Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 84, 17 April 1901, Page 4

A letter in the London Times by a writer who signs himself “ Censor ” reads from the events of the late war a lesson and a warning for the Admiralty. He points out with much force that the lack of foresight and the unpreparedness which contributed to our disasters may be atoned for in the ease of a land army, but would moan ruin to the British power if they appeared in a naval war. “We shall not merely be hampered by such failure,” ho says, “we shall be destroyed by it instantly, irretrievably, and for ever. There is no tout pout se retablir after a decisive engagement which has gone against the British fleet. . . A naval action with modern weapons will be a fight to a finish.” This we think a hard saying, and one to be modified before it is accepted. A naval battle which went against us would damage our prestige in the eyes of the world, but a naval war which was a fight to the death would not depend upon any loss of prestige abroad, but upon the sheer hard fighting strength left at home. The writer goes on to repeat the twice-told tale of things left undone, those sins of omission more fatal to the public service than positive blunders. He points out that there is no attempt made to keep the various squadrons at anything like efficient strength. The Mediterranean and Channel fleets are sadly deficient in cruisers, and both almost devoid of fleet auxiliaries, while the Mediterranean fleet, in spite of the importance of its position, is wholly inadequately equipped with destroyers. The criticisms made recently on the army apply almost word for word to the fleet. More ships, more money, better appliances, less formalism, are some of the terms of reform. The navy, as a whole, has long been the pride of our public sendee. As a profession it has never shown the unprofessional dilettantism of the army. Its personnel is in the highest degree competent and keen. Its administration in most respects rests on a sound and rational basis. The defects are not radical but superficial, defects owing to the parsimony or negligence of the Government, easily remedied with a little care and energy, but not blemishes involving the overthrow of a system. In these circumstances, the appeal of “ Censor ” deserves to meet with attention. It is an appeal for the recognition of that invaluable economic doctrine that a stitch in time saves nine. TVhat now is easy to remedy may’ be an insuperable difficulty in ten years, and it is criminal laxity to compose the mind to sleep because the danger is not yet. Political folly and political evil-doing axe always punished sooner ox later,