The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, MAY 31, 1909. SIR JOHN FISIIER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2515, 31 May 1909, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, MAY 31, 1909. SIR JOHN FISIIER.

The news cabled over on Saturday that it is persistently reported that Sir John Fisher, First Sea Lord of the British Navy, intends to resign in October next, will come as a great shock to Britishers in all parts of the world, for with them the name of the great seaman has become almost a household word. The rumor ipay. of course, prove to be incorrect, but it is significant that it comes shortly after the setting up of a committee of inquiry into a letter that was addressed by Lord Charles Beresford to the British Premier. It is understood that Sir John Fisher has always opposed the suggestion of a naval inquiry, and it had been hinted that ho would resign in the event of one being held. The fact that such an inquiry was instituted about a month ago may prove the most momentous event in an epoch making year, for Lord Charles Beresford stated publicly only a few weeks ago that if the public were made aware of the true condition of the navy a pa 7 nic would ensue. It must be remembered, however, that Lord Charles, though admittedly a great naval officer, and an eminently capable man, lias himself recently resigned from the navy as the result of disagreements with those above him, so that his criticisms may bo unnecessarily sweeping. At the same time there have been many disquieting rumors from time to time that all is not well with the navy and the immense importance of the matter undoubtedly justifies an investigation. In a striking article on this subject the London “Spedtator”. recently wrote as follows:

The Admiralty is more than ever the “one-man show” against which we protested, and more than ever are there si°'ns that the morale of the Fleet is suffering through tho despotic, influence of one man, Sir John Fisher. Ho has chosen to put himself forward and to assume a position before the nation which in’fact, if not in name, has made him primarily, responsible Jov tlie con-

forts to influence public opinion through the Press in regard to his policy have immensely affected the public mind. His assurances that all is well, and that our capacity to keep the command of tho sea against ail* comers is as great as ever, have had an influence in preventing regular Opposition criticism on naval affairs which is without parallel in our naval or Parliamentary history. Again, the Government have, consciously or unconsciously, sheltered themselves behind his fervent declarations t'hat tho Navy could not be sounder and stronger than it is, and that there is not the least cause for anxiety or solicitude as to tho action of our foreign rivals. For good or ill, Sir John Fisher has nominated the Admiralty, and has been willing to say in effect to all comers:—“As long as you see, me here you will know that I am satisfied with the state of tho Navy and with the preparations necessary to meet foreign rivalry. If anything were wrong, you may be sure that I should be the first man to let the nation know it.”

The public has all too readily taken Sir John Fisher at his word, and hitherto “the man in the street,” whether a Unionist or a supporter of the Government, has stifled any doubts and anxieties that may have arisen in his mind by the comfortable reflection : “Fisher is at the Admiralty and shows no sign of discontent, and therefore wo may be sure that everything is all right. His presence there is the best insurance policy which the nation can liave.” Now, however, that the nation has awakened from this pleasant mood of “Put your trust in Fisher and he will pull you through,” it is only natural that It should ask for an inquiry into what, for want of a better word, we may call “Fisherism.” No responsible person dreams for a moment of making Sir John Fisher a victim, or acting as if ho had not done his best according to his lights. We do not doubt his patriotic, intentions, nor do we think that he is altogether to he blamed for the situation which has arisen. Far more blame in reality is to be attached both to the late Government and the present Government for the way in which they showed themselves willing to give a blank cheque to this eager and monopolising sailer—a man as full of striking and sensational ideas as of vehemence and self-will. Sir John Fisher was a great national asset as long as he was kept in his place, and not given that uncontrolled power which is so apt to go to a man's head and demoralise his judgment. Unfortunately, having got a good thing in Sir John Fisher, we proceeded to spoil it by what was once called in the “Spectator” “civilian petting,”—the very worst thing that can ever happen to any Admiral or General. The mood of the Government, and indirectly of the nation, was to put everything into Sir John Fisher’s hands, and then to turn their faces to the wall and sleep,— a process which, we are hound to say, was strongly encouraged by Sir John himself.

Shortly after the publication of this article Mr Asquith stated in the House of Commons that the letter submitted to him by Lord Charles Beresford had been referred to a committee on Imperial Defence, and subsequently it transpired that Mr R. McKenna, the first Lord of the Admiralty, Sir John Fisher and Lord Beresford had been examined by the Committee. It was further stated that the latter two had been invited to call witnesses. It is impossible to speculate upon what the result of the inquiry may be, but it is to be hoped for the sake of the Empire' that Sir John Fisher’s optimism has been justified, and that all is well with tho navy.