in the crusade against authority. I made no secret of my wish to remain neutral, but I had not reckoned with the mutinous spirit which animated the Commander-in-Chief.

“I ought to have recognised the conditions, and to have been on my guard. But, wrapped up in my work, and thinking more about naval efficiency than personal squabbles, I neglected to take precautions. I might have expected that opportunity would be made to trump up a case against me to weaken my position, and, if possible, to cause me to be replaced by an admiral more in sympathy with the opinions and actions of my superior officer.” Sir Percy says he had not long to wait for his views to be realised. In the following month a conversation took place between the captain of one of the ships of the squadron and himself. Lord Charles Beresford heard of it, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that opportunity for getting rid of him (Sir Percy) had arrived. “In a hasty, high-handed, and intemperate manner he condemned without investigation,” and made a report to the Admiralty. [SUPERSESSION DEMANDED. The text ot the report is given. This stated that ‘the gross insubordination and contemptuous tone” of Sir Percy Scott’s signals called for severe punishment, and that as he (Lord Charles) was not in a position to try Sir Percy Scott by court-martial, to relieve him of his command, or mete out any punishment “suitable to so grave and outrageous an offence” against the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, the Admiralty should supersede Sir Percy Scott from his command. The Admiralty, continues Sir Percy Scott, informed him that the signal met with their grave disapproval, but although he disapproved of the finding, knowing that it was based on the incorrect view furnished by Lord Charles, he kept silent in the interests of the Service.

Four years afterwards Lord Charles published his book, “The Betrayal,” in which he complained that the offender had been permitted to retain his position after the grave breach of discipline without making a public apology. Sir Percy says the charge that he was unfitted lor his command shall not be allowed to be unrefuted.

The signal in question was, of course, the famous one :

“Paintwork seems to be more in demand than gunnery, so you had better come in in time to make yourself pretty by the Btb.” Sir Percy goes at length into all the circumstances of the incident, repudiates the suggestion that there was any flouting of authority, and remarks that the signal was a very happy way of expressing the situation. As showing that a little flippancy has sometimes been introduced into semaphore messages transmitted and received by Sir Charles, Sir Percy Scott quotes the following examples:— “Vice-Admiral to Rear-Admi-ral : The fishing was a failure, but the car behaved like a lady.” “Rear-Admiral to Vice-Admiral ?

I hope that she was fast enough for your.lordship’s requirements.” Sir Percy Scott goes on to complain that Lord Charles refused to listen to any explanation, and issued a signal giving a distorted version of the incident, which was made as publicly as possible to the 20,000 officers and men present, and copies of it were posted on the lower decks lor the men to see. The behaviour of Lord Charles throughout was, in Sir Percy Scott’s opinion, subversive of discipline, and out ot keeping with the distinguished rank that he held. DANGEROUS ORDER. “A further deplorable example to the officers and men under his command was Lord Charles Beresford’s order to me not to speak to him, but only communicate with him in writing. Such an act was extraordinary and fatal; it made him the laughing-stock of the fleet.”

The writer also describes how confidential communications found their way to the press, and states that during the short time he was in the fleet Lord Charles on three occasions had gentlemen connected with the press staying on board his flagship as guests. Next Sir Percy Scott goes at great length into Lord Charles’ famous manoeuvre signals of July, 1908, which the captain ot Scott’s ship, the Good Hope, did not carry out, on the ground that it was dangerous, and would have brought his vessel into collision with another warship. In “The Betrayal,” Lord Charles complains that the account of the incident given at the time in the press was wholly misleading, and in the highest degree prejudicial to the reputation of a seaman. On this Sir Percy Scott remarks “Out of the twenty-one years of his service in the tavy as commander and captain, he only served in a ship-of-war at sea for five years. This could not, and did not, make a seaman of him.” Sir Percy Scott gives the text of the signals to show that the captain regarded the order as a dangerous one, and adds: “He (Lord Charles) did not write a ‘bombastes furioso’ letter to the Admiralty ; he did not, as in the former case, make a theatrical signal to the fleet; he ordered no inquiry to investigate whether bis junior officer was correct in characterising his signal as dangerous ; he did not consider the signals made to himself as insubordinate or contemptuous.” “Lord Charles was discreet,” adds Sir Percy. ‘‘ He did nothing ; I heard that he only expressed a hope that the circumstances of the case would not be communicated to the press.”