LETTE RS TO TILE El) ITO . R.
THE STATE OF THE NAVY.
[To THE EDITOR 07 TUN "SPECTATOR...I
Si,—In your last number "A Civil Engineer" brings against me the grave charge of having made (in my .letter of the 1st inst.) "a false statement to the effect that [he] was chosen and employed by the Admiralty to write a series of articles in the Times describing the new system of naval training, specialisation, and nucleus crews." Permit me to
show that I made no such statement,—whether it be false or true. The passage in my letter to which "A Civil Engineer" presumably refers runs as follows :—
"In regard to naval training, the first and most complete• account of details respecting courses and periods of study and Admiralty intentions• in regard to specialisation appeared as a series of articles contributed by A Civil Engineer' to the Times. It was claimed by the author that his information was accurate, and it was clear that very special facilities had been afforded to him. It was not obvious why A Civil Engineer' had been chosen to convey to the public, through the leading journal, information respecting training in naval gunnery, torpedoes, navigation, or signalling ; the nucleus-crew system, and the corps of Royal
Marines If the Admiralty wished to inform the public on these matters—and the public was interested greatly in all of them—it would surely have been preferable to have issued official Papers."
I am content to leave the decision with your readers as to whether any charge was made that "A Civil Engineer" had been "chosen and employed by the Admiralty" to write the articles. Having again read them, I maintain the correctness of my description, and again assert that special information had been furnished to the author. This information went far beyond details relating to courses of study, &c., to be obtained by visiting Osborne and Dartmouth. It related to the specialisation, employment, and promotion of naval officers in later years, and gave "the first and moat complete account
of Admiralty intentions." Dr. Ewing's lectures at the naval ports dealing with these matters came some time after. No reasonable reading of my words could miss the inten- tion to suggest that it was singular to choose "A Civil Engineer "—however eminent be might be—as the vehicle to convey to the public information in regard to such purely
naval subjects as gunnery, torpedoes, &c. Thanks to dis- closures made, in the letter under reply, it is now possible, to identify the writer and to appraise his authority.
On reference to the Fortnightly Review for 1902 one finds the signature "Rob Appleyard" at the foot of the article which "A Civil Engineer" says was written by him. This signature is identical with that to a letter published in the Spectator of November 17th, in which unstinted praise is
bestowed on recent Admiralty "reforms" and on Sir John Fisher as their principal author. Other articles and letters on naval training have been signed similarly. It may be
presumed that this is no nom de plume. If this is the real name of "A Civil Engineer," one may venture to say, without
intentional offence, that Mr. Appleyard does not occupy a, leading or distinguished position as a civil engineer,—indeed, his name is probably hardly known to leaders of the engineering profession. He is entitled, of course, to form and express opinions on naval training or any other subject of national importance; and be has apparently written a good deal in recent years. On the other hand, his claim to authority
is not made out because he has written voluminously, or because (for unknown reasons) the Times gave his letters large print and a prominence usually reserved for communications from recognised authorities in special subjects. If these letters had been signed "Rollo Appleyard," readers well instructed in naval subjects would have as!:ed : Who is the writer? what is his special claim to attention ? Sir John Fisher and his colleagues may value highly the whole-hearted support which Mr. Appleyard gives to their " reforms,"— of which he seems, in fact, to have been a pioneer-advocate, if not an inventor. It is possible, however, that they may regret that in making an unwarranted charge against myself Mr. Appleyard has dropped the veil of anonymity from "A Civil
{All responsibility for the ascription of the letter signed " A Civil Engineer" must rest on " Civis." As to that ascription we desire to express no opinion.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
