THE NAVY

Evening Star, Issue 16626, 8 January 1918, Page 4

THE NAVY

SIR JOHN JELLICOE’S RETIREMENT. (From Australian Files.) LONDON, December 27. The ‘ Daily Telegraph’s ’ parliamentary correspondent says that the decision to appoint' a new First Sea Lord was convoyed to Sir John Jellicoe before Christmas. Sir John ceased acting on Monday. “ Tho news is surprising,” adds the correspondent, “in view of Sir Eric Geddos’s speeches, in which he referred appreciatively to the anti-submarine work, for which Sir John Jellicoe was supposed to have been responsible.” The ‘ Daily Chronicle ’ states : “ The important change comes like a bolt from theblue, unaccompanied by any explanatory statement. The public had a well-founded confidence in Sir John Jellicoe. The Navy is too important a national bulwark for changes in the high command to be profitably made the subject of controversy durmg the war. We must content ourselves by hoping that those conversant with all the facts have been wisely guided in the decision.”

The newspapers pay tributes to Sir John Jellicoc’s great services. They point out that Sir R. E. Womyss is comparatively unknown as an administrator, but recall his distinguished work at tho landing and the evacuation of Gallipoli. There is much speculation as to the real meaning of the change, which is described as being sensational, and it is prophesied that it marks a development of a new regime. But the general desire is for a fuller statement, seeing that the public confidence in Sir John Jellicoe was unimpaired. He was confined to his bed, suffering from bronchitis, on Monday, when he received Sir Eric Geddes’s letter notifying him of the contemplated changes. The ‘ Morning Post ’ says : “ Sir Eric Gedders has steadily carried out Sir Edward Carson’s scheme of reorganisation, replacing the system of administration which has been the Navy's inheritance for a long period in peace. The problems of modern naval war demand that men who would understand them from their practical experience should he appointed to conduct the war, irrespective of traditions.” The ‘ Daily Telegraph ’ writes : “In the absence of a fuller official report rumor is active—possibly to tho injury of tho sea service, perhaps even to the’ Government itself. Apparently Sir R. C. Wemyss, as Deputy First Sea Lord, won tho Cabinet’s confidence; but the greater question is whether he has behind him the heart of tho service to which lie belongs. The change points to the development of some new policy, perhaps against the submarines the most d-flicult problem ever presented to seamen. If the new Admiralty regime can achieve an improvement it will earn the nation s gratitude. We have entered the final stage of tho war, and tho success of our efforts depends on tho right use of a fighting fleet which is still our all in all.” The ‘Daily News’ expresses groat surprise at Jellicoe’s sudden disappearance fro nithe Admiralty. “ The loss of the Scandinavian convoy in the absence of a protecting iorce, says the 1 News,’ raised misgivings about the soundness of the administration almost to alarm. Jellicoe himself may have felt that the interests of the country demanded a change. The relative failure to meet the submarine campaign. the facts which leaked ’out regarding the national shipyards, and criticisms of the shipbuilding policy generally, culminating in the tragic news of the convoys, tend to severely discredit the theory of sea power for which Jellicoe is understood to stand. Whatever the real reason of the change, the opportunity ought not to be lost to do the essential thing— namelv, to establish a Naval General Staff as a guarantee of doing all possible to secure a competent administration.”