On 12
August 1914 the Admiralty signalled Milne that, as the German cruisers were
‘disposed of’, the British armoured cruisers, except Defence, would be
withdrawn from the Mediterranean and the supreme command would become vested in
the French C-in-C. As he was senior to Lapeyrère, Milne was directed to return
to England in Inflexible leaving Troubridge and Sackville Carden, the
Admiral Superintendent of the Malta Dockyard, under French orders; the remaining
two battle cruisers would continue to maintain a watch on the Dardanelles.
To Milne’s supporters at the time ‘the consequences of this were very bad on our
Admiral, especially in view of our failure with the Goeben, as a bad
construction was very generally put on a step rendered necessary; that is, his
withdrawal from the station to give a free hand to his junior, the French
admiral’.
This account is correct in that the reason for Milne’s recall was generally
ascribed, especially among the junior officers, not to a pre-war naval
convention but to a want of confidence in him by the Admiralty. When news was
received that Admiral Jackson was proposed as a replacement for Milne,
Lieutenant Parry recorded that ‘From all accounts he couldn’t be worse than
Berkeley Milne who seems to have been making a pot mess of everything and is
particularly unpopular at the Admiralty now for having let the Goeben and
Breslau escape…’
Equally, when news of the ‘sale’ of the German ships became known it was thought
‘really rather funny but somewhat of a blow to Sir Archibald!!’
Nevertheless, by the time Inflexible returned to Malta from the
Dardanelles on 14 August, Milne was described as ‘very affable’ and showing
little sign of the storm that was about to break around him.
While at Malta Milne bade farewell, by
letter, to Troubridge, sending him ‘a few disjointed lines’. Although he was
glad Troubridge was going to the Dardanelles, and quite understanding
Troubridge’s reply of 7 August about not engaging Goeben and Breslau,
Milne ‘still wished you had and knocked 3 or 4 knots speed off of them: all this
‘to do’ would not now have happened – but there it is – I have wired you to send
me in a full report to Admiralty regarding the events of those nights,
and the night when Goeben left Messina’.
Troubridge replied four days later, already sensing that trouble was afoot, and
began to lay the groundwork for his defence:
I confess I cannot see your point [he wrote] that you wanted
Goeben attacked by the lighter & slow ships – we all expected the B.C’s
to come back to my flag after their chase, as I had made it clear at Malta I
could hope to do nothing to Goeben with [First Cruiser Squadron] & you
replied it was all right I should have 2 B.C’s with them joined to me or even
supporting Gloucester she was a gift – otherwise had I attacked she [Goeben]
would have been just where she is now & probably two of us at the bottom & all
the prestige of a victory with her. No doubt you had very good reasons for
keeping the B.C’s with you…’
Troubridge also maintained that the French C-in-C ‘actually
sighted smoke of Goeben’ on the morning of 4 August, which, as has been
demonstrated, is a claim that could not be correct. Troubridge then went even
further and, with a generous helping of hindsight, argued that, as Lapeyrère’s
fleet effectively blocked the way west, ‘it was certain she [Goeben] was
coming East.’ Following their discussion regarding dispositions in Malta on
Sunday 2 August, Troubridge admitted he was ‘surprised’ by the signal that Milne
had sent after he (Troubridge) had abandoned the attempt to intercept the German
ships. It was all so puzzling; Troubridge could not
for the life of me understand the [German] policy that made
no use of Goeben & Breslau who ought have been [sic] such a
thorn in our side all over the Mediterranean. I think the Turks when they man
her will not even fulfil their bargain & side with Germany.
For Troubridge, what was past was prologue. ‘All good fortune
attend you wherever you are’, he ended cheerily; it was, the Rear-Admiral
recorded somewhat optimistically, ‘all over now.’
On the journey back to England Milne busied
himself with his Report of Proceedings to the Admiralty. This factual statement,
which commenced at 27 July when he received the war warning telegram, ran to 50
paragraphs covering dispositions and orders but only incidentally gave reasons
for his actions. Overall he managed to compress these into a simple statement:
‘My first consideration was the protection of the French transports from the
German ships. I knew they had at least 3 knots greater speed than our battle
cruisers and a position had to be taken up from which Goeben could be cut
off if she came westward’.
Troubridge’s contribution featured briefly: according to Milne, the Rear-Admiral
had first gone north ‘with the intention of engaging the German ships in the
entrance to the Adriatic and then, in view of their alteration of course, came
southward hoping to cut them off in the dim light of dawn. Finding, however,
that he could not do so before daylight, he considered it inadvisable to engage
Goeben with her longer ranged guns and withdrew northward.’
Inflexible arrived in the forenoon of
24 August at Devonport, where Milne’s flag was due to be struck at sunset; the
Admiral had, in the meantime, travelled up to the Admiralty to report. However,
soon after Milne had set off, a telegram was received on board Inflexible
that the flag was to remain hoisted, pending further instructions — apparently
an earlier telegram, which would have directed Milne to stay where he was, had
failed to arrive. Clearly, Milne was not welcome at the Admiralty, and when he
did arrive ‘a proper reception was refused him’ and he was sent back to his
ship. ‘This, we all supposed,’ wrote the Fleet Paymaster, ‘was because they had
made up their minds over the Goeben affair in his disfavour without
waiting for full reports.’
A special messenger arrived from the Admiralty the following day with two
supplementary questions for Milne to answer: why did Indomitable, after
coaling at Bizerta, then accompany the other two battle cruisers to Malta to
coal again; and second, why was Gloucester recalled and, if the recall
was imperative, why was Dublin not sent to replace her?
Milne answered the questions on 26 August. He
argued that it was his belief that the battle cruisers should be kept together,
being the only way to counter Goeben’s supposed 3 knot advantage in
speed; and he brilliantly turned the tables on the Admiralty by pointing out
that, if Indomitable had set off from Bizerta in hot pursuit, before she
could ever have reached the Aegean she would have been recalled to the Adriatic
when the Austrian ‘war’ telegram was received. Understandably, the Admiralty did
not press the point. If only Milne could have been as imaginative in actual
command as he was in defence of it. Gloucester’s recall was easily dealt
with: she was running short of coal, would soon not be able to steam at full
speed, and so was vulnerable, while, due to the uncertainty regarding Austrian
intentions, Dublin could not be spared.
Milne took the opportunity so provided by the
Admiralty to go further, beyond the bounds of the two questions, and present a
general justification for his actions. He submitted that the Board of Admiralty
consider the following, each of which was the subject of either a definite order
or general Admiralty policy:
(a). The Goeben and Breslau to be prevented
from interfering with the transport of French troops. The completion of this
duty was not notified to me until 10th August. (Admiralty telegram No. 183 of 30
July.)
(b). The Goeben and Breslau to be prevented
from leaving the Mediterranean by the Straits of Gibraltar. (Admiralty telegram
No. 207 of 3 August.)
(c). The Goeben and Breslau to be prevented
from entering the Adriatic and Austrian ships to be watched if they left it.
(Admiralty telegrams Nos. 196, 204, and 222 of 2nd and 6th August.)
(d). Trade in the Eastern basin of the Mediterranean to be
protected.
(e). The possibility of Italy joining Austria and Germany.
(Admiralty telegrams No. 183 of 30 July and No. 196 of 2nd August.)
(f). The neutrality of Italy to be ‘rigidly’ respected and no
ship to go within six miles of the Italian coast. (Admiralty telegram No. 215 of
4th August.)
Clearly, the Admiralty was going to have trouble with Milne
who had spent the time since the escape well, preparing a solid defence, and who
quite obviously realized that, if blame was going to be apportioned, the
Admiralty was extremely vulnerable. Besides, the Admiral had a friend at Court.
It took precisely one day for Battenberg to study ‘carefully’ Milne’s original
report and supplementary explanations and to write his own long minute which
fully vindicated the Admiral. According to Battenberg, up until 6 August, when
Souchon left Messina, Milne’s dispositions ‘were the proper ones’, proof of
which was evident as the French transports were not interfered with.
As Souchon could not, Battenberg argued, go
anywhere but ‘south (Egypt)’ because of enemy ships barring his way in each of
the other directions, ‘There was therefore no particular object in detaching one
of the 3 battle-cruisers (Indomitable) to the eastward.’ That the German
ships did escape was due to Admiral Troubridge who ‘signally failed in carrying
out the task assigned to him by his C-in-C. The road to the east was open to the
enemy and he took it…’ Only with the recall of Gloucester did Battenberg
find fault: Milne’s reasons, he decided, were not ‘singly or collectively,
sufficiently strong to make the recall imperative.’ Yet even here, the First Sea
Lord tempered his judgment for, once Goeben and Breslau were in
the Aegean, ‘they entered waters where their presence was of less consequence to
us, while the need for light cruisers off Adriatic was still great. This recall
of Gloucester can therefore be passed over.’ Battenberg was in no doubt
where the blame lay — at Troubridge’s feet. Churchill was not so certain: ‘The
explanation is satisfactory,’ he minuted tersely, ‘the result unsatisfactory.’
Notwithstanding Churchill’s unease, an
official letter was sent to Milne the same day in which he was informed that the
Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty had considered his reports and decided —
1. Your general dispositions and the measures taken by you
from July 27th until you handed over the command in the Mediterranean to the
French Admiralissimo are fully approved by Their Lordships.
2. That the two German cruisers were not brought to action
and disposed of is of course to be regretted, but Their Lordships note that this
was primarily due to the failure of Rear Admiral Troubridge to carry out your
instructions. Their Lordships intend dealing with this matter independently.
3. Their Lordships request that you will now strike your flag
and report yourself at the Admiralty on the termination of your command.
Battenberg had done his job well: despite his awkward
reception at the Admiralty three days previously, Milne was now, officially, off
the hook. With the Board’s letter to Milne went a second, private, one from
Battenberg:
It is with the greatest satisfaction that our official letter
is now going to you, which expresses full approval of all you have done. Having
had no inkling of Troubridge’s amazing misconduct, the whole situation was wrapt
in mystery. The slowness of our ships is disgusting & must have been
exasperating to you in your difficult situation. I trust you understand that in
not seeing you the other day I was bound by Board decision. Looking forward to
seeing you tomorrow.
Battenberg’s open support of Milne placed
Churchill in an awkward position. Milne was in no sense a favourite of
Churchill, who now, possibly, recalled Fisher’s ranting against the Admiral;
Troubridge, on the other hand, had worked harmoniously with Churchill at the
Admiralty during his time as C.O.S. This stood for little in the wake of
Battenberg’s onslaught. Troubridge’s first report, dated 16 August, recorded his
movements from 2 to 15 August and presented a preliminary explanation for his
failure to intercept Goeben and Breslau: he had, he maintained,
gone into the problem of fighting these ships ‘most exhaustively’ with the
conclusion that they could only be engaged successfully by night, in half-light,
or in navigation waters. None of these conditions prevailed when the
Rear-Admiral realized he would not come across Goeben until 6 a.m. and,
as he maintained, 80 miles from land.
Unimpressed, the Admiralty requested that Troubridge amplify his statement and
he therefore, while still off the Dardanelles, prepared a supplementary report
which was ready by 26 August. However, before this second report was
received in London, Battenberg prepared a devastating minute on Troubridge’s
first report:
In this report Rear Admiral Troubridge states that with 4
armoured cruisers he could never bring to action in daylight the German battle
cruiser Goeben. He consequently failed to carry out his clear duty, both
tactically in declining to attack the enemy, and strategically in not heading
off the enemy (for which he was very favourably placed) and driving him back
into the arms of the superior force under the C-in-C…Not one of the excuses
which Adl. Troubridge gives can be accepted for one moment…The escape of the
Goeben must ever remain a shameful episode in this war. The flag officer who
is responsible for this failure cannot be entrusted with any further command
afloat and his continuance in such command constitutes a danger to the State.
Battenberg proposed that Troubridge should be directed to
return to England to face a Court of Inquiry.
In the face of this indictment, and despite his own earlier professed misgivings
regarding small cruisers which would ‘all be gobbled up by “Goebens” ’,
Churchill could do little other than agree: ‘Proceed as proposed with regard to
R. Admiral Troubridge’, minuted the First Lord. In the meantime, the
Dardanelles’ command was still of the greatest importance. ‘Who is the senior
Captain?’ asked Churchill with a hint of desperation, ‘Is he the best. Can he be
relied on — Full & clear orders must be sent him afresh’.
Throughout the fiasco of early August, the
performance of Captain Howard Kelly in HMS Gloucester shone out like a
beacon; however, when his Report of Detached Service was received in
London (included in a submission from Troubridge) it presented the Admiralty
with something of a problem. The first reactions were, as one would expect,
enthusiastic: ‘Excellent work which should be noted’, minuted Battenberg, while
even the overbearing Sturdee grudgingly recorded, ‘Good shadowing. No fear of
responsibility, never lost sight of the cruisers main object — to shadow
Goeben.’ Churchill was in no doubt; he informed Battenberg on 14 September
that ‘A C.B. should be conferred on Cpt Kelly for the extraordinary combination
of restraint and daring which characterised his manoeuvres’.
An official letter of approbation was prepared on 19 September and was about to
be sent to Kelly
when Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson, working at the Admiralty in an unofficial
capacity, raised a discordant note. ‘I am inclined to think’, he informed
Churchill and Battenberg, ‘that until the Court of Inquiry into Admiral
Troubridge’s proceedings has been held it would be better not to publish this
account by Cpt Kelly. It is forwarded by Admiral Troubridge without comment,
which is rather remarkable.’
The point was taken and the letter of approbation was not sent until January
1915 when the wording of the original draft was altered to account for the
delay. As far as publishing Kelly’s report was concerned, that was out of the
question. By the start of 1915, the Goeben incident lived on only in the
memory of those felt wronged by it and the Admiralty preferred to leave it that
way; publication of the report, it was argued, would ‘only cause a demand for
more information and reports on the whole incident.’
The Court of Inquiry to which Admiral Wilson had referred was
held at the Navigation School, Portsmouth on 22 September 1914 with Admiral Sir
Hedworth Meux as President and Admiral Sir George Callaghan as the other member;
evidence was heard from Milne and Troubridge only. From the outset Troubridge’s
strategy was clear as he sought to enlarge the scope of the proceedings,
illustrating points by referring to Admiral Togo (‘with whom I was in Japan’),
and, in particular, highlighting the events before leaving Malta on 2 August,
which led him to believe that he was to have the battle cruisers and that Milne
was cognisant of his views regarding any attempt by the First Cruiser Squadron
to engage an enemy battle cruiser. Unfortunately, Hedworth Meux and Callaghan
preferred not to go into these matters, ‘but confine ourselves entirely to the
question as to whether Rear-Admiral Troubridge, with his cruiser squadron,
should or should not have endeavoured to engage the Goeben.’
Within the confines of this narrow interpretation Troubridge virtually condemned
himself by his answers to questions 47 and 48:
47. Are we to understand then that your giving battle to the
Goeben with the cruisers you had with you and destroyers would have
destroyed your squadron without serious damage and loss of power and speed to
the Goeben?
A. Yes. I prefer
that there should be no allusion to the destroyers; they had not enough coal for
me to take them near the Goeben. Her speed is 27 knots, and I did not
think it proper to bring them by daylight up to the Goeben.
48. You think they [Goeben and Breslau] would
have destroyed your squadron without serious damage [to themselves]?
A. I do not say they
would have destroyed my squadron. I say they would have disabled my squadron
without experiencing any damage to her themselves, that the whole matter was in
her hands. If she was pressing on for Constantinople, they would do little
damage; if they had hours to spare, they would do a great deal of damage; if
they had half a day to spare, they might sink us all. I do not think,
considering everything, that any particular damage could have been suffered by
the Goeben, and that is the reason why I decided that she was a superior
force. The decision was left to me, and I made it. I was told to avoid action
with a superior force. I did so. That is all.
The Court reported to the Admiralty that, although Troubridge
had been obsessed with his personal opinion that in the open sea Goeben
was superior to any number of ‘non battle-cruisers’, they themselves did not
admit this alleged superiority. To support their argument the weight of the
combined broadside of the First Cruiser Squadron was cited as being equal to
Goeben’s but having a greater rapidity of fire which would assist in
offsetting Goeben’s heavier armour and greater speed. Hedworth Meux and
Callaghan also refused to accept Troubridge’s contention that the German long
range shooting was overwhelmingly accurate:
9. We are of opinion [they concluded] that although Goeben
might through superior speed have declined action, yet if she had accepted
battle the four cruisers, possibly assisted by Gloucester and Dublin
(with long range torpedoes), and her two Torpedo-boat Destroyers Beagle
and Bulldog, had a very fair chance of at least delaying Goeben by
materially damaging her.
10. Further we regret that Rear-Admiral Troubridge did not
beforehand make it clear to his Commander-in-Chief that he had no intention to
engage Goeben in open water in daylight with his squadron unless
supported by a battle-cruiser.
11. And it should have been clear to him that the Admiralty
telegram (No. 183 of 30th July) – which he had seen and which ordered the
Commander-in-Chief ‘not to be brought at this stage to action against superior
force’ – clearly referred to Austrian battleships, as shewn by the sentence ‘The
speed of your squadron is sufficient to enable you to choose your moment.
As a result, Troubridge was summoned to
attend a Court Martial to answer a charge under Section 3 of the Naval
Discipline Act that ‘on the 7th day of August 1914, from negligence or through
other default, [you did] forbear to pursue the chase of His Imperial German
Majesty’s ship Goeben, being an enemy then flying.’ Troubridge was at
least fortunate in being tried under the slightly lesser charge of negligence
for, under Section 3, he could equally have been charged either with acting
traitorously or from motives of cowardice. This decision was not as clear cut as
it might have seemed; at the Admiralty, as is evident from Battenberg’s minutes,
Troubridge had already been adjudged guilty before any evidence had been heard.
Consequently, pressure was put on the prosecutor, Rear-Admiral Sir Sydney
Fremantle, to try Troubridge on a charge of cowardice which, if proved, could
attract the death penalty. Fremantle, knowing of Troubridge’s unquestioned
personal bravery, flatly refused to countenance such a course: it would be quite
impossible to prove cowardice and he would not ‘inflict on such an officer the
indignity of even being tried on such a charge.’
The lesser charge of ‘negligence or other default’ did, however, cover an error
of judgment.
Still, Troubridge was not without his
supporters: not knowing of Milne’s successful defence of his own position,
Lieutenant Parry recorded in his diary that ‘Troubridge is going to be
courtmartialled…and most people now think that this will be followed by another
on Sir Berkeley Milne. And the opinion of the Mediterranean Fleet is certainly
all on the side of the former.’
The Court Martial lasted four days, beginning 5 November, and covered the ground
in great detail, with a particular emphasis on the technical aspects of gunnery
in an attempt to try to resolve the question of ‘superior force’ and for which
Troubridge tried to enlist the support of the Navy’s foremost gunnery expert,
Admiral Sir Percy Scott.
Unfortunately, Scott could not attend as a witness for the defence, but sent
Troubridge a letter detailing the maximum ranges of the guns of Goeben
(which he put at over 25,000 yards) and Defence (16,000 yards). This
letter, regarded by Troubridge’s counsel as being ‘of vital importance to the
case’, was questioned by the Prosecutor as not being admissible as evidence —
Fremantle argued that an Admiralty expert gunnery witness was in attendance and
was, therefore, available for examination and cross-examination which Scott was
not. This satisfied the President of the Court: ‘I don’t think we want to have
this letter’, he ruled.
But all this missed the point, which was not
whether, according to a minute study of the technical aspects, Goeben
did, or did not, constitute a superior force to the First Cruiser Squadron but
whether Troubridge believed that she did, and, in the conditions
prevailing on the morning of 7 August 1914, this was quite clearly his belief.
After hearing the evidence
the Court’s deliberations lasted four hours — Troubridge was acquitted. Put
quite simply, in view of the instruction that the First Cruiser Squadron was not
to get seriously engaged with a superior force, ‘the Court are of the opinion
that, under the particular circumstances of weather, time, and position, the
accused was justified in considering the Goeben was a superior force to
the First Cruiser Squadron at the time they would have met, viz. 6 a.m.
on the 7th August, in full daylight in the open sea.’
Whether they realized it or not, the implication of the Court’s finding in
effect placed the blame at Churchill’s door, a direct result of his clumsy
drafting of operational telegrams.
Nevertheless, it had been a close run thing.
Troubridge’s defence was conducted by Leslie Scott, K.C., M.P. who had ‘expected
an acquittal on the charge as framed, but if Troubridge had been tried for
vacillation, no counsel could have saved him.’
The Prosecutor’s private opinion was:
(1) That the Admiralty telegram was badly worded, and should
have been restricted to stating the known facts and the relevant considerations,
and should not have cramped the decision of the man on the spot by giving him
direct instructions as to whether or not to engage.
(2) That Troubridge assumed too readily that the Goeben
could steam at her full reputed speed, that her guns were in good order, that
she had plenty of coal, and no anxiety as to replacing the large amount of
ammunition which would inevitably be expended in long-range firing. He was also
inclined to magnify the effect of the deficiencies, of which of course he had
full knowledge, in his own ships. The Goeben’s destination was unknown,
but it was evident that, whatever it was, she would have the power to do
considerable damage to the Allied cause, Milne with his three battle cruisers
was within 200 miles. Troubridge should have maintained his original, and
instinctive, decision to bring her to action at daylight, and hoped for the
best. The Goeben, far from her home bases, could not have afforded the
great expenditure of ammunition which is required in very long-range firing, so
she would probably have closed to a range within that of the cruisers.
Troubridge might well have expected to lose one or two ships, but he might also
have expected to do the Goeben such damage as would make it possible for
Milne with the battle cruisers to come up and finish her off. If the Goeben
elected to use superior speed to evade the Third [sic, should be
First] Cruiser Squadron by steaming round them, at any rate some time would have
been gained.
Reactions in the Admiralty were as one would expect. Fisher,
having now replaced Battenberg, blamed Milne, who it would be fair to say he
despised, for not having had his battle cruisers (‘even if short of coal’) off
Messina while Goeben was coaling there; he did not mention Troubridge’s
part. Wilson gave a more considered appraisal, agreeing with Fremantle that
Troubridge assumed too great a German superiority, but arguing that the decision
of the Court Martial had little bearing on the escape as once Souchon had left
Messina unhindered he could have avoided battle at any time due to his greater
speed. This ignores the chance presented while Souchon coaled at Denusa.
The Second and Third Sea Lords, Vice-Admiral
Sir Frederick Hamilton and Rear-Admiral Frederick Tudor, both wrote similar
minutes singling out the unhappy contribution of Troubridge’s Flag Captain,
Fawcet Wray. Hamilton had no time for legal niceties: ‘The Court has been
entirely led off the track by a clever lawyer.’ He believed that Milne’s
dispositions, and by inference Milne himself, were being tried, but as it was
Troubridge in the dock it seemed ‘very unfair’ to judge Milne ‘without letting
him have an opportunity to defend himself. In point of fact his dispositions
were very sound.’ Hamilton then thought better of the last sentence
[italicized] and deleted it from his final minute. In fact, in draft form at
least, his defence of Milne went a good deal further: he specifically answered
Fisher’s charge. ‘The C-in-C was criticised’, Hamilton had originally written,
‘for not having his battle cruisers close to Messina…[but] if they had been
close up nothing could have prevented Goeben from breaking out in the
dark, and thanks to her superior speed getting away without being engaged.
Keeping them away to the westward made it almost certain that one of the light
cruisers shadowing the Goeben…would have enabled the C-in-C to bring her
to action with one or more of his battle cruisers…’
Did Hamilton cut this offending paragraph after seeing Fisher’s minute? While it
seemed unfair to Hamilton to try Milne, this scruple did not apply to Fawcett
Wray, who would be damned by Hamilton to remain unemployed, ‘as it is decidedly
dangerous to have an officer of his opinions in a responsible position.’
In spite of almost universal condemnation,
Wray was given a lowly command at Gallipoli, where he distinguished himself.
Troubridge was sent to Serbia in January 1915 as head of the British Naval
Mission where he also performed a valuable service in that isolated post.
Only Milne remained unemployed — Churchill wrote him on 19 November that, as
‘Circumstances have been entirely altered by the war’, he could not now appoint
Milne, as he had intended, as C-in-C, Nore. This was not good enough for Milne
who promptly sought an interview with the First Lord in an attempt to clarify
these new circumstances; when challenged Churchill was forced to admit, feebly,
that these amounted to no more than that Admiral Callaghan was now going to
Chatham to make room for Battenberg to go to Portsmouth ‘after the war was
over.’
With his protector, Battenberg, now out of the way and Fisher back at the
Admiralty, Milne was going to get nowhere. As late as 22 December Fisher, the
resurrected First Sea Lord, seemed ‘at this supreme juncture…more busy in
getting at his enemies than at those of his country. He is after “Sir Berkeley
Goeben” as he calls him, at this moment, and also Sturdee…’
The wisest course for Milne would have been silence; he chose not to take it.

|