The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1912. "THE BETRAYAL."

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1351, 31 January 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1912. "THE BETRAYAL."

New Zealanders, in common with all oversea Brituns and others who arc fully impressed with the necessity for maintaining the naval supremacy of the British Empire, should be grateful for the outspoken criticisms of naval administration uttered year in and year out by Admiral Lord Charles Behesford. He may not always be right, but he has expert knowledge, and nobody doubts that his sincere aim is tho maintenance of the national honour and safety. His pamphlet. The Betrayal, which he withdrew from circulation last November, after review copies had been issued, has now been published, and the brief cabled summary which we published yesterday indicates that it contains a strong indictment of the conduct of the Admiralty during the last few years and an earnest appeal for a more assured naval supremacy. The formal explanation of the temporary withdrawal of the pamphlet was that .a serious mistake required to be corrected, but the author stated a few days afterwards that he did not intend to bring forward his views on the Navy for.a.while.,'.Jin..Winston CmmcEiiLL had just been appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, and it was believed he would create a Naval War Staff as advocated by Lord Charles Beresford. "Give the man a chance,' , oaid the redoubtable critic, and he added that if Mr. Churchill aimed to strengthen the fleet in such'a manner, that nobody would dare to attack it, he would loyally support him. The publication now of The Betrayal may indicate that the new First Lord has not fulfilled Lord Charles Beresford's hopes, or perhaps the author's object may be to combat the reduction of the Naval Estimates, which Mr. Churchill, in his Guildhall speech, mentioned as a possibility contingent upon Germany being content with her present naval law, under which the rate of construction was, to be reduced by one-half this year. Doubtless, whatever Germany may do, any great reduction of the Estimates would be displeasing to a critic who declares that for years past the personnel of the Navy has been staryed, the efficiency of tho training impaired, coaling and repairing stations in the overseas Dominions dismantled, and the trade routes left inadequately protected.

This question of tho trade routes is probably what will appeal most strongly to tho British public, because it involves tho security of tht people's food supply. If the ships that bring the meat and corn from oversea are prevented from reaching port during war time, England may be starved into submission. This danger has been increased in two ways. The number of small cruisers on foreign stations, whose special work is to protect the trade routes, has been reduced according to Lord Charles Beresford, from sixty, in 1903, to twenty-three at the present time, and on the other hand the facilities for privateering have been increased. "Sea-borne trade," says Lord Charles Beresford, in his , pamphlet, "is now open to sudden arid secretly-organised attacks conducted by merchant vessels which a .few hours previously had been sheltering in neutral harbours as non-combatants, and a few hours Liter may repair in the same harbours and take in supplies before embarking_ in_ fresh adventures." This position is an outcome of one of the Conventions of Tho Hague Peace Conference of 1907, as subsequently embodied in the Declaration of London. It was the principal subject of a conference of members of both Houses of Parliament held at the invitation of the Imperial Maritime League last November. On that occasion, Lord Charles Beresford, who was not present, stated in a letter to the. secretary: .

With regard to the Declaration of Loudon, if it is ratified our Government have placed themselves in the position of legalising piracy. .They ought never to have agreed to tH Declaration of London v.ithont insisting that the right to transform a merchantman into a man-of-war on the high seas, should be repudiated by all na-' tions. . . ~ The question of our boinpr a, belligerent, and foreign merchantmen being transformed into men-of-'-rar on r.h«j high seas on cur trade route; '■mil a sudden and s#f.ret!y organised attack being made upon those trade routes which are. now practically undefended owing to Ihe removal of criiif?r>) hit bren so often brought before the public that I will not dilate on it again, but the danper of starvation is apparent to anybody who choose;, to think, the subject out, and has been brought prominently before the public by officers of the Koyal Xavy, upon whom would devolve the dutyof defending the I trade routes in time of war.

The House of Lords having thrown out. the Is aval Prize Bill, which included the Declaration of London, has'dono r66cl- service by giving tha 'nation a further opportunity of reconsidering the wh'ols matter. Lord Charles Bekesfokd's poniphlct. therefore, cornoE at a time" it

should he particularly effrr.tivp. In it. he has probably developed fho conlention with which h" rloporl (he letter quoted above : A CMrfttl examination nf tho proposal? for an International Naval Prize Court, (he Declaration of London, and all rha Conventions can only lead to one conclusion—Hint the military Powers-, who for centuries have been trying Iα undermine British ritihts- have at last succeeded in I heir efforts. The effort of Hip Government i= to substitute for practical, effective force and effective law?, paper ■ afeguards, agreements, and theories, drawn up by international lawyers, to the advantage of those who may be opposed \i us in time of war, and to the disadvantage of ourselves both as belligerents or noutrals. The Betrayal may do much to prevent the final adoption by Britain of the Declaration of London, and as we have shown in previous articles, a cause for serious uneasiness on the part of New 'Zealand would thereby be removed.