CRUISERS FOR NAVY

Evening Star, Issue 19003, 27 July 1925, Page 5

CRUISERS FOR NAVY

MR GARVIN'S COMMENT BLOW AT ADMINISTRATION. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, July 25. Mr J. L. Garvin, in a remarkable article in the ‘ Observer ’ dealing with the cruiser decision, declares that the Admiralty has inflicted the first damaging blow against the Administration. Within a measurable period cither the Budget or the Government must come down. Two vital principles have been violated which must lie roiraposed within a year at any politieal cost—namely, economy first and civil control. The Navy’s voice should be heard, but it should not bo allowed to dominate the position. In the case of future Admiralty ultimatums, a strong Prime Minister should instantly accept, the resignations of the whole of the board. “ We are spending £115,000.000 upon the Navy, Army, and'Air Force. It still loaves the heart of the Empire more perilously exposed than at any period in history. Germany lost the Battle of the Marne because she spent too little on the army, owing to the cost of the navy. For Britain to attempt to maintain three great fighting services is to court financial and strategic- disaster. The Admiralty’s policy would destroy peace. The economic foundations of one defence exhaust in advance the sinews of war. Until economies are actually realised the public faith in Mr Baldwin will remain shaken by the past week’s events.”—A. and N.Z. Cable.

WARNING BY EXPERT DEFICIENCIES IN FLEET. LONDON, July IG. Unless action is taken immediately the British Navy is on the eye of experiencing a serious deficiency in cruisers and torpedo craft, declares the naval correspondent of ‘ The Times.’ The writer asserts that, in order to maintain efficiency, the existing cruiser, destroyer, and submarine establishments, three cruisers, fifteen or sixteen destroyers, and six submarines should bo built annually. If these normal rates of output are ignored, as they have been since the armistice, he says a deficiency must result.

The correspondent admits that the present deficiency is not as great as the figures show, .since the nations, in consequence of post-war conditions, have not yet resumed normal construction, but he points out that they are on, the eve of doing so. Moreover, the dale of obsolescence of the majority of existing British warships was considerably expedited by war time’s bard wear and tear.