BRITAIN'S NAVAL BURDENS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1076, 15 March 1911, Page 7

BRITAIN'S NAVAL BURDENS.

METHODS OF PRESERVING PEACE. GOVERNMENT REPLIES T0 CRITICISI OF ESTIMATES. UNLIMITED ARBITRATION FAVOURED. SIR EDWARD GREY CHEERED.

(By Telegraph-Press Association Copyright) (Rec. March 15, 0.10 a.m.) London, March 14. The Navy was the principal topic of discussion in the House of Commons to-day. Tho First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Reginald MlKcnna, in reply to a question, said the aggregate expenditure ou new naval construction during the last three years was:—

United Kingdom ... 34,531,000 Germany • 29,365,000 This, showed that Britain's increase was 16 per cent., compared with the expenditure in 1904, and Germany's 16.6.' Mr. J. A. Murray Macdonald (Liberal member for Falkirk Burgh's) urged that the expenditure on the Amy and Navy should bo diminished. He moved in that direction.

Mr. Joseph King (Liberal member for North Somerset) moved an amendment advocating simultaneous international restriction of warlike preparations.

Mr. A. Ponsonby, Liberal member for Stirling Burghs, deprecated comparisons with Germany, and urged abandonment of tlio policy founded on tie mischievous scaro of 1909.

Lord Chartis Berosford. Lord Charles Beresford, Unionist member for Portsmouth, contended that the Fleet margin was too small. -Ho Suggested, amidst cheers, the possibility of inducing the great English-speak-ing nations to unito for peace. If that wero possible they could reduce armaments. Meanwhile tho expenditure must continue. The present Estimates were inadequate to secure an unassailable position at sea.

ments, but the deliberate and decided sanction of Parliament, and that I believe could be obtained." (Tremendous cheering.) Sir Edward Grey, concluded by accepting, on behalf of the Government, Mr. King's amendment, which was carried, the voting being:— For the amendrrent ...... 276 Against the amendment... S6 Majority 220 AUSTRALIA'S FLEET. EXPENDITURE OF £1 PER HEAD PER ANNUM URGED. Sydney, March 14. Admiral Henderson, in the course of his report on the naval defence of Australia, says that once the command of the sea is lost by the Empire, no local system of defence—naval or military— could secure Australia's autonomy, and she would be a prey for tho strongest maritimo. Power. Australia should expend on the fleet a sum bearing the same proportion to Imperial naval expenditure as Australia's population and oversea commerce bear to those of Britain. On this basis the annual naval provision would be four million pounds, increasing proportionately with the increase of population.

The complete fleet should be divided into eastern and western divisions, each under an admiral or commodore, and tho divisions again into squadrons or flotillas. •

Sydney should be the primary base for the eastern, and Frcmantle for the Western division, with destroyer, submarine, and sub-bi-ses at other ports. The two divisions should not always be kept at their own bases; the ships should from time to time be exchanged in order to give the officers and men a chance of acquainting themselves with Australian waters. There, should also be yearly manoeuvres. .

The Government Polloy. Mr. M'Kehna, First Lord of tho Admiralty, assured tho supporters of the motion that the sole object of the huge and costly ships now being built was to gain security. In all contingencies Britain should liave tho freedom.of the highway of tho ocean, and this was impossible unless the Navy was supreme as against any foreign'navy, or any reasonable and probable combination they might have to meet' singlehanded. It was impossible to avoid a reference- to the growth of the German Navy. Mr. M'Kenna emphasised the point that the drastic amendments to tho .German. Nayy Law in .3,906 and 1908 provided for much larger ships and' doubled Germany's Naval estimates in the ensuing years. After justifying his inference in 1909, which led to the building of four contingent ships, ho remarked that although tho information regarding the dates was wrong, that concerning size and cost was right.

PRESS COMMENT; Sydney, March 14. The "Sydney Morning Herald;" discussing Admiral Henderson's report, after reference to the large capital outlay involved, and the possibility of the estimates being conservative, says:—"Wo do not assert that these things are impossible, but we must look fairly in the face tho chance of their being done, and not fritter away money and strength on trivial patchwork attempts to set such a scheme afloat."

The "Daily Telegraph" commends the value of the recommendations, but says that whether the Commonwealth can find the money to build and man the ships is problematical. The paper strongly endorses Admiral Henderson's contention that the < administration of the Navy must bo free from political influence, and suggests that as it would take twenty-two years to build there would bo a danger of it being obsolete before it was finished.

Position In 1914. Continuing, Mr. M'Kenna said he was unwilling in 1909, when he finally became aware that Germany, though not accelerating her programme, was building greater and stronger ships, to say anything calculated to cause a scare. The situation had now changed. The German ships were there, and much larger ships are built, but they had given their answer to them. Consequently the time for a scare had gone. Tho answer took tho shape of improved Dreadnoughts, including tho Orion and Lion, and in affording a reasonable margin of security, inasmuch tho position in the spring of 1914 would be:— Britain 30 Dreadnoughts. Germany 21 Dreadnoughts. If, as there was every reason to hope and believe, the German fleet law was not further amended, tho British Estimates for 1912-1913 would show a reduction. But, added Mr. M'Kenna, amid Opposition cheers, "we cannot pledge ourselves to any reduction until we know what are the developments in the foreign navies."

Mr. Balfour's Fears. Mr. Balfour, Leader of the Opposition, said he did not think the Government overrated the possible dangers of tho situation. He feared the Estimates erred in proposing too few battleships and cruisers. After characterising Admiral Sir A.' Wilson's and General Sir lan Hamilton's views as dangerous, Mr. Balfour inquired whether the Government adhered to the policy of laying two keels to one.

SIR JOSEPH WARD'S SPEECH, IMPERIAL DEFENCE PARLIAMENT. | London, March 13. Referring to the speech on Empire defence delivered by Sir Joseph Ward, Prime Minister of New Zealand, at the banquet given in Sydney by the members of the New Zealand Association, tho "Pall Mall Gazette" (Unionist) says:—"Sir Joseph Ward gives ringing voice to tho perception lately seized by Britons overseas that tho Empire's defence is a burden which Britain is no longer able to carry alone. Sir Joseph Ward's is the first candid official announcement that tho Dominions are ready to. fully discharge their moral obligations. . . . Sir Joseph Ward's claim for participation by the Dominions in the control of Imperial affairs must be accepted." . The "Globo" (Conservative) recalls Sir James Bevan Edwards's suggested Imperial Defence ' Parliament.' Tho main difficulty with regard to both schemes was the possibility of any new Imperial Parliament superseding the existing Parliaments. The House of Commons -would never abandon tho historic right to control tho great spending Department. A possible alternative would bo a Houso of Commons Committee to deal with Home defence, co-operating with similar defence committees elected by the overseas Parliaments.

The Two-Power Standard. Sir Edward Grey. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replied, and reiterated Mr. Asquith's statement that it was the Government's policy to maintain in regard to. European Powers the two-Power Standard. The United States must not be.taken into account in the same way as a European nation. He opposed the motion because

it ignored the expenditure of other Powers. Britain's foreign relations were not strained. Referring to tho friendly expressions of the German Chancellor, Herr von Bethniann Hollweg, in December, Sir Edward Grey, .said Great Britain desired cordial relations with Germany subject to the stipulation that when they made a friendship they carried with them their existing friendships. Some thought the growth of armaments would lead to war, but it was more likely to end by a revolt, of the masses against the taxation necessary. The suggested agreement with Germany required careful handling inasmuch as

SYDNEY VIEWS. ■ Sydney, March 14. The "Sydney Morning Herald," commenting on Sir Joseph Ward's speech, says: "It was refreshingly wide of the limitations of local politics. In that way alone the Imperial Conference has done an immeasurable service to the Empiro and Dominions in tho aspect of a larger view. Tho speech admirably befitted the Prime Minister of New Zealand while en route to a great Empiro assembly in which ho has a duo and h6nourcd place."

the German fleet law must bo executed. A better plan would be a frank exchange of information to prevent surprises.

America's Pcaco Proposals. Continuing, Sir, Edward Grey eulogised Mr. Taft's speech in favour of arbitration, but added that an agreement to refer everything to arbitration might entail some risk, and, as Mr. Taft had remarked, some sacrifice of national pride.

Tremendous Cheering. "Great Britain would be delighted," continued tho Minister, "to receive such a sweeping proposal, but I should feel it so momentous and so far-reaching in its possible consequences as to require .not only the signature!; of both Govern-

Tho "Daily Telegraph" says: "Sir Joseph Ward's scheme is new only in so far as it postulates full local autonomy for each unit of tbp Imperial Federation. . . . Sir Joseph Ward will have- to develop this scheme considerably before it can bo placed on the table of the Imperial Conference in a form that can even be discussed by practical statesmen."