THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1912. "THE BETRAYAL."

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10547, 1 February 1912, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1912. "THE BETRAYAL."

Whether the publication of Lord Charles Beresford's pamphlet, "The Betrayal," wibich deals in a trenchant manner with the policy controlling the British Navy, will have a beneficial effect, remains to be seen. Certain it is that the retired Admiral has a perfect knowledge of lus suibject. Equally certain is it that he is inspired by patriotic, rather than-.political motives in Ilia criticisms. iLn the course of a recent speech at Leicester, he said he maintained that what he had said about the Navy had been true. The Fleet had not been instantly ready. He would not go into details, for although the crisis was past, the critical situation was not past abroad. He was waiting for somebody in authority to get up in the House of Com- j mons and say that the Fleet was in-

stantly ready, and thou, though lie should deplore to have to do it, lie would produce his facts. The first effect which went to prove that the Fleet was not ready was that the First Lord of the Admiralty was—not (unexpectedly, somewhat tardilytransferred to a j-'ipliere of utility fesu vital to the national safety. That showed what a great success lie had been. There was 'during the crisis what was known in naval circles as ■Mr McKcnna's .week-end wars. Mr McKenna'is grotesqtu> antics, during the late crisis led to his dismissal, and if .the facts which led to Ms di.s r .missal were generally known there -would be considerable excitement in foreign oon-ntries. The change in-the Squadron and Fleet commands had .caused universal consternation in tlie iNavy. ih'irf-'t the members of the (Hoard of Admiralty were dismissed with one week's notice, and he thought the country ought to know itlhe reason for these .iui,stant dismissals. The country qertainly ought to know whether the policy of the Board of Admiralty was gioing to remain the same, otherwise they must conclude that the policy of the Board was going to be altered. The explanation offered by Mr Winston Churchill was •ridiculous, illogical, and- unsatisfactory. .It was childish to say that the changes were made because the new Estimates were going to be prepared. As to the new naval appointments and the selection of officers, ' Lord Ovaries said' that out of about 18 officers that the First Lord of the Admiralty had passed over—putting juniors before seniors—about 11. were as good- officers ,as we had got in the whole service, and under these appointments the majority of them ■would never- be-able to-serve ■ their .country again. He was not finding fault with the junior officers who had foe-en appointed. He was dealing only with the claims of the seniors who had been passed over; they were not old officers, but men in the prime of, life and with experience behind them. There was neither rhyme nor reason in these appointments; ©ucli methods ■were monstrous, vicious, and fatal to the efficiency of the service. .Mr ■Churchill had started badly With\this miad blunder. If the First Lord ■would make the Navy what was necessary for tlie' defence of the Empire and ensure our keeping command of the sea lie would support him, but in no circumstances; was he going to relax hi,s criticisms of the Navy so long as he thou/Cjht * there was anything wrong,to criticise. / • " ,