POUND A HEAD?

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18551, 28 November 1925, Page 16

POUND A HEAD?

SUBSIDY TO NAVY. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DISCUSSION. (SPICLtI. TO "th* r&sss.") DUNEDIN, November 27. The safety of our trade routes, and the vital necessity for defence, were discussed at the Chamber of Commerce Conference to-day, when Mr A. IT. Lunn (Auckland) moved; "That conference affirms the vital necessity to New Zealand of the protection and maintenance of British trade routes, and urges the Government to provide for a more adequate contribution towards tho cost of Empire naval defence." "This country," said Mr Lunn, "and the United States of America also, up to the last quarter of a century, have hitherto been entirely dependent for tho peaceful conduct of our trade relations upon the protection of the British Navy." Up to a quarter of a century ago, he concluded, America had had no adequate Navy to protect her, though it had been well known that had she been attacked Britain would have como to her assistance. The safety of tho great trade between this country and the Mother Country absolutely depended upon the British Navy. "We knew, however, that Britain, with her serious unemployment and so on, was not in a happy financial position to-day, and the time was coming when she must insist upon her daughter nations coming more fully to her assistance in regard to the cost of the Navy than they had done in the past.

Weakness in Cruisers, Earl Jellicoe had recently strongly stressed that point at a meeting of the Eoyal Naval Volunteer Eescrvo Club in London. The pamphlet issued by tho Navy League showed that wo had only two cruisers afloat capable of steaming at thirty-three knots an hour, while Japan had sixteen, besides eight under construction. And whereas we had no cruisers which could approach thirty-five knots, the ten fastest cruisers of the United States Navy could steam at that speed. It was clear therefore that in spite of the Empire's numerical superiority in cruisers, our up-to-date cruiser strength was less than that of either the United States or Japan. Since the Armistice, Great Britain had scrapped 516 vessels, and she had not been able to replaeo anything like that number. The vessels destroyed comprised forty-four battleships and battle-cruisers, eighty-six cruisers, 286 destroyers and torpedo boats, and more than 100 submarines, with the result that instead of maintaining the old twoPower naval standard, it was doubtful if she was now up to three-quarter-Power standard. Can Britain Go On Paying? The economic position in which the Homeland found itself was tending to make it impossible that the people of Great Britain should longer undertake the lion's share of the Empire's defonce. That they were now doing so was shown by the per capita payments, stated by Mr W. C. Bridgcman (First Lord of the Admiralty) in the House of Commons in July last, as follows: — Great Britain 25s per head, Australia and New Zealand Bs, South Africa Is 9d, Canada 74 cents (3s Id). The Dominions, he declared, were not bearing their full Bhare of responsibility. But he (Mr Lunn) firmly believed that 99 per cent, of the people of New Zealand were British enough, if the matter was fully laid before them, to be not only willing but proud to take their full share of this responsibility, and to pay a pound per head, with our brothers of the Empire at Home. Even with the additional £IOO,OOO a year which our Government was now spending on naval defence, New, Zealand's contribution would only be 9s per head, whereas to approach the British naval expenditure per head we would have to increase it by another million. Voices: Let us carry it by acclamation. (Applause.) Tho President (Mr Peter Ban): The resblution must be seconded first. Mr H. C.-Campbell (Dunedin): I'll second it. The resolution was then carried unanimously, with acclamation.