COST OF THE NAVY

Evening Star, Volume 12869, Issue 12869, 19 July 1906, Page 1

COST OF THE NAVY

The Cabinet crisis in England over the Naval Estimates, of which the cables advised, us last week, has not matured; nor do we think it -will. The information that Tre have received across 'the wires since -the Liberate took office has not., in the matter of detail, been free from .blemish. Quite a mistaken view has more than once been conveyed on some of the great questions of the day; and the reader who depends, as many do, solely upon the cables for his political knowledge is apt to form erroneous conclusions. Perhaps tho most frequent and most fallacious of these misapprehensions is that tho Liberal-Labor majority m tho House of Commons is * heterogeneous mass held together by no single purpose, and one in which 'each member is, life Hal o' th' Wynd, fighting for his own hand. There never was a ■greater mistake, though its greatness apparently fits harmoniously with the beliefs and wishes of th© Opposition, who have not yet realised that a new power has arisen, and that that political force has come tostay. The days of caste, privilege, and rank are, if not mnnbered, checked and reduced to comparative impotence. Politicians of the old school may talk smugly of a "turn of the tide" and the "swing of the pendulum," and from their seats in Parliament and from platforms speak as. though the great revolt of January last had never been; but the unbiased and impartial observer knows well that the old order has changed and given place to the new. We were told by experienced and clever old parliamentary hands that when the new host of enthusiasts who were swept into possession a j)ew months back found themselves in the Bouse of Commons they would quickly ftake their places. They would, we were assured, have to do this, to leave alone •that, and to follow precedent. As a matter of history, the new House has done nothing of the land. It has made its own 'ways and forms and speakers, and the cut-and-dried system of speaking and voting and pairing has gone like much other vener'ablc and antiquated machinery went in the opening days of the year. Never, perhaps, in its history has there been a House of Commons that contained a greater average of- brain-power, of expert knowledge, of able men, than the one now sitting at Westminster. Empty-paied sons of representative families may sneer and protest; the squire and the lordling may miss 'their 'club; but the country has never had a more honorable or a more thoroughly comjpetent body of .legislators. A tribute to the new House was paid in these wordu by one who is in the very best position to judge its calibre and to compare it with previous Houses;

He did not believe that there were those signs of decadence that prophets of evil were so eager to put on record, and he was confident personally that the character of the House of Commons, the purity of its motives, its absolute superiority to anything in the nature of pecuniary 'bribes, its power of speech, its tolerance of difference 6f opinion, its tone of manners towards even those who represented but a small minoritv existed still, and would remain when this House of Commons had run its race and had to be judged by the historical character of its performances. Those words were uttered by Mr BaMour himself—no mean authority—and speaking, as be did, a£ the Leader of a great party, though numerically weak in the present House, they are so much the more valuable.

When tbe cable advises (aB it did last week) that a " Cabinet crisis" has arisen over the question of Naval expenditure, it is as well that our readers should carefully consider probabilities. We will not take upon ourselves to say that differences of opinion do not exist on the amount to be expended on the Navy, but we may safely assert, in the words of Lord Elgin, ■that neither the Liberal party nor the Liberal Government " mean to do anything "which will tend in the smallest degree "to weaken the security which was neces"sary to the maintenance of the Empire."' What the Liberal party arc pledged to is "diminution of expenditure," not '"'disarnttmemv." .We are at one with those who believe that both in the Army and tbe Navy there is room for an improvement in efficiency and a reduction in cost For years there has been a maximum of expenditure and a minimum of satisfaction. The scandals in connection with the War Office, the wicked, wanton, waste of money over the South African campaign, stink in the nostrils of decent, self-respecting citizens the Empire over. The Navy is not so had, but Admiralty management in the past leaves much to be desired. Mr Arnold White has told the nation tales of costlv* stupidity that would make one explode with laughter were it not that one becomes savagely anxious to kick somebody. We have heard stories of 150 ships of war being destroyed nnd flung on the scrap heap, and we have the authority of Lord Lansdowno for the statement that "it was likely that "in the past there had been much unwise "naval and military expenditure, mainly "due to the habit of depending rather too "hastily upon the undigested advice of "naval and military experts, and failure to " consider the problem of defence in a com- " prehensive manner." It is not, we believe, because the Liberals are not fully alive to the necessity of maintaining the Navy in a position te meet any. and every probable emergency that they,; as a party, arc asking for a reduction in the vast sums now spent, but because they are familiar with those criminal and shameful expenditures that have at times disgraced the Admiralty Department

Great Britain to-day need fear no single foe, nor any two foes, upon trn seas. In ships and men she is more than cqnal to any probable hostile combination. She has 61 battleships, Germany is next with 31; she has 114 cruisers, France 'comes next with 57; and shs has more ships building than any other Power. But the question is being asked by men who are as loyal to the Flag as the most fervid Imperialist: Is this ever-growing annual outlay necessary 1 In ten years the increase was orer £15,000,000, and there are no signs of a halt. The national and local expenditure of Great Britain has gone up by about £150,000,000 in ten years, and during the- same period the increase in population has been but 10 per cent., whilst that of indebtedness is 21 per cent., and in national expenditure 30 per cent. Great Britain is spending much more wroportionately on her Army and Xavy

than are Praaicc and Germany and Italy. The annual advance in Italy is 131,500,000, m Germany £8,700,000, .in France ~A°°°' and » Great Britain £30,000,000. Why, then, ifc is asked, aS farther to the burdens of the British taxpayer? Ifc i s nofe &e colonies who are called upon to pay for that Kavy the absence of which .would, place the mercantile marine at.the mercy of any foreign aggres. » £40,000 2-nofc enough to keep.one battleshrp m commission.. Even Conservative cntrcs lite -fße Times' and others do not question tne ability of Great Britain to hold ner own against her possible admission that resolves the problem into one of adequate and competent management rather, than keeping ahead, at any and every hazard, of the shipbuilding proposals of other Powers. This, too, Ls certain: the legitimate and rational efforts that are being made by the representatives of the nations to reduce the awful burden upon life and industry that these vast armaments entail aro deserving of the moral support of the masses of the people here and elsewhere. • brinS°ln?° ' m type tho «Wa ft of the termination of the alleged «cns lß .» U seems £hat b °i Ween tho Treasury and the Adrmralty and a settlement ha/ been effectedl on the basufof the Treasury agree-