The Press. THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1903. THE BRITISH AND GERMAN NAVIES,

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11536, 19 March 1903, Page 4

The Press. THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1903. THE BRITISH AND GERMAN NAVIES,

Interest in the British Navy is perennial throughout the Empire, but it bursts into strong growth when the naval estimates are under discussion and the plans for the year are disclosed. This year, it is happily evident, the Admiralty are fully seized of the absolute necessity for British supremacy on the sea, and the nation, in its present mood regarding Germany, ia not likely to complain of the increased expenditure rendered necessary by the Kaiser's openly-expressed naval ambitions. At present there is no comparison between the two navies. The Kaiser showed this very clearly in a comparative table, drawn up by himself, of the relative naval strength of Great Britain and Germany, which, he recently presented to the Reichstag. In this he showed that in November last year Great Britain had forty-two battleships in commission against Germany's twelve, fourteen armoured cruisers against two, and 109 cruisers with armoured decks against seventeen. In course of construction England had twelve battleships and twenty armoured cruisers, whereas Germany had but six battleships and three cruisers. It can easily be believed that the Kaiser hoped by means of this comparison to prepare the way for an extension of the present formidable building programme upon which Germany ia now engaged. Time will show whether the device will succeed. In the meantime it is well to remember that in one respect the German Navy is little if anything behind that of Great Britain. Its j personnel Last year was about 31,000 of all j

ranks, against Great Britain's 85,000 odd. But Oermany, as cabled yesterday, can count 110,000 men as liable for active service, whereas from all sources Great Britain could not call upon more than some 125,000 to .130,000 men. The reason for this lies in the German system of compulsorily recruiting her navy from the large maritime and semi-maritime population. Fishers, sailors, and others whose occupations are connected with the sea have to serve in the navj for a certain period, and can be called on for future service if required, being released from compulsory t service in tho army. England's trained reserves are small, as her navy is to a large extent manned in time of peace, but the outbreak of -war would cause a demand for ments. Her fisher population is larger than that of Germany, but to a very large extent it is untrained in naval service, which is yearly * becoming more of a science. The utilisation of this valuable eource of strength is a matter in which Lord Brassey and others have taken a strong interest, and ifc should command th? attention of the Admiralty, especially as tho number of British seamen in the mercantile marine, continues to show a lamentably steady decline. Money and proper organisation aloneare needed to produce a reserve force of splendid utility in time of need, and if the Admiralty will do the organising the British publio will pay the bill. Mr" Arnold Foster, we notice, approached tits House of Commons in a most apologetic attitude, deploring the necessity for the "enormous unproductive expenditure" upon the navy. One could qtfote plenty of arguments against the use of the word " unproductive" in this connection, but one will suffice. No sane man regards the cost of insuring his house and property as unproductive. England's naval expenditure is the premium she pays for insuring her vast mercantile marine. Last year this premium amounted to about two and one-seventh per cent. Against this low rate Germany had*to pay 7J per cent., Russia 10 per cent., France 12 per cent., and the United States 13.4 per cent. Translated into these comme.cial terms the British Navy is the cheapest insurance policy in the world, especially when we remember that it is not only our mercantile marine which is at stake, but our national safety.