THE NAVY

Evening Star, Issue 14518, 18 March 1911, Page 5

THE NAVY

DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. RELATIVE STRENGTH. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, March 17. Speaking in tho Douse of Commons, the First Lord of the Admiralty said that tho Naval Estimates represented the total expenditure for the year. Moreover, they included £1,300,000 "for interest on former loans. The Government were paying their way to tho last shilling, and tho navy must l)e supreme so long as tho Empire was to endure. He would never adviso the temporary expedient of u loan to meet permanent needs. It took two years to build n Dreadnought, and they did not need to begin, the five ships of the Orion and Lion type for this year's programme before December or January next. Tho cost of the first eight Dreadnoughts was the samo as that of nine King Edwards, but their maintenance would cost £50.000 a year less. Tho Orions cost £1,900,000 each—an increaso of £200,000 over tho earlier Dreadnoughts. The Estimates, when compared with Germany's £22,000,000, appeared to represent upwards of the twoPower standard, but £BOO,OOO represented expenditure which in Germany's case was embodied in tho Civil Estimates. A true comparison was as follows: —Great Britain, £36,000,000; Germany, £22,000,000. Further, £2,500,000 was deductible in respect of the fleets which Great Britain maintained in tho Pacific and Atlantic, making her total £33,500,000. Mr M'Kemja added that the Rcsyth naval base would bo ready in 1915. Mr Lee (Unionist) said! the spring of 1914 would be a critical time. Great Britain would then have twenty-nine Dreadnoughts in European waters, and the Triple Allianco would have twenty-nine. There- was thus no margin for accidente. Tho cruiser programme was lamentably insufficient in view of tho threatened privateering peril if the Declaration of London were ratified. [Mr Lee's forecast is incorrect. In tho spring of 1914 Great Britain will have thirty first class battleships in European waters and two in Australasian waters. — Ed. E.S.] Mr G. Roberts moved as an amendment that foreign events did not warrant the increasing expenditure, which was a nu-nace to national security. MR BALFOUR'S CRITICISM. ARBITRATION WITH AMERICA. LONDON, March 17. In tho course of a speech which aroused intense interest Mr Balfour said that, like others, he felt that tho constantly increasing Estimates were moro than a national inconvenience, but they must bo endured to avoid the risk of disaster. If diplomacy and soft words could accomplish anything, by all meatis let them again be tried Meanwhile, they had the facts in 1914, ns detailed by Mr Lee, which must bo faced. Besides the responsibilities in other parts of the world, they must maintain their supremacy in the Mediterranean. No other nation had such a task. Mr M'Kenna, interposing, said that the Admiralty did not accept Mr Lee's forecast. Mr Balfour next referred to President Taft's suggestion to extend tho existing treaties for arbitration in order to include points of national honor equally with those of national interest. The suggestion deserved careful consideration, and whether or not it was realisable generally there was no reason why kindred communities like Great Britain and tho United States should not enter into such an arrangement. He (Mr Balfour) recalled Lord Salisbury's and Lord Pauncefote's (the British Ambassador at Washington) efforts to frame a treaty of arbitration with the United States. Lord Salisbury's successors were fortunate enough to make an immnnso number of treaties of arbitration, but they failed with America, where the Senalo declined the suggestions approved by tho President and the Cabinet. He hoped that President Taft's words represented, besides tho. feelings of himself and his Government, the general feeling in the United States that for both the countries concerned peace was of the greatest interest, and that the time was ripe for a, treaty, preventing the possibility of any thing so horrible as war between them. If Sir E. Grey and the Government found a way to make such an arrangement they would find no heartier friends than the Unionists. It would be a consummation of the policy for which (hey had constantly striven, but even such a treaty could hardly aiYoet tho navy's future, for Great Britain wa,s not building ships against America, and ho was not aware of any rairopean Power that would ha prepared to enter President Taft's scheme owing to Mr Haldane's indiscretion. They knew on Admiral Wilson's (First Sea Lord) authority that the protection of Great Britain's food supply and of raw materials was a subject that was causing Admiral Wilson the greatest anxiety. Mr M'Kenna doubtless endorsed Admiral Wilson's view. Mr Balfour concluded by stating that tho provision for battleships and possible contingencies in 1914 was inadequate.

AMENDMENT DEFEATED. LONDON, March 17. (Received March 18, at 8.5 a.m.) Mr John Dillon explained that Nationalists and Radicals were regret fully voting for the Estimates lest they might weaken tho Government in the Veto crisis. Dr MaenamaTa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty) justified the Estimates. 'Die amendment was negatived bv 216 to 54. THE ARCHER-SHEE CASE. LONDON, Marelt 17. Tn the House of Commons Mr M'Kenna informed Mr Cave, referring to the Archer case, in which Major ArcheT-Shee brought an action against the Admiralty because his son had been dismissed tho service, said that the Admiralty's offer to pay the plaintiff's costs had been declined. The sum of £IO,OOO damages was claimed, which tho Admiralty refused to pay. Mr Austen Chamberlain, at Mr Balfour's instanco, gave notice of motion fo discuss the case. [A charge of peculation was made against young Archer-Shee, which was proved to be without foundation.]