This being the situation, it seems to me most unfortunate that the Admiralty followed the course they did in communicating their various accounts of this action to us. For there were three accounts given, and no two of the three agreed as to the reason why the pursuit was broken off! For two days we were not told that _Lion_ was injured, and for four days were ignorant of the fact that the control of the British Fleet had passed out of Sir David Beatty’s hands some time before the action was ended. It was not till March 3--that is, five weeks after the action--that we were told the name of the officer on whom command had devolved when _Lion_ fell out of line! This suppression was really extraordinary. To be mentioned in despatches had always been an acknowledged honour. To be ignored was a new form of distinction. How was the public to take so singular an omission? Had it ever happened before that an officer had been in command of a fleet at so grave a crisis and the fact of his being in command suppressed in announcing the fact of the engagement? No one quite knew how to take it. The discrepancies in the _communiqués_ are worth noting. In the first, of January 25, was this curiously worded paragraph: “A well-contested running fight ensued. Shortly after one o’clock _Bluecher_, which had previously fallen out of the line, capsized and sank. Admiral Beatty reports that two other German _battle-cruisers_ were seriously damaged. They were, however, able to continue their flight, and reached an area where dangers from German submarines and mines prevented further pursuit.” Did whoever drafted this statement suppose that the _Bluecher_ was a battle-cruiser? We are now, however, more concerned with the reasons given for breaking off the action. An area was reached where “dangers from German submarines and mines prevented further pursuit.” The _communiqué_ of January 27 was silent on this point. On the 28th was published what purported to be “a preliminary telegraphic report received from the Vice-Admiral.” The paragraph dealing with this matter is as follows: “Through the damage to _Lion’s_ feed-tank by an unfortunate chance shot, we were undoubtedly deprived of a greater victory. The presence of the enemy’s submarines subsequently necessitated the action being broken off.” In this statement the excuse of mines is dropped. In the despatch published on March 3 the end of the action is treated by the Vice-Admiral as follows: “At 11:20 I called the _Attack_ alongside, shifted my flag to her at about 11:35. I proceeded at the utmost speed to rejoin the squadron, and met them at noon retiring north-northwest. I boarded and hoisted my flag in _Princess Royal_ at about 12:20, when Captain Brock acquainted me with what had occurred since _Lion_ fell out of line, namely, that _Bluecher_ had sunk, and that the enemy battle-cruisers had continued their course to eastward in a considerably damaged condition.”