NAVAL NOTES.

Evening Star, Issue 15188, 20 May 1913, Page 3

NAVAL NOTES.

{Contributed bt the Navy League, ( Otago Branch.]

“Admiral von Tirpitz’s suggestion that Germany needs a fleet of 61 capital ships —a greater array of fighting power than England has ever possessed— ‘ solely to meet her own needs’ is too ludicrous to call for. exposure.”— ‘ Naval and Military Record.’ THE BURDEN OF ARMAMENTS. Nation continues to build against nation in the matter of armaments, sinister designs continue to be ascribed, by a section at least, of the Press of each Power against every other Power, and the appalling diversion of capital and labor from reproductive industries continues. It was Sir Edward Grey who two or three years ago said that one-half the revenues of Europe was spent on the Armies and Navies of Europe, and this appalling waste has not slackened since the Secretary of Foreign Affairs made his statement. Europe to-day is spending £455,000,000 a year on armaments. The following figures are worth studying. They do not .all refer to exactly the same years, and each country has its own way of presenting its accounts, but, broadly, the cost is the result of from 12 to 14 years of statesmanship as now conducted by the superior wisdom of the governing classes in Europe : —Army Bills.— We begin with approximate military expenditure : Millions of £. Before 1900. To-day. Gereat Britain 19 28 Germany 30* 415 France 25* 36| Russia 50* 56) Austria-Hungary ... 12 155 Italy 11 17 Total 148* 195* The Army expenditure is therefore 47 millions or thereabout higher than it was when the nineteenth century was drawing to a close. —Cost of Navies Doubled.— Next come the Navies : Millions of £. Before 1900. To-day. Great Britain 23J 44 Germany 6 22* France 12 17 Russia 9 17* Austria-Hungary ... 1* 5| Italy 5* 8* Total ' 57* 115* The increase in naval expenditure amounts to 57| millions. In other words, the cost of these six European Navies has been doubled in from 12 to 14 years. —Armies and Navies.— Taking Armies and Navies to-gether, we have these figures : Millions of £. Cost of Before 1900. To-day. Armies ... 148* 195* Navies 57* 115* Total 206 310f The total increase on Armies and Navies therefore is over 100 milions, or more than 50 per cent. —Crushing National Debts.— Take next the National Debts of these six great Christian Powers : Millions of £. Beforel9oo. To-day. Great Britain 634 685 Germany 105 270 Franco 1,200 1,501 Russia 715 957 Austria-Hungary 555 732 Italy 516 553 Total 3,725 4,498 This means that 773 millions of debt has been incurred in Europe by the Six Great Powers in 12 to 14 years—this, despite the enormous repayments by Great Britain of the South African War Debt. —lnterest on Debts.— At 3 per cent. —a very low figure to assume—the burden of interest works out thus : Millions of £. Before 1900 11l To-day 145 Increase 34 Some of this is represented by railway extensions, but the War Debt of Russia alone was 200 millions, and the German Imperial Debt has risen in a dozen years of peice from 105 millions to 270 millions. The cost of war, past and future, is thus in time of peace for these six Christian Powers in Europe : Millions of £. By armies 195* By navies 115* By debt 145 BIG DIVIDENDS FOR WAR LORDS. Towards this sum there may be some small return here and there, but in the main it represents a direct diversion of human effort into purely destructive channels. It is money, earned by peaceful, law-abiding citizens and spent in part, it is asserted, at the instance of the armament firms playing np to one another from one country to another. Every Dreadnought privatelybuilt means a six-figure profit to the firm’s employed, and so, too, with the vast contracts which are given to powerful and rich industries. THE NAVIES OF THE WORLD. Critics continue to draw up tables of relative naval strengths, no two of which agree in details. The following recentlypublished Admiralty return may be accepted as authoritative. It shows the comparative strength of the fleets of Great Britain, France, Ruesia, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, the United States of America, and Japan on January 1, 1913, omitting battleships and armored cruisers over 20 years old from date of launch, and distinguishing, both built and building, battleships, cruisers of various grades, torpedo vessels, torpedo-boat destroyers, torpedo boats, and submarines. The returns may be summaried as follows-. Battleships Built.—Great Britain 55 building 11; France, 21 built, 7 building •’ Russia, 9 built, 7 building; Germany, 35 built, 7 building; Italy, 9 built, 5 building; Austria-Hungary, 13 built, 5 building; United States, 33 built, 4 buildingJapan, 17 built, 1 building. ’ —Cruisers.— Cruisers, Armored, Built.—Great Britain 34, France 20, Russia 6, Germany 9 Italy 9, Austria-Hungary 4, United States 14, Japan 13. Building, none. Cruisers, Light Armored.—Great Britain 8 (building); other countries, both built and building, none. Cruisers, Protected (Second Class), Built. —Great Britain 38 (in addition to 2 for naval service of Dominion Governments) France 4, Russia none, Germany 50, Italy 2, Austria-Hungary 3, United 'States lo Japan 13. Building: Great Britain 4 (in addition to 3 for naval service of Australia), Germany 4, Italy 1, Russia 2, United States and Japan none. ■Cruisers, Protected (Third Class), Built. —Great Britain 15, Dominion Governments 1, France 6, Russia 2, Germany 11 Italy 11, Austria-Hungary 3, United States none, Japan 4. Building : Italy 2, other countries none. Cruisers, Unprotected, Built. Great Britain 5, Germany 4, Austria-Hungary 3, United States 3, Japan 4, France, Russia, and Italy none. Building: Great Britain 2, other countries none. —Semite, Torpedo Vessels, and Submarines.— Scouts Built.—Great Britain 8, Italy 1, United States 3, other countries none. Building: Italy 2, other countries none Torpedo Vessels Built.—Great Britain 28, France 4, Russia 3, Germany none, Italy 3, Austria-Hungary 11, United States 2, Japan 3. Building: Great Britain 1, other countries none. Torpedo-boat Destroyers Built.—Great Britain 183 and Australia 3, France 73 Russia 96, Germany 124, Italy 23, AustriaHungary 12, United States 46, Japan 59. Building: Q-reat Britain 38, France 11, Russia 9, and 36 ordered but not yet laid" down, Germany 9, Italy 10, Austria-Hun-gary 6, United States 4, Japan none. Torpedo Boats (new type;.—Great Britain 36 built. Torpedo Boast Built.—AlT classes * Great Britain 73, Francs 166, Russia 26,

Germany 80, Italy 77, Austria-Hungary 70, United States 22, Japan 60. Building : Italy 24, Austria-Hungary 8, other countries none. Submarines Built.—Great Britain 65, France 73, Russia 29, Germany 18, Italy ■l2, Austria-Hungary 6, United States 25, Japan 13. Building: Great Britain 20 and Australia 2, France 8, Russia 8, Germany 14 (further numbers uncertain), Italy 8. Austria-Hungary none, United States 22 (including 8 not yet laid down), Jaenu 2. Russia has also 12 submarines ordered. PUNISHMENT IN THE NAVY. Recently a letter was addressed to Mr Winston Churchill by the Humanitarian League, pointing out that the average number of canings annually inflated in the Royal Navy is stili as many as 1.500, and suggesting the desirability of iscring a yearly return of such canings, instead f classing them among “minor” punishments, a term which is liable to mislead. The following reply has been received from the Admiralty: “ With reference to your letter of December 9 in regard to the question of caning for boys in the Royal Navy, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the y to acquaint you that as a result of Liie recommendations of the recent Committee upon Naval Discipline, it has been decided to limit the award of this punishment to offences such as theft, drunkenness, insubordination, and deliberate or continued disobedience of orders. It proves a suitable punishment for such offences on the part of those who are only at the commencement of their career in the Navy, as it is not permanently recorded against them, and has no effect upon their prospects. It is therefore very properly included under the head of ‘ minor punishraents,’ and my lords see no reason for altering this classification.”

THE CRUX OF NAVAL DISCIPLINE. The third of Mr Fred T. Jane’s articles, telling “the plain truth” about our Navy, appears in tne December number of the ‘ London Magazine," and has for its subject Naval Discipline. Mr Jane finds it impossible to tell the truth about naval discipline and at one and the same time give the point of view of those who attack and seek to subvert naval discipline. He maintains that it is better to flog every man in the Navy daily than to do anything to weaken naval discipline by so much as a hair’s breadth. The Navy' is lor war, and so far as war is concerned Mr Jane is afraid that there is but one answer to the naval discipline question, and that is that it is the rankest insanity for the public to attempt to modify one jot or tittle of what “Naval custom’’ may lay down. Ho says: “ Punishments out of all proportion to civil law will still continue unless the public interfere and do harm in about equal ration to the goodness of their intentions. For certain offences the Navy retains its modified and more or less (generally less) up-to-date edition of Richard the First’s old sea laws. But to these through the centuries it has added a number of war laws, to which it still clings limpet-like so far as it may. No Admiral ever did more for the men of the Navy or showed a kindlier foaling towards them than Lord Charles Berestord. But Beresford never yet stood for Parliament but someone waved a cat-o’-nine-tails and shouted : 1 This is what he advocated!’ Nor has Beresford ever denied the acusation.” We do not know- whether he has denied it or not, but we do know that Lord C. Beresford is credited with saying: “In former times the Navy had the cat and no discipline; to-day it has discipline and no cat.”—(‘ Sea Liie in Nelson’s Time,’ chapter vi.) For our own part, we regard Mr Jane’s statement as being as brutal in taste as it would be ineffective to secure the object desired.