SIR JOHN FISHER.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 521, 31 May 1909, Page 4

SIR JOHN FISHER.

It has long been known that the naval policy of Groat Britain has been a hotbed of personal rivalries, and these now appear to be coming to a head in tho excitement caused by the revelation of the extreme methods pursued by Sir John Fisher in defending himself against his critics. In a stense, the existence of bitter personal enmities in naval and politiconaval circles is as gravely deplorable as inadequacy in'the Government's naval programme, and the British people, now that they "are in a mood to insist on soundness in their Navy, are unlikely'to be satisfied until the Navy is purged of all personal, antagonisms that tend • to weaken British naval policy. We were informed about a fortnight ago that the First Lord of the Admiralty had apologised on behalf of himself and Sir John Fisher,' the First Naval Lord, for the publication by the Admiralty of a letter refle&ting upon the capacity as an officer of Lieutenant Carlyon Bellairs, who is a very vigorous critic-of the Admiralty's methods. On Saturday last'a cable message reported a further development "of the feud between Sir' John Fisher and his critics. , The. First Sea Lord was charged with "conducting a personal cam : paign within and without the Navy in order to further his own ends," and .Mr. M'Kenna, in defending Sir John, was unable to do better than enter a plea, of justification. He had had detractors and enemies, said Mr. M'Kenna, for many years, and it would be unfair to condemn him because in a timo of extreme pressure he ordered^ the printing of half a dozen injudicious letters. The public does not hear much of Sir ■John Fisher, but it'is on him, more than on any other man, that the naval security of the Empire depends. It is on him that the Government's critics, lay most of the blame for every weakness in British naval policy. When the Admiralty is spoken of, it is usually Sir John Fisher himself who is referred to. The case against him was recently sot out in two anonymous articles in the London Times. When he was appointed to his present position in 1904, it was almost universally believed that the naval destiny of Britain was at last in ideally safe and strong hands. But the Times' critic contends that great and drastic chnnges have been mado in naval administration without proper thought,and with' a result, the exact opposite,'of what was claimed to be the motive for each change—namely,, economy, .efficiency, and instant readiness for war. Sir John Fisami has worked with four euccessivo

First Lords since 1004, and he is the only | survivor of the Board of that year. It is accordingly contended that he has mado the Admiralty tlje "one-horn show" that, these circumstances enabled him to do. His changes in the methods of training officers is said to have resulted in inefficiency, He is blamed for having reduced tc nullity the work of tho various Departmental committees appointed from time to time to report on his proposals, inasmuch, as he was the chairman of each committee. Since ho took office, there have been many changes in tho distribution of the British fleets, each otio vitally different from the. others. Tho ."nucleus crow" system is said to have not been put into operation as originally designed, and to have resulted in dangerous inefficiency owing to tho frequent changes of the officers and men on tho various vessels. The economics claimed for tho famous "scrapping" policy aro declared to be illusory, many of tho "scrapped" vessels being "hulks, harbour ships, and small craft of no fightihg value"; .on tho other hand this policy has loft the Navy" very weak in' cruisers. 1 Complaint is made also of tho withdrawal of British ships on foreign stations. Finally it is pointed out that although he recommended tho irreducible minimum of four battleships a year in 1905, he recommended three ships for 1900-7, two for 1907-8, and two for 1903-9. To' every one of these charges, 'of couwe, the Admiralty has made a reply through the press. Indeed, the defenders of Sib John Fishee, if they aro not so numerous, are quite as vigorous as his opponents. This is a circumstance which makes all the more surprising the undesirable methods that are now bringing a storm about the First Lord's ears. The present is not a time at which jealousies and animosities should exist in the naval councils of the nation, and it will be good news when we hear that the tactics that produce them are no longer pursued.