THE TWO-POWER STANDARD

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 262, 15 March 1911, Page 5

THE TWO-POWER STANDARD

, BRITISH NAVAL ESTIMATES. DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT. By Cable —Press Association—Copyright. London, March 13. A debate was initiated by supporters of a reduced navy, on the motion by Mr. J. Murray Mac Donald, Liberal member for Falkirk Burghs, urging that the army and navy expenditure ought to be diminished, and an amendment by Mr. Joseph King, Liberal member for North Somerset, advocating a simultaneous international restriction of warlike preparations. SIR JOSEPH WARD'S SCHEME. , CRITICISED AND COMMENDED. '* London, March 13. The Pall Mall Gazette says that Sir Joseph Ward gives a ringing voice to the perception which has lately seized Britons overseas that the 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 the Dominions are ready fully to discharge their moral obligations. The Gazette adds that Sir Joseph Ward's claim for participating in the control must be accepted. The Globe recalls Sir James Bevan Edward's proposal for an Imperial Defence ' Parliament, and says the main difficulty with both schemes is the possibility of any new Imperial Parliament superseding the existing Parliament. The House of Commons would never abandon its historic right of control of a great spending department. A possible alternative would be to have a House of Commons committee for Home Defence co-operating with similar defence committees elected by the overseas Parliaments. Sydney, March 14. The Herald, commenting on Sir Joseph Ward's speech, says that it is refreshingly wide of the limitations of local politics. In that way alone the Imperial Conference has done immeasurable service to the Empire and the Dominions. In the aspect of this larger view the speech admirably befitted the Premier of New Zealand en route for the great Empire assembly, wherein he has a due and honored place. The Telegraph says that Sir Joseph Ward's scheme is new only so far as it postulates full local autonomy for each unit of the Imperial federation. Sir Joseph Ward will have to develop the scheme considerably before it can be placed on the table of the Imperial Conference in a form that can even be disensse# by practical statesmen. GERMAN AND BRITISH EXPENDITURE COMPARED. London, March 13. Mr. McKenna, First Lord of the Admiralty, replying to a question, said that the expenditure on new naval construction in the last three years was: United Kingdom £34,531,000, Germany £29,365,000, showing Britain's increase to be only 16 per cent, as compared with the year 1904, compared with Germany's 166 per cent, for the same period. LORD CHARLES BERESFORiyS OPINION. THE MARGIN INSUFFICIENT. AND THE ESTIMATES INADEQUATE. Received 14, 9.55 p.m. London, March 14. In the House of Commons, in deprecating the comparisons with Germany, Mr. Ponsonby, the Liberal member for Stirling, urged the abandonment of the policy founded on the mischievous scare of 1909. Lord Charles Beresford, Conservative member for Portsmouth, contended that our fleet margin was too small. He suggested, amidst cheers, the possibility of inducing the great English-speaking nations to unite for peace. If that were possible, we could reduce armaments, but meanwhile the expenditure must continue. He argued that the present estimates were inadequate to secure an unassailable position at sea. DECLARATION BY MR. McKENNA. COMPARISON WITH GERMANY INEVITABLE. Received 14, 9.55 p.m. London, March 14. Mr. McKenna, First Lord of the Admiralty, assured the supporters of the motion that the sole object of the huge and costly ships was to make Britain secure against all contingencies. We should have freedom of the highway of the ocean, and this was impossible unless the navy was supreme as against any foreign navy and any reasonable and probable combination that we might have to meet single-handed. He contended that it was impossible to avoid reference to the growth of the German navy. He emphasised that drastic amendments of the fleet law in 1906 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 the four contingent ships, he re marked that although his informatior regarding dates had been wrong, thai concerning size and cost were right. AN ANSWER TO GERMANY. A REASONABLE MARGIN OF SECURITY. Received 14, 11.15 p.m. London, March 14. Mr. McKenna, continuing, said tha he was unwilling in 1909, when final! aware that Germany, though not acre! erating her naval construction, wa building greater and stronger ships, t say anything calculated to cause n wan "The situation lias tmvr changed i Germany. Tile ships are there. Muc larger ships are built, but we ha\ given our answer to them. Consequeir

ly, the time for a scare has gone. Our answer took the shape of improved Dreadnoughts, including the Orion and the awarding a reasonable margin of sucunt), inasmuch as in the spring of 1914 Britain will have 30, and Germany 21 Dreadnoughts. If, as there will be every reason to hope and believe, the German fleet programme is not further amended, our estimates for 1912-13 will show a reduction, but," he added, amid Opposition cheers, "we cannot pledge ourselves to any rcductipn until we know what is developed in foreign navies." THE LEADERR OF THE OPPOSITION. Mr. Balfour said he did not think the Government over-rated the possible dangers of the situation. He feared the estimates erred in proposing too few bat- j tleships and cruisers. After characterising Admiral Wilson's and General lan Hamilton's views as dangerous, he enquired whether the Government adhered to the policy of two keels to one. OUR FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH GERMANY. POSSIBLE REVOLT AGAINST NAVY TAXATION. Received 15, 12.10 a.m. London, March 14. Sir Edward Grey replied, reiterating Mr. Asquith's policy to maintain, in regard to European Powers, the twoPower 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. Our foreign relations were not strained. Referring to the friendly expression of Herr VonßethmannHollweg, the German Chancellor, in December, he said Great Britain desired cordial relations with Germany, subject to the stipulation that when we made a friendship we carried with us the existing ones. Some thought the growth of armaments would lead to war, but it was more likely to end by the revolt of the masses against this taxation. SUGGESTED AGREEMENT WITH GERMANY. Regarding the suggested agreement with Germany, Sir Edward Grey said it required careful handling, inasmuch as the fleet law must be executed. The better plan would be to have a frank exchange of information to prevent surprises. POSSIBILITY OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. FOREIGN OFFICE HOPEFUL. Received 15, 12.10 a.m. London, March ' Sir Edward, continuing, eulogised Mr. Taft's speech on arbitration. "But," he added, "an agreement to refer everything to arbitration will entail some risk, and, as Mr. Taft has remarked, some sacrifice of national pride. Great Britain would be delighted to receive sueh a sweeping proposal, but I should feel it so momentous and so far-reaching in .its possible consequences as to require the signatures of both Governments, and the deliberate and decided sanction of Parliament, and that, I believe, could be obtained." (Tremendous cheering.) He concluded by accepting Mr. King'S amendment, which was carried by 276 to 66. THE 1909 STATEMENT. In his statement, explanatory of the Navy Estimates of 1909-10, after announcing that the new shipbuilding programme would consist of four battleshins of the Dreadnought type, six protected cruisers, and a number of submarines, the First Lord said: "In addition to the , above provision for ship construction, His Majesty's Government may, in the course of the financial year 1909-10, find it necessary to make preparation for the rapid construction of four more large armored ships . . . to be completed by March, 1912." On July 26 the First Lord, in introducing the shipbuilding vote in the House of Commons, said: "After very anxious, careful examination of the conditions of shipbuilding in foreign countries, the Government had come to the conclusion to construct four more large armored ships, beginning on April 1 of the following year, and completed by March 1912." The First Lord said that Germany Was rapidly developing her naval strength. The difficulty the Government was in was that they did not know the rate at which German construction was taking place. During the previous 18 months the work of German construction had been greatly accelerated. and not nine, as the British authorities had calculated, but 13 German ships of the largest size might be completed in 1910.