HOW MANY SHIPS?

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 471, 1 April 1909, Page 7

HOW MANY SHIPS?

4 THE CRY FOR EIGHT. RESOURCES NO LONGER SUPERIOR. LOST TIMS. (11l TELEGRArit-PRESS ASSOCIATION—COrYRIOUT.t London, March 30. "Tho Times" says tliat Sir. Asquith's candour in disclosing the perils of tho situation is, in tho eyes of the country, tho brightest point in the history of his administration, but his proposed naval measures aro indcfcnsiblo in the light of Sir Edward Grey's very lucid statement, justifying every criticism by serious students of the situation. Tho cumulative offect of Sir E. Grey's survey should conrinco the Government of the necessity of a provision for eight Dreadnoughts at the earliest possible date. Tho "Westminster Gazette" (Liberal) commends tho Government for adhering to tho Estimates, and emphasises the need for a sufficiently wido margin of security. "To savo us 'from the perpetual scrutiny of our neighbours, wo must replace tho present fleet by Dreadnoughts in a longer or a shorter time. We cannot flatter ourselves that wo havo any superior rosources, enabling us to make up for lost time if we delay too long."

CERMANY'S NON-ACCELERATION ASSURANCES.

"NOT BINDING," SAYS BULOW. Berlin, March 30. Prince Bulow, German Chancellor, in an important speech in tho Reichstag, reported on Germany's naval assurances regarding ship building, adding:—"They are not of a binding character." CONDITIONAL DREADNOUCHTS, PREPARATIONS ALREADY IN HAND. London, March 30. Replying in tho House of Commons to a question by Sir Henry Norman (Liberal), tho First Lord- of tho Admiralty, Mr. M'Kenna, hinted that certain preparations for tho conditional four Dreadnoughts, Including designs, wero already in hand. [Tho position is that the Government's programme provides for tho'laying down of four dreadnoughts in 1909-10, but the second four— whicli constitute the answer to Germany's acceleration of building—are not to be laid down till April, 1910; that is to say, not till tho next financial year (1910-11). The Government is being urged to put the second quartet of Dreadnoughts into the 1909-10 programme, making eight Dreadnoughts in ail to be kid down in the 1909-10 financial year. Such an alteration must, of course, have a tremendous ) effect on the 1909-10 Budget, which is already weighted with the cost of old age pensions (about eight or nine millions per annum), and other social reforms, and which must feel the cfleet of last year's slump in the revenue, which decreased by „E5,029,300 during the nine months ended December 31 last. The financial problem of tho Chancellor of the Exchequer, already difficult, becomes intensified if the number of 1909-10 Dreadnoughts is doubled; and as tho heavier cost of a Dreadnought is in' its second year of building, the burden in next financial year becomes greater; and if such a rate of construction is to be maintained in subsequent years, no wonder the Liberal papers are saying "Good-bye, social reform." A Liberal freetrade administration, which cannot create a tariff, and which, owing to its heterogeneous composition, hardly dares to attempt a heavy land tax and heavier graduated income taxes, is placed by a naval crisis in a remarkable predicament. Its whole mission is social reforms, which a big nary will put beyond its purse. The Oppositionists, who, in all sincerity, talk Dreadnoughts, are at the same time crippling the Government in its motive power department; and yet, says Sir Edward Grey, Britain, who first started Dreadnougiiting, lias to face the necessity of "rebuilding her whole fleet." , Meanwhile, tho Unionists win seats or augment their majorities either on the tariff or on the big-navy issue, for either suits their purpose equally well. They undertako when in power to "broaden^tho basis of taxation" through the Customs, whereby Britain is promised not only a big navy, but secure home markets, better treatment in foreign markets, bigger profits and wages, and a united Empire—all of whioh sounds 'attractive enough.!