LORD CHARLES BERESFORD'S CORRESPON- DENCE WITH MR. ASQUITH.
HE correspondence between Lord Charles Beresford 1 and the Prime Minister published on Monday furnishes unpleasant reading for all who have the welfare of the Royal Navy at heart. Certain undisputed facts emerge therefrom and may be summarised. Lord Charles Beresford desired to call a few officers as wit- nesses before the Committee of the Cabinet appointed to investigate charges which he had brought against recent naval administration. Before evidence was taken two of the officers, holding the rank of Captain, informed Lord Charles Beresford that they were pre- pared to answer any questions, "but as their replies must more or less be regarded as a criticism of authority and their Service future depends on the same authority, they must ask for some protection, as their future careers might be absolutely ruined for expressing their opinions on a professional subject." This statement was communicated to Mr. Asquith in writing on April 21st, and Lord Charles Beresford was immediately informed by the Prime Minister that "no prejudice of any kind to their future career would result from their evidence, whatever it may be." It may appear strange at first sight that any such undertaking should have been asked for by these officers, but as it was well known that other officers who had formed and expressed opinions contrary to the Admiralty view had been dealt with summarily and unpleasantly, it was natural that protection from similar treatment should have been demanded. Moreover, the Committee were dealing with matters of vital importance to the Navy and the Empire, on which serious differences of opinion pre- vailed, and they required a free statement of facts and opinion from witnesses appearing before them.
Rumours soon began to spread that action had been taken at the Admiralty contrary to the pledge given by the Prime Minister. On July 9th Captain Faber asked the First Lord of the Admiralty in the House of Commons "if he was aware that Captain Hulbert had been informed by Admiral Bethell (Director of Naval Intelligence) that if he gave evidence against the Board of Admiralty at the Naval Inquiry he would be put on half-pay." Mr. McKenna replied that the allegation was devoid of all foundation ; but it is now known from the published correspondence that Lord Charles Beresford wrote (July 20th) to Mr. Asquith on the subject, reminding him that Captain Hulbert "had complained to [Mr. Asquith] and the Committee that he had been subjected to pressure in regard to what evidence he might choose to give," and that Mr. Asquith, "having inquired into the complaint, decided that it was due to a misunderstanding." Obviously Captain Hulbert was hardly likely to have misunderstood his official chief, and statements since published show that he did not. Lord Charles Beresford also informed Mr. Asquith that Captain Hulbert, "after being subjected to most invidious treatment during the whole time the inquiry lasted," was on July 1st ordered by the First Lord of the Admiralty to "proceed upon leave of absence, and to remain on leave until recalled," and that it was "an unheard-of thing for an officer in Captain Hulbert's position to be peremptorily ordered on leave." This action was regarded by Lord Charles Beresford and Captain Hulbert as a breach of the guarantee given to witnesses "that their evidence before the Committee would not prejudice their careers." After making inquiries of the Admiralty, Mr. Asquith replied (August 9th) that he was satisfied that "the professional prospects and future [of Captain Hulbert] are not going to be in any way impaired by anything that has happened in connexion with our inquiry," making no further refer- ence to the charge of invidious treatment and compulsory leave of absence. The Prime Minister, however, suggestively remarked that there "may, and no doubt will, be changes in the organisation and personnel of the department where [Captain Hulbert] at present works, but his career in the Service will not suffer. It must be noted that when Mr. Asquith's letter was written Captain Hulbert had been already suspended from duty—officially on full-pay leave— for nearly six weeks. Apparently he was kept in that anomalous position until October 12th, when it was announced that the Admiralty had reorganised the Intelligence Department, and had transferred to a new Naval Mobilisation Department the War Division of which Captain Hulbert had been in charge under the Director of Naval Intelligence. An officer hitherto employed at the War College at Portsmouth has now been given charge of the War Division at Whitehall, and Captain Hulbert has been placed on half-pay. Whatever may have been the reason officially given for this action, the result to Captain Hulbert is exactly that which was anticipated in Captain Faber's question of July- 9th, and the three months' interval does not alter that fact. Most people will agree with Lord Charles Beresford's opinion that Captain Hulbert's career has already been prejudiced by the unjust and humiliating treatment to which he has been subjected.
It is noteworthy also that Captain Campbell, who was called as a witness by Lord Charles Beresford, and is said to have "given most important evidence before the Com- mittee," has met with a fate similar to that of Captain Hulbert in connexion with the latest reorganisation at the Admiralty, and has been placed on half-pay. The Trade Division of the Intelligence Department, of which Captain Campbell was the head, has been abolished on the ground that" the experience of some years had shown that [its] work was not worth its cost." It may, of course, be a mere coincidence that this decision should have been taken at a time when Captain Campbell was the head of the Division, but that coincidence is, to say the least, unfortu- nate. Captain Campbell and Captain Hulbert, it is now stated, "will receive early consideration for employment" in command of ships ; but that information was not given by Mr. Asquith to Lord Charles Beresford until the latter had informed the Prime Minister that he "could not let the matter rest" after he had discovered that these two officers had been placed on half-pay. In the circumstances described, it is obvious that the public have a right to know more than has been stated so far about this latest reorganisation of the Admiralty which has dealt so heavy a blow at two gallant and distinguished officers who had the courage of their opinions, and stated them to the Cabinet Committee when asked to do so. The official Memorandum in regard to the reorganisation says that it is a "further development of the policy which has actuated the Board of Admiralty for some time past of organising a Navy War Council." The obvious duty of the Board of Admiralty is to initiate and carry out a policy rather than to be "actuated" by it ; but the phrase may represent the real state of affairs, and the Board. may have been " actuated " in this, as in most other matters during the last five years, by an individual member to whom the " policy " adopted has been due. However this may be, it would be of great interest to know whether the Prime Minister when he wrote to Lord Charles Beresford (on August 9th) had in mind this reorganisation, or that more radical change mentioned by himself and his colleagues on the Committee of Inquiry when they said that they "looked forward with much confidence to the further development of a Naval War Staff from which the naval members of the Board and Flag officers and their staffs at sea may be expected to derive common benefit." The title of a Naval War Council has been given to the new scheme in the Admiralty communiqué; but a perusal of the document will convince any one that the member- ship and organisation of the new Department cannot possibly fulfil the duties devolving upon a War Council. In its comments on this subject the French journal Le Yacht, which may be suppoEed to take a dispassionate view, remarks : "Le War Council correspond plutot h notre Conseil Superieur notre Etat-Major General." As a matter of fact, this so-called advance is only another step on the dangerous and objectionable course initiated by Lord Selborne five years ago, adding still more to the relative power and position of the First Sea Lord as com- pared with his naval colleagues, and weakening the Board of Admiralty as a whole. Naval efficiency of course demands loyalty and obedience to superior officers. The traditions of the Service prove that these qualities have never been lacking, nor are they less potent now than in the past. On the other hand, the future well-being of the Royal Navy can only be assured if officers of all ranks are guaranteed the right of independent judgment in considering problems which continually claim solution, and of free and unfettered expression of their opinions when called upon to state them before competent authorities such as the Committee of Inquiry. In recent years, unfortunately, there has been repeated evidence that, even when expressed in response to inquiry or in the most respectful manner, any dissent from views held by the highest naval authority, and embodied in radical departures from well-proved methods and principles, is regarded as culpable and to be punished. Servile com- pliance by naval officers with a policy which is believed by them to be dangerous to the national interests is contrary to the best traditions of the Naval Service, and the public must see to it that attempts to enforce such compliance by harsh personal treatment of individuals shall fail. If this is not done, the spirit of the Navy will be broken, and disaster must ensue.
Previous page
