NAVAL MOTES

Evening Star, Issue 14520, 21 March 1911, Page 8

NAVAL MOTES

[Contributed by the Navy League, Otago Branch.] THE UNIVERSAL CRY. ,oh, England! hear the rumors run That England’s day is nearly done; Keep, then, thy vision clear and free, J Look out to sea ! Look out to sea! j “ No navy, whatever its size, is as dear | as a war.” —Admiral Count MontecuceoH, Minister of Marino, Austria, January 27. 'THE NAVY ESTIMATES. The anxiously-expected Estimates for the year, have, like the Ides of March, , come and gone. That is to say, they | have gone in the sense that over-timid j patriots need no longer lie awake o’ nights wondering whether those traitors at the Admiralty intend to cave in, ignoniiniously j of course, to the Little Navy party, i Being sensible and patriotic Britons, as j distinct from hysterical ppuce-at-any-price men, not less t/han from hysterical extremists whose mental outlook is blurred by visions of the Empire tottering to its fall, the members of the Admiralty and Government have submitted Estimates to Parliament that have been received with satisfaction by the sober-minded on either side. How great the burden the British taxpayer is called upon to shoulder for the Navy alone is made plain by the following table, which shows at a glance the sums spent annually for the last

—What Was Expected.--It is interesting, and iiot without its humorous side, to know that Mr M’Kenna’s Estimates were public properly as far back as the last week in January. If the curious care to turn to the February ‘ Fortnightly Review ’ they will find an article by Mr Archibald Hurd, one of the best-informed writers on naval | nutters, and by no means an aggressive one, in which' ho anticipates the new Naval Estimates. His statements in this article were so explicit and definite that they gave rise to some little resentment from his brethren of the pen. For example, the naval correspondent of the London ‘ Daily Chronicle ’ wrote ■ Apparently the latest development of Admiralty policy is to announce in advance through one of these expert publicists what its Estimates are to be. Mr Hurd commences an article on the new Naval Estimates (which, for aught I know, aro not yet before the Cabinet) as follows The new Parliament, as one of its first acts, will have to consider Navy Estimates of unprecedented magnitude. They must amount to between forty-four millions and forty-five millions sterling.” > The amazed critic continues;— j It does seem to me rather remarkable that an outsider should be able to tell weeks before the House of Commons i has graciously been informed of the Ad- i miralty’s demands that there “must” bo this year a “further increase of, approximately four million pounds.” He adds that “these Estimates will call for no justification.” . . . Mr Hjird is so certain about the new Estimates that lie j actually prints them in a table along ! with last year’s Estimates and the expon-| diture of previous years—beginning with i IHBB, when the expenditure was I £13,809,000, and when, according to his own statement, although a Unionist Government was in power, “ our Fleet was not superior to that of France alone.” Well, the world knows to-day that Mr Hurd was absolutely correct in his forecast, much, doubtless, to the chagrin of his not over-friendly critic. —Mr Hurd’s Conclusion.— Another striking passage in the ‘ Fortnightly’ article, dealing with the gigantic increase in modern armaments, is as follows; Twenty years ago the German Navy Estimates amounted to less than £4,600,000; in the coming financial year they will be £22,500.000 —an increase of 400 - per cent. Or, tn take, the other illustration, twenty years ago the expenditure upon the Fleet of the United States was only £5,400,000 ; it has now risen to £28,000,000, or by 418 per cent. And his conclusion of the whole matter is stated in these terms: The millennium has not come; it has not dawned. But by alliances, ententes, understandings, and arbitration agreements the area of possible war is being circumscribed on the only possible basis at present feasible—the maintenance by the several democratic Powers of armaments adequate to defend the peace. . . . Once the British and American peoples have reached an agreement even distantly resembling President Taft’s ideal, their combined armaments, particularly if allied with those of Japan—and no nation has more reason to fear another victory—will be the “ mighty force which will forbid war.” The realisation of this next step depends upon the willingness of the British and American peoples to continue to make the necessary sacrifices for the maintenance of an overwhelming weight of naval armaments. On their preparedness for war depends the prospect of pence, and the best omen of world tranquillity is the increased expenditure on the British Fleet in the coming financial year. It only remains to add that since Mr Hurd wrote the above there has been a great forward movement on the part of the leaders of public opinion in both countries towards the practical realisation jf President Taft’s ideal. THE DECLARATION OF LONDON. There is little ecssati m'in the flow of contradictory opinions concerning the above. With so much criticism, damaging and approving, the chances are in favor of a sound understanding of its terms being reached by the time the Imperial Conference and Parliament have done with it. Conservative estimates now favor the belief that its final ratification will follow. Meanwhile much useful work is being done in making plain what the Declaration does not do. This is the more necessary in view of the possible effect upon the thoughtless of some of the " wild words ” of public speakers at popular gatherings. The ‘ Manchester Guardian,’ answering a rash assertion of Mr Gibson Bowles, says : Command of the sea at the present time would enable us to defeat or blockade an ejiemy's fleet. >So it would, if the Declaration were in force. It would enable us to capture, destroy, or pen in harbor his merchant shipping; so it would under the Declaration, it would enable us to protect our own trade on the great merchant routes • under the Declaration it would do no less. But, it is said, the Declaration does not restrict the sudden transformation of enemy merchantmen into worships, such as we saw at the opening of the Busso-Japau-cse War. It does not, and we agree that it should; but the Declaration would not make the position one whit worse than it is jiow. It is quite true that neutral ships bringing foodstuffs to this country would probably be liable to capture, such is the vagueness of the Declaration, to whatever port they were consigned, but “ command of the sea ” assures us our own supplies. If that were lost, even under the present system our chances, would bo gone. It is true, again, that neutral ships carrying conditional contraband to a neutral port will enjoy an iminunity which we had better not have conceded them ; but why not explain the importance of the change and the significance of this deviation from the former British practice? Stated briefly, if Great Britain retains “command of the sea,” she retains it by the superiority of her fleet, and no Declare- j tion in the world can affect it. If her navy unable to give her that command,'then

no Declaration can give it. In tho last resort, “command of tho sea” resolves itself into, a question of ships, guns, and men. LORD FISHER RETIRES. 7’he ‘London Gazette’ for January 28 contains the following Admiral ot the Fleet the Right Hon. Lord Fisher of Kilverstone, G.C.8., 0.M., G.C.V.0., LL.D., Ims been placed on the retired list,” Thus ended, at the age of seventy years, fifty-seven of which were spent in tho fleet, one of the most famous naval careers during the last 105 years of ocean peace. Of Lord Fisher it has been said that he did more, perhaps, for the personnel of the Navy than any other officer. During his administration the world witnessed the birth of the Dreadnought design of battleship, and through him Hie Navy was brought to a state of efficiency never before approached since the days of Nelson. Clamor, vilification, vulgar abuse, infamous charge have alike retired to the gutter whence they came, and Admiral Fisher, in Lis seclusion, has the supremo satisfaction of knowing that his policy lives on. —A Tribute.— Little you recked the gallery’s applause, Or sought the glamor of the public gaze ; No criticism ever gave you pause To that fulfilment of a patriot’s cause Jr. which you strove to labor all your days. You heeded not the burden of attack. Nor feared the diatribes of unclean spite. . ' What matter how they bed behind your back ? Of trusted friends—ay, friends—you had no lack, Who knew with you your every thought was right. Time oft has judged Twixt those who disagree, And has not failed, in you, to justify Your Great Ideal; that we Command the Sea ; To hand, untrammelled, to posterity An Empire bound by nature’s closest tie. You close a life-work which no memorj scars, And take your rest—no rest more nobly won. . , , • Your duty held vou high above base jeers, So you shall know, in your declining years A grateful country still can say “Hell done!” —“Searchlight,” ‘Naval and Military Record.'

twenty-two years : — Year. £ 1888 ... 15,809,000 1889 ... ... 16.958.0C0 1895 ... 19,724,000 1900 ... 29,520,000 1905 ... 53,151.841 1906 ... 51,472,087 1907 ... 31,251.156 1908 ... 32,181,509 1909 ... ... 35,142,700 1910 ... 40.603,700 1911 (proposed) ... 44,392,500