We desire to protest in the strongest possible way against
a statement made in an article entitled "The Story of the Naval Feud" which appeared in the Daily Mail of Saturday last. The Spectator is therein described as a supporter of the "Beresford party." Our demand for an inquiry into the recent changes and administrative policy of the Admiralty is thus made to appear as part of a personal quarrel between Sir John Fisher and Lord Charles Beresford. Those who arid- cise Sir John Fisher's policy are apparently to be regarded as supporters of Lord Charles Beresford. Had the writer of the article in question referred to our columns, he would have found that we have never taken sides with Lord Charles Beresford, or made any attempt to elevate him, or, indeed, any other naval officer, at the expense of his colleagues. If there is a Beresford party in the Navy or the Press, we can only say that it has our strongest condemnation. That Lord Charles Beresford is a capable officer, as is Sir John Fisher, we do not deny ; but, in our opinion, neither of them is a "necessary man." What we desire is, not triumph or humilia- tion either for Lord Charles Beresford or for Sir John Fisher, but, as we have urged again and again, an inquiry into the working out of the great revolution which has taken place during the last three years at the Admiralty. Every new fact which comes to light, including the attempt to represent criticism of the Admiralty as a feud between two naval officers, convinces us of the necessity for such inquiry.
Previous page
