Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NAVAL DEFENCE.

THE COMMONWEALTH SCHEME,

Received July 14, 10.12 p.m. LONDON, July 14. In the House of Commons the Hon. R. McKenna, in reply to Mr W. Redmond, said that it was quite natural that the Commonwealth should wish to have its own scheme of naval defence. The Government were perfectly willing to assist the Commonwealth in devising a scheme. What Australia now proposed was a mere outline upon which no action could be taken. The scheme required very considerable development and modification before it became practicable. A communication had been addressed to the Commonwealth Government stating that the Commonwealth scheme was being inquired into. The Admitalty was seeking to construct the best scheme in Mr Deakin'a fullest sense. Itjwas under the Admiralty's consideration, and the Admiralty hoped if it was not possible to frame a scheme of their own to amplify the scheme proposed, and then come to an arrangement with the Commonwealth. But delay in the circumstances was essential. No alternative scheme had been put forward, because the Admiralty were quite content to adhere to the present arrangement, but were anxious to help the Commonwealth, and were now endeavouring to do so by constructing a scheme on the outlines which had been suggested.

THE SHIPBUILDING VOTE-

DISCUSSION IN HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Received July 14, 9.56 p.m. LONDON, July 14. In the House of Commons the shipbuilding vote was agreed to in Committee' of Supply after a debate largely concerning the inevitable increase in expenditure in the future. Mr A. C. Lee, Conservative M.P. for Hants, warned the Government that if it failed to fulfil the pledge given in March las-t, the country would show them that it would stand no trifling with the Navy. The ~Hcn. R. McKenna, in reply, did not carry the question beyond the Hon. H. H. Asquith's declaration made in March. He argued that we would by 1911 have eight Dreadnoughts and four new big cruisers, as compared with Germany's seven Dreadnoughts and two Invincibles. He admitted that the preponderance was insufficient if we had nothing else to rely upon, but our superiority in battleships of the Dreadnought type was iucontestible. He promised that if the Admiralty were satisfied that new ships should be laid down exceptionally early in 1909, their plans were ready.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19080715.2.15.17

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9139, 15 July 1908, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
380

NAVAL DEFENCE. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9139, 15 July 1908, Page 5

NAVAL DEFENCE. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9139, 15 July 1908, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert