Evening Post. SATURDAY, MAY 29, 1915.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 126, 29 May 1915, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, MAY 29, 1915.

A DEPLORABLE DECISION To many readers Lord Fisher's retirement from the Admiralty will have seemed even more unpleasant news than the sinking of the Majestic. The loss of a. battleship is bub one of the chances of naval warfare, but the loss of the m*n who should have been in supreme control of our naval operations in every sea is a calamity which may be of * much more grievous character, and which certainly cannot be lightly dismissed as one of the chances of war. Not chance, nor even ordinary mismanagement, but sheer perversity appears to bo the explanation of a blow for vrhich the Empire was totally unprepared. As the case has been presented to us by cable — and on such a matter we are entitled to assume that we have been supplied from day to day with the gist of all that has been made public at Home— it was Lord Fisher's differences of opinion with Mr. Churchill that precipitated th» Cabinet crisis. Lord Fisher had tendered his resignation because he had found in his official superior at the Admiralty a man ■with a. will as strong as his own, and it was only as a result of the personal intervention of the King that the resignation was withheld. During the breathing-space thus obtained the Cabinet was reconstructed, Mr. Churchill was removed from the Admiralty, and in Mr. Bsilfour the Department was given a First Lord who could be absolutely relied upon to refrain from any attempt to confound the functions of his experts with a lay- j man's conception of strategy. The ar- j rangement seemed an admirable one, and it' now comes as a. shock to the Empire j to find that after a reconstruction of tlte Cabinet, which was inspired by a desire j to retain Lord Fisher's services, lias ( been carried out his hci'viccs arc nevertheless to be lost. i Oiv the point which was in issue; betiwepu Mr. IJhurchUl ami Lord I'ishe*

public opinion is strongly in Lord Fisher's favour. It was said of Lord John Russell that he would have been ready at a moment's notice to take command of the Channel Fleet. Mr. Churchill's self-confidence is equally sublime, and it brought him into inevitable conflict at the Admiralty with a man whose self-confidence was based upon the study and experience of a lifetime. Just as the nation prefers an Admiral to the most omniscient of laymen for the command of the Channel Fleet, so it prefers Lord Fisher's opinion to Mr. Churchill's upon all the issues of naval strategy. Let the expert be paramount in his own sphere. But if the statement of the Daily Express is correct, Lord Fisher's quarrel with the new Government is that it has declined to recognise the supremacy of the expert in a sphere that is not his own. He declined, we are told, to return to the Admiralty except on his own terms — namely, " the inclusion of his own nominees in the office" at the Admiralty, and his complete and untrammelled control of that Department." The Government has very properly declined to submit to such intolerable conditions. " Lord Fisher was ordered to return to his post, but did not do so." Had his official superior been Sir John Jellicoe instead of Mr. Balfour, such insubordination would have received short shrift. Under existing conditions it is, we presume, technically no offence, but the technical distinction cannot obscure the moral identity of the two cases. Lord Fisher could have crowned a distinguished careei with a supreme public service, but has elected to desert his country in her hour of need. Like Achilles, he allows a personal grievance to keep him in his tent while his comrades are being sore pressed. Verily, the Kaiser will rejoice and Tirpitz will be glad. Ir> the exultations of Germany Lord Fisher will surely find the bitterest commentary upon hi 3 deplorable decision.