The Daily News. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13. SOCIAL REFORM OR THE NAVY?

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 209, 13 December 1910, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13. SOCIAL REFORM OR THE NAVY?

Britain is a lending, not a borrowing country. It is able to lend because it does the biggest business in the world. For the Old Country to suddenly develop a borrowing policy in order to keep its armaments ahead of those of any other country would be antagonistic to precedent and likely to have a depressing effect on Imperial prestige. Now that the British, elections are proceeding and there is some certainty as to the party which will win the fight, it is interesting to observe that there is a likelihood of strong support in the present Cabinet to a great Navy loan. The following significant statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicates how very thorough the belief of the British Government is that the Navy must remain immensely the superior of any two combined navies:—

"Our naval supremacy, living as we do from day to day on food brought from oversea, and with no conscript Army of millions to defend our country, is a matter of life and death. We do not argue about it. We maintain it, and must go on maintaining it, against all challengers, even if it comes to the spending of our

last penny. . . . So far we have at least paid our way without having to borrow money with which to build ships —which is more than some of our Protectionist neighbors can say. And although he who goes a-borrowing goes a-sorrowing, and we shall keep on paying our way from day to day out of revenue, nevertheless if the beggar-my-neighbor game is to be played out to the bitter end, 'we have still the untouched reserve of a naval loan available to fall back upon—a resource of which our competitors have long ago had to avail themselves."

The Home Secretary, in a public letter, hinted at the possibility of a loan for Navy purposes. The British Premier has condemned in the strongest possible terms every proposal to borrow money for the Navy, and hates the thought of borrowing to meet current expenditure of any kind. Mr. Asquith, in his calm, sane way, has indeed gone so far as to say that Britain •■will undermine her greatest strength when she "goes to the moneylenders." The First Lord, of the Admiralty, Mr. McKenna, said: "It will be the first sign of decadence when our Navy is not paid for out of our annual revenue." Hence it will be seen that the present Cabinet is a little divided on this all-important subject. If Britain goes in for a policy of borrowing' for anything at all, such a policy would probably spur colonial governments to further excesses. The reckless advocates of expenditure in the Old Country are those who have not to find, much of the money, and it is, of course, easy enough for a retired admiral to suggest that a fund of one hundred million pounds should be raised for Navy purposes, and at the same time to fight land taxation—the only reasonable means of raising such a huge sum. Mr. Lloyd-George is probably an advocate of a Navy loan because he wants all the money he can get for necessary social reforms. The Chancellor's zeal for a social policy is well known. He fears that the added Navy expenditure may mitigate the chances for the fulfilment of the Government pledges in relation to insurance against unemployment and invalidity. British revenue is coming in wonderfully, and there is reason to expect a very large surplus—not a problematical or paper surplus, but a substantial balance of available cash. The surplus goes automatically to help pay off the national debt. The existing taxation' would meet all the needs for next year, but the expenditure for 1911 will be exceptionally heavy. It is expected that the Navy will want at least five millions sterling, and Mr. LloydGeorge wants a couple of millions to bring in paupers who have hitherto been outside the old-age pension scheme. The Chancellor has, in fact, made careful provision for a great scheme of social amelioration, and at present he sees in the demand' for more money for the Navy a likelihood of his schemes going by the board. In order to make it still more impossible for foreign Powers to beat Britain in the race of shipbuilding, death dealing devices must be placed before philanthropic schemes for keeping people alive. Britain has such enormous wealth that five million pounds could be collected from a few hundred people without serious damage to their solvency, but the richest folk are the strongest advocates of increased Navy expenditure, and never suggest that they shall bear the greatest part of the burden. Naturally, the raising of Navy loans is in direct antagonism to all schemes of social betterment, for they merely increase the present burden of the masses for the sake of safety from problematical invasion in the future. The fight between social reform and expenditure on armaments was never so sharp as at present, and the Chancellor might almost be excused, for believing

fairer way than the seizure of revenue he desires for the establishment of his great schemes. The race for naval supremacy is merely the race of cash, and the weakest financial nation will call "halt" the soonest. All nations other than Britain are keeping in the race on borrowed money, and the incalculable strength of Britain is maintained because of her system of wise finance. The maddened race of nations must ultimately sap their life, and it is reasonable enough to assume that a nation might possess an enormous navy without the cash to use it in striking an effective blow. The fighting capacity of a navy is the only excuse for its existence, and the fighting capacity is represented by the fulness of the Treasury of the nation possessing it. If the patriotism of wealthy Britons was equal in strength to their demands for a greater Navy, the coffers of the State would overflow without any demand being made either on revenue or the moneylender. Great magnates demand great ships, but they have never been known to buy any for presentation to the King.