THE DREADNOUGHT ERA.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14841, 5 December 1913, Page 6

THE DREADNOUGHT ERA.

If the man in the street were asked what the effect of the introduction of tho Dreadnought typo of ship had been on British naval expenditure, he would probably reply that it had been the cause of an enormous increase. That this is not so is shown by a very interesting official return issued a few weeks ago, comparing the naval expenditure of the Great Powers in 1904----1005, the year before the Dreadnought was laid down, and in Ihe current financial year. Th© comrmrison will surprise many people. In the years between 1897 and 1904 the naval expenditure of Great Britain, showed th© huge increase of twenty millions, rising from twenty-one to forty-one but since then the increase has only been six millions. The following, giving the totals in round millions, is very instructive: — Expenditure. In- Increaeo 1004-5. 1913-14. crea__ Per £ £ £ Cent. Gw-t Britain <1.0 47.0 6 13.1 Germany .. 10.1 23.0 12.9 127.7 Italy ... 5.0 10.1 5.1 102.0 AustriaHungary 2.6 * 6.0 8.4 130.8 Rußsia . .. 11.9 . 24.2 12.3 101.6 France . .. 12.3 20.8 8.5 67.7 United States 20.1 29.5 9.5 47.5 Japan .. 2.1 9.8 7.7. 866.6 The most important point to be noticed about this comparison is that England's increased expenditure has been only half that of.Germany, while her peiS contiige of increase has been only a tenth of that of her rival. It is often said that England has "forced the pace in the (.''mad race of armaments," but the fact is that of an increase of sixtyfive millions in the naval expenditure of the eight leading Powers during the last nine years, England has been responsible for only six millions, and whereas the British taxpayer found 63 per cent, of —11 such* expenditure in the world in 1904, he finds to-day only 38 per cent. If we consider the figures for new construction only, a similar contrast is observed. Great Britain 6pent thirteen millions on thia branch in 1904-5, and is spending sixteen millions this year, while the German expenditure has gone up from four and a third millions to eleven millions. Th© naval correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph" says of these "figures that . "far from showing that this country has led in " the rivalry of armaments, they supply, "convincing evidence that in each "respect—total expenditure, the sums " devoted to new construction, and the " expansion of personnel—she has "lagged behind other countries."; It is clearer than ever that the Imperial Government has kept naval expenditure down to the lowest point*—we were going to say "consistent with safety," hut that is a question on which there is some doubt, doubt which will not be dissipated by a perusal of these figures. This return will give the Radicals who talk of . splitting the party on the question of '"hloated armaments" something to think about. Not the least of our "Liberal" friends' troubles in this by-election is the Opposition candidate's belief in the freehold! A passing remark of ours upon this point in some criticism of Mr. Laurenson has evoked a very interesting confession. The freehold-lease-hold controversy, we are told, "has ceased to be an important issue in the political affars of ,the naton." The leasehold wing of the "Liberal" Party, that is to say, having failed dismally to deceive the electors on this issue, have kindly allowed it to drop, and will be greatly obliged if nobody will mention it again. In due course, nOidoubt, circumstances will make it necessary for th© Opposition to name several other controversies as defunct issues, for in their blundering they have embarked on dozens of enterprises of which the end was ignominious failure. Instead of telling us that all tho issues that they once called paramount are no longer of any importance, our Opposition fmrds would bo much more useful... if they would name some practical issue which really is important, and on which they baeo their frantic hatred of th© Government.

It appears to us that thy re is a point worth considering in connexi *>_ with the Government's decision to proceed only with that part of the now _,ibitration Bill which provides 1 or the fiivestigation of disputes involving unions which are not working under an award or agreement. The result of this decision is to leave the existing Arbitration Act as it is. When the full Bill

was brought down, the Opposition and Labour critics went into ecstasies of rage over the proposal that anyone who gave any assistance, in the shape of money or anything else, to any striker or for the benefit of any striker, would be fined £10. A great many simpleminded people wUI accordingly -conclude that the Government's decision to proceed only with Part VI. of its Bill will avert this "barbarous" and "Russian" tyranny alleged to havo been invented by Mr Massey. In order to save such people any future disappointment, it is desirable that we should point out that the Government's decision will leave in force clauses 5 and 6 of t_e Act of 1908 —the Act devised by the "Liberal" Party for its friends the workers. Under these clauses a fine of £10 will be inflicted on any person who makes any gift of money or other valuablo thing to or for the benefit of any striker. We do not know how the Government's enemies, whoso outcry terrified a good many workers, will soothe the indignation of these simple folk when they realise that under the existing law, desired by tho Ward Government, it is "a crime to give a shilling or a loaf of bread to a starvng striker."

The mysterious "trump card" with which the Federation of Labour was threatening the community a little time ago was probably a railway strike. So much it is reasonable to infer from the desperate efforts which the strikers ant? the Federation's official organ have been making to sap the loyalty of the men. In its current issue, the "Maoriland Worker" issues a fresh appeal, and this time it accompanies the appeal with a threat. "It is but a coward's work," it says, "to hide behind a superannuation scheme. Do not forget that the men who are locked out and on striko now are the men who, beforo many years have gone, will be the controllers of the Stato railways as well as of the other departments of the Government. Perchance they may remember the men who refused to come to their assistance, and in turn will refuse to make better conditions for those who left them at the mercy of the monopolists." This very frank revelation of tho political morality of the Opposition's allies and "fellow, progressives" is worth remembering. So far as the railwaymen are concerned, the threat will bo regarded, not as a reason why they should strike, but as a very good reason why thoy should protect themselves in future by not voting Labour.

The old saying that when an Englishman has a grievance he writes to "Tho Times" has lost some of it* force in these days of newspaper competition. A revelation in the recently-published biography of Lord Clarendon, the famous Foreign Secretary, recalls the days when "Tho Times" was at the height of its power and prestige. Queen Victoria wrote a letter to "The Times," vigorously protesting against the complaints of her extreme seclusion after the death of her husband. She signed herself - "Anonyma,". and the "Westminster Gazette" remarks that this choice indicates how far removed the Sovereign was from the ordinary world, for "Anonyma" was then "the euphonious epithet accustomed in society to be applied to women professing an opposite standard of virtue to her own," which must have detracted , somewhat from the force of her protest. It was probably the most unconventional thing that Queen Victoria, who was a stickler for conven£ion and etiquette, ever did, and it shows that she shared the common belief "that that was the one infallible method of getting the crooked made straight." The "Westminster" makes the interesting suggestion that "The Times" should compile a list of illustrious contributors to its columns. The list might begin with Nelson, and end with Mr Asquith.

It is not at all easy to see what Mr Laurenson hopes to gain by his references to the failure of both the Ward and Massey Government- to help a certain syndicate to establish some sort, of ironworks at Parapara. Sine© h© has mentioned the matter more than once, we may state the facts very briefly. A groifp known as the Ethelburga. Syndicate proposed that the New Zealand Government should pay it a subsidy up to £32,500 a year in Order to work the Parapara deposits. A Bill was prepared by the Ward Government, but the opposition to it inside and outside th© Houso persuaded the Government that it would be wise to drop the matter. . Th.c syndicate renewed its interesting application last year, and the Iron and Steel Industry Committee of the House of Representatives, .after taking evidence, reported that whilo it was desirable that the iron industry should be encouraged, the proposals of the syndicate wero anything but satisfactory, and should be rejected. Everyone who read the evidence recognised that the Committee was quite right. Mr Laurenson should not presume upon his audiences' ignorance of the facts. Still less 6hould ho think the publio so stupid and • unfair as to .be likely to agree with him that a base political motive should be imputed to Mr Massey for not establishing the iron industry inside eighteen months, while nothing but praise must be given to the "Liberal" Government, which extended its neglect over its whole term of office. It is, we know, the "Liberal" fashion to say, when Sir J. G. Ward and Mr Massey are in the same position, that th© former is a wise and good man, and Mr Massey a dreadful villain. But it is not the fashion of the public to think so.

Th© faults of the British system of party government are patent, but itvirtues are perhaps not . sufficiently appreciated. What happens in France, however, draws attentipn to the fairly general result of the British system, and that is the comparative stability of Ministries. - M. Barthou, who has just been compelled to resign, is the seventh Premier of France in seven years. One of the changes, it is true, was caused by the elevation of M. Poinoare to the Presidency, but, on the other hand, one of these Ministries (il. Ciemenceau's) held office for three out of the seven years. Thanks mainly to the system of parties, altogether there have been well over fifty 31inistries in the forty-two years of th© Third Republic. With 6uch frequent changes it must be impossible to have continuity of policy for any length o f time, and since for the most part Ministers no sooner get to know the working of their departments than they give way to other Ministers, the Government of the country must to an unhealthy extent be in the hands of permanent officials. In England a Cabinet Minister or an ex-Cabinet Minister is

a man of note, but in France a man may be a Minister and bo almost unknown to tho public, returning to obscurity on the completion of his short term of office.

The present defeat of the French Ministry seems to have come at an awkward time. The ostensible cause was a financial one, but the majority against the Government was swelled by deputies who objected to tho threeyear system of training, and the proposed system of proportional representation. M. Caillaux, who brought about the downfall, is practically inelegible for the Premiership, owing to bis disgrace last year. It camo out that while Finance Minister in. the Monis Cabinet and subsequently while Prime Minister, he had carried on negotiations with Germany behind the backs of the President, his Foreign Minister, and tho Ambassador at Berlin. The new system of training is not in much danger of being killed in its.infancy. It is, of course, unpopular with many people, but even among these there must be plenty who realise that it is a necessity to b© borno for tho sake of France. If the German Army is not to get a commanding lead, there is no alternative to this additional sacrifice by the youth of the country. As for proportional representation, it is having a long and stormy passage, having been before the Legislature for several sessions, and having been mauled about until its parents would not recognise it.

At this stage tho public should, perhaps, not need to be reminded that both pleasure and duty should take them to the Rose Carnival in the Gardens- tomorrow, hut amid the distractions, of an anxious time there may' bo more excuse than usual for having overlooked such an interesting and important festival. We hope it will be a case of "roses, roses all the way" to-morrow, with the public attending just aa numerous and enthusiastic as the populace were, in th© first act of Browning's condensed drama in which these words appear. The object of the fete is one that should commend itself to everybody, for the Gardens, which will benefit by tho Carnival, are a public asset of great value, in which everybody should take an interest. A great deal of trouble has been taken to make the affair a success. It only remains for the public (we will not mention the weather lest the reference bring bad luck) to do its duty.