The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. SATURDAY, MARCH 2, 1907. THE NAVAL ESTIMATES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 53, 2 March 1907, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

SATURDAY, MARCH 2, 1907. THE NAVAL ESTIMATES.

For H\e cmuse that lacks assistance, ■for tlie wrong that needs resistance, For t\e future in the distance. And the good that ice cos do.

As w&s to be expected, the Naval Estimates provide for a considerable reduction in men and money during the current This is consistent enough with the declared policy and the election pledges; of the Liberal leaders, but it opens jhe grave question whether England iai not actually surrendering the Two-Power standard which for twenty years has been the central feature of her naval policy. Another important point in the new naval programme is that farther construction is to depend \jpon the result of the attempt to limit or reduce' national armaments which is to be made at the nest Hague Conference. This is undoubtedly the first time that the risks of national defence and national safety have been committed to such a contingency; and we may expect this new departure to be assailed with the most vehement criticism by those who regard England's naval predominance as by no means safely ensured. As to the reduction of expenditure on the Navy at the present juncture, there is room for very serious difference of opinion. The problem is complicated by the fact that the course now adopted by the Admiralty is entirely inconsistent with the views expressed by our chief Naval authorities a short time ago. Early in December, 1905, the Admiralty issued what is known as the Cawdor Memorandum, which stated that an output of four large armoured ships annually was demanded by England's naval and strategic requirements, and that four such vessels would thus be laid down each year and completed in two years. Tender this programme four large armoured warships would have been laid down in 1906-7, and four more in 1907-8. It was known that Germany had arranged to lay down three such vessels for each of these years, leaving England but a very narrow margin of superiority. But with the Dreadnought and three monster cruisers begun in 1905-C England would have had twelve of the new leviathans in hand by the beginning of 1908. However, in July last year Parliament was informed that the Admiralty for " confidential " reasons, had changed its views. Instead of four large warships they proposed to lay down three in 1906-7 and two in 1907-8, though in the latter period a third may be added if the Hague Conference fails to persuade the Powers to limit their armaments. All this means that by the close of 1908 Germany will have in hand or completed sis warships and three cruisers of the improved Dreadnought type, while England ■will have precisely the same number. At the same time France will have six Dreadnoughts in hand, and the United States five or six. What has become of the Two-Power standard here? Even if we refuse to accept the theory held by the world's leading naval experts that the comparative strength of the great navies must now be measured chiefly, if not solely, by the Dreadnought standard, we must admit that nothing has happened in tho sphere of international affairs to justify this sudden departure from the Two-Power minimum so long acepted as essential to England's safety. For nothing is more certain than this, that the other great Powers are neither willing nor able to reduce their armaments. As Mr H. W. Wilson and other experts have repeatedly pointed out, there is not the slightest hint that Germany intends to reduce her naval expenditure. The Kaiser, it is said, hfc« refused point hlank to accept disarmament as a subject for discussion at the Hague Conference; the whole meaning of this "forward" policy is the establishment of a great fleet able to compete with England for naval supremacy; and to-day's cables inform us that he contemplates enlarging the Kiel Canal at a cost of £ 10,000,000 to accommodate the monster warships that he is now building with feverish activity. As to France, her Ministers have officially stated that whatever our Government may do she cannot afford to reducij her naval outlay. Her position with respect to Germany is too dangerous to admit of such experiments. Japan is pursuing her policy of naval expansion with her usual thorough-going precision; and oar own treaty obligations to Japan might well make us hesitate to economise out of our army or navy at this crisis in our international relations. No doubt the burden of expenditure for military and naval purposes presses heavily upon all nations, and more especially upon the wage-earners and the poorer classes. But though if Europe could ballot for the reduction of armaments on a basis of universal suffrage, the international peace party would certainly win tho day, still we cannot forget that the representatives of the Powers at the Hague will stand for kings and emperors and governments, not for the toilers and the masses. And it does not seem likely that any diplomatist or potentate in the -world is prepared to risk the safety of his country or his Crown by setting the example and cutting down naval or military estimates as a moral object lesson for his rivals and enemies. Sir Henry Campbell-Ban-nerman, it is true, has said that England can disarm more easily than other Power, because her; naval strength, is

so great. But the logic of this argument is manifestly fallacious, and until tlie ; aggressive ambitions of Germany and other Powers take a much more peaceful form. ,than they have assumed of late, -we can only- hope that no sentimental considerations will induce our rulera to advocate a course that would endanger Britain's absolute supreaiaty at sea.