GUNNERY v. PAINT.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:1
SIR,—Captain Molyneux, R.N., in the Spectator of Decem- ber 27th impugns my statement as to the Empress of India' on two grounds : firstly, that she was not a flagship when the recent prize-firing took place; and secondly, that the Admiral, not being on board, was not responsible. With regard to the first point, Captain Molyneux and the Admiralty seem to be at variance as to the facts. In the official Navy List for October,1902, the Empress of India' is described as "Flagship of the Second in Command of the Home Squadron when cruising,' and a note is appended: "Commissioned at Devonport, Octo- ber 13th, 1901, with officers, &c., transferred from the Howe.' " With regard to Captain Molyneux's contention that she only became second flagship on October 1st, 1902, I would point out that here again is a discrepancy. The official Navy List gives May 7th, 1902, as the date of the appointment of the Rear-Admiral. Is the accuracy of the Navy List an illusion P If so, the fault is not mine. If the flag-officer is not partly responsible for the shooting of his flagship, it is high time that he was made responsible. As Captain Molyneux employs the word " misleading " in reference to my letter to you of November 22nd, and implies (without affirming) that the facts set forth in " Gunnery v. Paint" are therefore not capable of substantiation, I ask your leave to state that the only matter which has hitherto been both challenged and brought to an issue was my allegation as to throwing practice ammunition overboard. Captain Duke Crofton, R.N., publicly challenged me to prove this charge, and undertook to pay a sum of money to a naval charity if I succeeded in doing so to the satisfaction of the editor of the National Review. The challenge was accepted. After an investigation before Mr. Yerburgh, M.P., J.P., the evidence being taken on oath, the award was given in my favour. I have received the money and sent it to the institute used by the Fleet at Gibraltar. Having incurred much expense and trouble in this matter, I submit that Captain Molyneux's vague condemnation of an article he has not read is not sufficient to disprove the facts set forth. When the Empress of India' went to her prize- firing, she was supposed to be ready for action. She did not prove a match for a straight-shooting third-class cruiser. This is a matter in which landsmen and taxpayers (who provide both naval half-pay and powder and shot) may be pardoned for reverting to the warning Dundonald gave to the House of Commons on July 5th, 1813, that too much importance is still attached to the " brightening of brass- heads, bitts, and capstan hoops," and too little to the con- dition of the ships as pure fighting machines. The question as to whether flagships have been, as a rule, bad shooters does not rest on opinion. It is a fact vouched for by the returns.—I am, Sir, &c., ARNOLD WHITE. 2 Windmill Hill, Hampstead.
Previous page
