[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR. "] Civis " must be aware
that the passage which he reproduces in his letter of December 15th ends just where the most serious part of his indictment of December 1st begins. The paragraph which he now cites is clear as to his indefen- sible use of the word " chosen "; the context, which he now omits, is equally clear as to his adoption of the word "employ- ment." In order to enable him to determine the correctness of the evidence referred to in my last letter, I purposely afforded him the means of establishing my identity. He avails himself of this to cast doubt upon my professional status,—a matter upon which it is obviously not competent for me to express an opinion. Setting aside what is irrelevant to the articles in the Times, the single question arises : Did I mislead the public by describing myself as a civil engineer? My reply is that I am duly qualified by the Institution of Civil Engineers so to describe myself.
But, Sir, what are the qualifications of " Civis " that em- power him under that same cloak of anonymity to mutter these defamatory remarks ? And to what extent is he " dis- tinguished" in his profession that he may presume to discourse in this manner ? Allow me to demonstrate that at the very outset of his argument on the main issue he has failed on a statement of simple fact. Upon this inaccuracy he has erected a fabric of abuse, though the evidence of his error is in his hands as a Parliamentary Paper. In the Spectator of November 17th, p. 781, when setting forth to attack the very head and front of the offending, be informed your readers that the Special Committee presided over by Admiral Sir Archibald Douglas, which was to inquire as to whether any modifications were necessary in essential features of the scheme put forward in 1902, was appointed on December 14th, 1904, and that its Report is dated March 7th, 1905. And he concludes from this that the proceedings were " rushed " and that they were "hasty and ill-considered." He thus asks the public to believe that the period during which the Committee investigated the matter for the Admiralty was only four months. He is grossly inaccurate. In his haste he has muddled his dates, and he has become entangled with a Committee that was appointed under Sir Archibald Douglas to inquire into matters relating only to that portion of the 1902 scheme that concerns Naval Instructors and existing Sub-Lieutenants.
To prove this, allow me to direct attention to the Parlia- mentary Blue-book entitled " Reports of Departmental Com- mittees," bearing date May 5th, 1906. On p. 52 thereof it is seen that the Committee which "Civic" meant to assail was constituted not on December 14th, 1904, as be suggests, but on July 8th, 1905. It was subsequently divided into two Sub- Committees, one to deal with questions relating to the Royal Marines, and the other with engine-room ranks and ratings,— both, however, concerned with the essential features of the scheme put forward in 1902. The Final Report, signed by Sir Archibald Douglas, as given on p. 176 of this Blue-book, is dated, not March 7th, 1905, as stated by " Civis," but March 3rd, 1906. Thus be is wrong both as to epoch and as to period; he has halved the period, and he has put back the epoch by a whole year. In any case, the inquiry lasted for eight months, instead of four ; and if the Committee upon which " Civis" has stumbled is included in the reckoning— for their Report is also signed by Sir Archibald Douglas— the whole period of investigation could be extended from December 14th, 1904, to March 3rd, 1906. Blinded with prejudice, it was inevitable that " Civis " would fail ; prejudice has made him careless as to facts, and irresponsible in the expression of opinions.—I am, Sir, &c.,
ROLLO APPLEYARD.
Previous page
