The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1909. THE NAVAL ESTIMATES.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 66, 18 March 1909, Page 4

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1909. THE NAVAL ESTIMATES.

— » For the causa that lacks assistance, , For the wrong that needs resistance. For the future in the distance, And the good that tee can do.

Whatever be the result of the debate on the Xaval Estimates, the so-called "Germanophobe" party at Home may at least congratulate themselves that they have stirred up a genuine sensation over the rapid growth of the Kaiser's fleets. For some years past—in fact, ever since the days of the Kruger telegram^—a small band of newspaper editors and naval experts have been insisting, in season and out of season, that Germany intends to contest the supremacy of the seas with England, and that she has been 'building a huge fleet so as to be able to attack us whenever a favourable opportunity should occur. At first the "National Review" and Mr. H. W. Wilson appealed to deaf ears; but gradually, as Germany grew bolder, and her navy, for no very obvious reason, still increased in size and strength, the "Germanophobes" made converts. The "Times" and the "Daily Telegraph" began to back up the '"National Review,"' and even the "peace-at-any-price" Radicals took fright. At last, when the singularly fatuous suggestion to reduce armaments, put fbnvard by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannermau, failed to elicit any response, and the Hague Conference had ignored the whole question, even so optimistic a Liberal as Mr. W. T. Stead publicly renounced his faith in Germany's good intentions, and the tide of political feeling turned. The consequence is that to-day we find the leading Liberals in the House of Commons proposing, and the leading Unionists supporting, a policy that openly throws the responsibility for increased armaments upon Germany, and asserts England's determination to spare no effort and no expenditure to maintain the place she has so long held as mistress of the seas. The language in which the First Lord of the Admiralty introduced the Estimates is in itself sufficiently remarkable. Mr. McKenna has always been regarded as a "little navy" man, and in his previous speeches on these questions he has been a strong advocate of economy, and has severely discountenanced excessive shipbuilding. To-day he admits that bis proposals demand the strongest justification from "a Government pledged to peace, retrenchment and reform ,, ; but he finds ample excuse for the Liberal change of front in the rapid growth of the German navy. The First Sea Lord now frankly admits the contentions of the "Germanophobes" that Germany can build warships as rapidly as England, that she has far exceeded her original naval programme, and that within three or four years' time she will be actually superior to England in vessels of the Dreadnought class. And this wholesale concession to the opinions so long urged in vain by the "National Review," the "Daily Mail" and the '"Times'" was emphatically en-dor.-ed by Mr. Asquith. For the Premier admitted that his Government had made a serious blunder last year in refusing to take warning from the threatening attitude of Germany. "The hypothesis upon which the last naval programme "was based has been falsified by events"; and though Mr. Asquith may not find many people to share his "great surprise" on learning that Germany has actually been building faster than her published naval programme indicated, it is consoling to find that even his well-tried confidence in the goodness of human nature and the lofty motives of our rivals has not been proof against I the revelations of the past year. On the j whole, the Liberal leaders have made a full and frank confession of their errors in this respect, and Mr. Balfour evidently derived considerable consolation from the luxury of saying, "'I told you so," in his best dialectical and rhetorical style. And it must not be imagined that this sudden reversal of policy is merely a tactical expedient to strengthen the position of the Liberals in the House of Commons. For the most remarkable feature of the situation is the unanimity! with which the recognised organs of Liberal and even Radical public opinion support Ministers in their new parts. The " Daily News," our cables inform us, " reluctantly supports the estimates." This I is indeed a marvellous conversion, for the <: Daily News " has hitherto stuck obstinately to the conviction that there is no imperial or national danger sufficiently imminent to justify the expenditure on army or navy of the money so urgently | needed for social reform. The " Daily j Chronicle," which is even more frankly i Radical than the " Daily News," and quite, as anxious to limit naval and military j expenditure, has evidently caught I " German fever" in an acute j form; for it declares that the question is not whether Ministers have asked too much for the navy but whether they i should not have asked more. Last, but j not least, the "Westminster Gazette," j perhaps the most consistent and influen-1 t'ial of all the Liberal journals, hae stated { that the facts as to the acceleration of '•■ I the German programme, set forth by': the Liberal loaders, should ensure the unanimous support of their followers. j The "Westminster Gazette," it is true,' Iwas not converted yesterday; for it is 1 some months since it secured for itself,

the honourable distinction of being the firet British neiwepa/per to set forth accurately the comparative shipbuilding programmes of England and Germany, and to show plainly that by 1912 Germany would actually have outstripped England in the contest for superiority in fighting strength at sea. With the leading organs of Liberalism behind him, Mr. Asquith is thus sure -of his ground, and it is clear from the evidence that we have quoted that the Premier and his colleagues are rather following than leading Liberal public opinion at Home as regards the necessity for strengthening England's fleets. The two great political parties and the sections of the nations they represent are thus practically at one as regards the naval estimates and the policy of naval expansion for which they stand. There is still the theoretical possibility that both Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour may be mistaken, and that the- ecare raised over the growth of the German navy may be altogether baseless and unnecessary. But we must regretfully admit that we can see no rational grounds for this view of the case. The evidence in favour of the theory that Germany hae actually resolved if possible to wrest the crown of naval supremacy from England, and to supersede her as the foremost naval and Imperial Power in the world seems to us overwhelmingly strong. There is nothing treacherous or dishonourable in Germany's ambitions; and quite apart from the Kaiser's dream of a world-wide empire, we fully sy-m----pathise with the view expressed by the "Daily New*" that Germany's apprehensions about her own safety are justified by the predominance of England, France and Russia in European affairs. But however reasonable and natural Germany's precautions or ambitipns may be, i f , would be the height of folly for England to shut her eyes to them. Practically up to the present day the majority of Liberals and Radical.-, at Home appear to have preferred this state of wilful and deliberate blindness to the responsibility of making adequate preparations to resist any attack that the aspirations or the enmities of our foreign rivals might direct against us. Now we have some reasonable ground for believing that the days of this dangerous self-delusion are numbered;! and even if Mr. Balfour and the "Times" are right in their contention that the Xaval Estimates do not go anything like far enough, the tone and temper of public feeling at Home to day justifies the conviction that England has at least been roused to a sense of her peril and that she is prepared to face the crisis wisely and boldly.