THE NAVY SCANDALS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9537, 8 July 1909, Page 3

THE NAVY SCANDALS.

MORE DISCLOSURES,

The campaign against Sir John Fisher culminated this week, says a London correspondent Under date May 28th, in a report that the First Sea Lord will resign next October. This report has been neither confirmed nor denied officially, and the chances are that it is correct. It is an open secret that Sir John Fisher has been intensely annoyed at the attacks that have been mad e against his policy at the Admiralty. The personal feeling behind these attacks has b« ; en growing of late, and there is only tuo much reason to suspect a bitter feud between the rival sections of naval critics and adherents, headed on the one side by Sir John Fisher, on the other by Lord Charles Beresford. Just at present the Beresford faction appears to have the advantage. They have unearthed copies of three private letters printed and circulated some years ago in naval circles by Sir Johri Fisher—letters in which various naval officers were openly criticised. It can hardly be denied that the circulation of these letters was a grave error of judgment, and on the ether hand one would like to know how letters intended for private perusal came into the possession of Sir John Fisher's opponents. Altogether the position is thoroughly unsatisfactory and disquietening.

Two of the letters which Sir John Fisher had printed were written to him by Captain Bacon, R.N., and in one ot these Mr Carlson Bellaira, M.P., an ex-lieutenant of the Navy, and a strong critic of the Fisher regime, web referred o as "always an incompetent officer." In the Houa« this week, Mr McKenna, the Jt> rst Lord of the Admiralty expressed regret for the pretention of this phrase of the letter when it was printed. He explained that Sir John Fisher had been working night and day at the time, and had passed the letter without remembering to strike out the invidious passages. But this explanation is rendered unsatisfactory by the existence of a third letter, written to Sir John by Admiral Mann, an officer on the retired list. In this letter the description of Lieutenant Bellairs as incompetent is quoted with approval, yet Sir John had this letter printed and circulated also. Tha letter was as follows

19, Sussex Mansions, South Kensington, April 4, 1906. Dear Sir John,—l have read the "Times" article of to-day's date on naval training. Grand—it should settle the ignorant and suspicious! I wish he had puc the name—conclude he is a good man.

I return bacon's letter —capital. I agree with every word, and am glad to think Beresfcrd and Larabton have rot poisoned his mind. The same feeling es Bacon's went through my mind—why not have a pamphlet dealing with the whole question uf training, and spread it about? For I feel with him that opposition to tha new scheme as a whole is no nvore than ignorance. Am also glad to hrar his opinion of Bellairs—"always an incompetent officer." If that was kr.own in the House he would ba measured ac cordingly. , I did rot kr.ow it had been proposed to make a change over of duties between the present young executive and young ergineer officers. . . . Criticism is all very well, and may do good, but in the end one has to decide which is tin party to trust — the noisy objectors or the man behind the scenes, who is lvspmiibH and working tor the gool of the service, and therefore the country's benefit. — Yours sincerely, W. F. S. Mann. Mr McKenna's excuse for the circulation of Bacon's letter was that they were very well written letters, anu deserved to be preserved. He has not yet ventured to make the same defence on behalf cf Admiral Mann's. As a matter of fact, the letter was printed and circulated without Admiral Mann's knowledge or consent. Further revelations with regard to the Navy from within are promised by Lord C hj.rles Beresford in the near future, when he addresses the London Chamber of Commerce.