The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1909. “FISHERISM” AND THE NAVY

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2588, 24 August 1909, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1909. “FISHERISM” AND THE NAVY

There appears to be a considerable difference of opinion in England as to how Sir John Fisher, as First Sea Lord, has emerged from tho recent Parliamentary inquiry into the condition of the navy. It will be remembered that that inquiry was held as tho result of a demand by Lord Charles Beresford who mad© specific allegations as to the inefficiency of Britain’s first lino of defence. The tenor of his charges may be judged when we recall his statement made; at a public meeting a. few months -back t© tho effect that were the- true position - of the navy made known in England a panic would ensue. Lord Beresford’s charges practically constituted a damning indictment against Sir John Fisher,- who, as First Sea Lord, has been in .virtual sole control of tho navy. This aspect of the naval situation has resulted in many spirited attacks being made by the London 1 ‘Spectator’ ’V; against what it denounces as Fisherism. This journal ha& v said nothing derogatory to Sir John Fisher as a sailor and as an admiral, but lias protested vigorously against any one man having in his power the sole control as to movements and general policy of so complicated and vital a force as the British navy. Secondly it contends that Sir John Fisher is temperamentally one Of the last men to whom such autocratic power should he given. Of the class of man Britain’s First Sea Lord is we cannot do better than quote a sketch given in characteristic style by Mr. Robert Blatchford, the noted Socialistic writer, in an article ©n the recent naval review. Mr. Blatchford says: No one who has met the First Sea Lord will easily forget him. Ho is only a little man; no bigger than I or Nelson; but he is alive. A quiet, pleasant, modest man, he ha& in his remarkaDl© face the keenness and the resolution of the best type of the British sailor. Sir John with a naked cutlass in hi» hand leading a boarding party- of those stem-faced, iron-fisted bluerjackets, would not be calculated' to inspire frivolity in 'the minds of the enemy. ‘ „ . The finest type of British seamen—officer or man—is a blend of weasel, hawk, and bull-dog. Sir John, is of that strain. It would not be healthy for an enemy to sleep within a hundred leagues ©fistic h a sea--devil. ...You'would, neyeiv khow from one hour to another: what sin was hatching behind those inscrutable eyes-. f “I’m glad I’ve seen Sir John,” said ope .of the colonial editors; “he is the most interesting .sight Of ‘the day.” I agrepd with that speech, and I pleased myself with wondering what would happen to a. “Dreadnought” if you could turn Sir John loose at sea with a handful of submarines. . ' All this is without prejudice. Sir John Fisher’s policy may be as faulty as some critics say it is; Sir John may •be over optimistic; Sir ~ohn may be too self-willed. But Sir John is a fighting sailor, and a man of intellect. There is nothing the matter with him.

This is Sir John aa Britishers ‘ the world oyer have pictured him, but the warnings of the “Spectator” have, nevertheless, caused misgivings. It has been pointed out that the First Sea Lord has succeeded in so dominating the Government and tho Home officials that his rule has become dictatorial beyond all bounds and that power of criticism lias, been destroyed. Many disturbing statements besides those of Lord Beresford havo been made and these coupled with the news of Germany’s extraordinary naval preparations have - ’ somewhat shaken the confidence of the British public. Respond - ing to this feeling tho Government appointed a Committee to inquire into the charges made by Lord Beresford. Their report, published last week, may, with advantage, bo again quoted. It declares that during the time covered by Lord Cliarlos Beresford’s a -, legations, namely April, 1.907, to April, 1908 no danger to the country resulted from’ the Admiralty’s arrangements for ■

war, whether considered from the standpoint of organisation or distribution of fleets, the number of ships, or preparation of war plans. The report states: “W« feel bound to add that, tli© arrangements were quite defensible in themselves, though not ideally perfect, and were in practice seriously hampered through the absence of cordial relations between the Board of Admiralty and the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel fleet (Lord Charles Beresford). The Admiralty does not appear to have taken Lord Charles Beresford sufficiently into their confidence regarding the reasons for the dispositions to which lie took exception. Lord Charles Beresford, on the other hand, appears to have railed to appreciate or carry out the spirit of the Board’s instructions, and to recognise ■ their paramount authority.” The committee referred to differences of opinion amongst officers of high rank on naval strategy and tactics, and look forward with much confidence to tho further development of a naval war staff, from which members of the Board and flag officers and their staffs at sea may be expected to derive common benefit.

It is around this report that controversy now centres. The London “Times” declares that its effect is to lower in tho public mind the estimate of Lord Charles Beresford’s judgment, and we should imagine that this ean scarcely fail to he the case. Evidently during the period under review' there was no real danger to Britain because of tho condition or disposition of the navy. The “Chronicle” stated that nothing could be more complete than the vindication of the Admiralty, and yet agrees that there is something amiss, and suggests an uncertainty about policy. Now we find the “Spectator” contending that the report has given a mortal wound to Fisherism. What evidently appeals strongly to this journal is the recommendation that there should bo a further development of a naval war staff, for that would inevitably divide some of the responsibility which it is alleged is at present w'rongly monopolised by Sir John Fisher. When discussion was first seriously commenced at Home anent a naval inquiry—which it was understood the First Sea Lord resented —a rumor -was circulated that he intended to resign. It has since been stated that he would retire in October, but this further statement has not been confirmed, and may therefore be but a rumor. From all that can be gleaned at this distance we should imagine that the interests of the Empire could be best served by the retention of this distinguished seaman at the head of the navy, provided always that be is willing to act in concert with the highest officers of the Naval Department, and to consult on reasonable terms with those other admirals whose qualifications are probably little, if at all, inferior to his own.