THE NAVY VOTE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 769, 18 March 1910, Page 5

THE NAVY VOTE.

TWO-POWER STANDARD. STATEMENT BY MR. McKENNA. BATTLE-SHIP CONTRACTS. By Telesraph—Press Association— Copyright. London, March IG. In the House of Commons, an amendment by Mr. T. Longh, Liberal member for Islington West, to reduce the Navy vote by 3000 men, was negatived by 225 votes to 34. Mr. M'Kenna, First Lord of the Trens-, ury, said the two-Power standard defined by Mr. Asquith on, May 26, 1909,. would not be exceeded by the Estimates. The Admiralty considered that five of the Dreadnoughts were not wanted before 1913, also that it was expedient tn delay their commencement until , the latest, possibla vote was ultimately agreed to.. . TWO KEELS TO ONE. VIEWS OP LORD BRASSEY. . London, HaTch 16. Lord Brassey, an authority on Naval matters, presiding at the jubilee meeting of tho Associated Chambers of Commerce, said tho two-Power standard must be maintained. Britain must lay two keels to each one laid by any other Power.

AUSTRALASIAN BATTLESHIPS. I Sydney, March 17. , The Federal Prime Minister, Mr. Deakin, has announced that a contract ! for an armoured cruiser, which will be the flagship of the Commonwealth fleet, has been let to John Brown and Com.pany, Clydebank. It will be completed in .two yeaTS. - ■ '••■':. (Rec. March 17, 8.5 p.m.).' .. ' ! London, March 17. John Brown and Company, Clydebank, and the Fairfield Company, Govah, have contracted for the building of the Australasian battleship! RECORD WEIGHT OF WORK; ". (Reo. March 17, 10.30 p.m.) London, March 17. With -the two Indomitables for Australia and New Zealand, the Clyde shipbuilders have under construction a record weight, of - naval-.work, including two British Dreadnoughts, three cruisers,-and a 'small fleet of destroyers. AUSTRALIAN. OFFICERS. .;: London, March 16. Lieutenants Feakes* and Biddlecombo, Australians,.have passed-examinations in navigation and) pilotage to qualify them •for the command of torpedo craft. '.

EARL CAWDOR'S MEMORANDUM.' London, March IG. :■ The "Pall Mall Gazette" publishes, for the first time,'the text of a memoran T . dum, by Lord Cawdor, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, in order .to establish Lord Charles Bereaford's contention that there is a shortage in cruisers for the protection of commerce. AUSTRAELAN NAVY LEAGUE. Melbourne/March 17.: The-.Australian -Natives' Association adopted a resolution in favour of the Government's defence policy, but against borrowing money to carry out the proposals. It also carried a proposal recommending the establishment of an Australian Navy-League.

"UNASSAJLABLE NAVAL SUPERIOR. ''• ■<::■ ITY -' WHAT THE COUNTRY HAD TO ' KEEP IN VIEW. An important discussion on tho twoPower standard (referred to in the above cablegrams), too place in the House ■ of Commons on.May 26, 1909. Captain Craig moved that the Honsa would view with'alarm any modification of the two-Power standard as defined by the.Prime Minister in November, 1908, the definition being "a preponderance of 10.per cent, over the combined strengths in capital ships of the two next strongest Powers,- whatever these Powers may be and wherever, they may be situated. Mr. C. Craig, who seconded . the motion, explained that it was understood at the time from the Prime Minister's statements that the .United States Navy would not be texcluded from computation, but during the Easter holidays Mr. Churchill had written a letter to his constituents in which he stated that it ■was not the polioy of the Government to take the naval strength of the United States, into consideration, because they did .not believe that-there was any probability or even possibility of a combination against the British people in which, the United States would take part. .... ■

.Mr. Asquith,.while not quarrelling with the definition contained in tho motion; indicated that it did not reproduce with l absolute precision his explanation of the two-Power standard. During- tho debates, on the' Navy Estimates he laid it down that- in dealing with this standard they must not merely take into account the number of Dreadnoughts andi Invincibles, but our . total effective < strength for defensive purposes as compared with (he , combined' effective strength of'any two other Powers. That was the two-Power standard as understood by successive Administrations, and the Government had in this matter in no way changed the policy pursued by preceding Administrations. For the moment this question was an academio one,'because whatever two Powers might be seleoted, their combined effective strength for' aggressive purposes against this country was far' below the defensive 'strength' that we possessed. The expression "two-Power Standard" was a purely empirical generalisation, a convenient rule of thumb, and he should be very sorry to predict that this formula would be an adequate or necessary formula some years hence. What they had to do was to maintain an unassailable naval superiority, giving Us complete command of the sea and making any attempt to interfere with our Empire' or ocean-borne, commerce impossible. That was what the country had to keep in view, and' it must make any sacrifices that might be necessary for the purpose. In measuring the combined effective, strength of the two next strongest fleets, the power of one powerful homogeneous fleet ought to be borne in mind. Further, ■ it' had been established that the rule only applied to battleships and ships ojusdem generis. Then in existing conditions we ought not to limit our vision to Europe alone; bnt at the same time,, while considering the combined effective strength of any other two Powers for aggressive purposes against this country regard should be had to geographical conditions. Supposing China had a fleet of Dreadnoughts, no rational Minister would treat that fleet as standing upon the same footing- for the purpose of the two-Power standard as the German or French fleet. In the same way. the fleet of. the United States could not he put in the same category with the fleets of France and Germany.