Nelson Evening Mail WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1912. RIVALRY FOR COMMAND OF THE SEA

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVII, Issue XLVII, 6 November 1912, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1912. RIVALRY FOR COMMAND OF THE SEA

WHILST the discretion of some of the leading military and naval authorities in their recent outbursts of uncontrollable anxiety for the safety of the Empire may be questioned, it cannot be denied that at the present time they have good cause to complain. They see gradually and steadily the margin of superiority in the Navy being reduced, they see the increasing difficulty with which the Navy is manned, they see a tiny army distributed over a wide area,, and perhas that which is most disgraceful of all, they see the bulk of English manhood, iu the middle of an armed and trained Europe, refusing theii> duty to their country in fitting themselves to defend their homes and families. It is only the other day that Lord Roberts declared that "Britain has lost the command of every sea except the North Sea, and there- her supremacy is disputed." And Lord 'Curzon- in a recent speech mad,e reference to "the sinister figure of the greatest land Power on the Continent (Germany), converting itself into a great naval power." * * * *. The latest comparison of the relative strength of the British and German navies, based upon the German Navy Act and Mr Churchill's speech, shows that when Germany's organisation is complete the navies will have numerical equality in home waters. Great Britain will have five battle squadrons in home waters, comprising three squadrons of eight battle-ships each (full crews), andl tjyo squadrons of eight battle-ships each (nucleus crews). One squadron of eight ■battle-ships will have its base afc Gibraltar and, in addition, there will be two squadrons of eight battle-ships each with reduced crews.. Germany, on the other hand, will also have five squadrons in home waters made up of three squadrons of eight battle-ships each (full crews), and two squadrons of eight Battle-ships each (nucleus crews). Germany has no squad : rons corresponding to the British fleet at Gibraltar or the two other squadtroris with reduced crews. The most persistent critic of the policy of lessening Great Britain's strength in the Mediterranean has been Lord Charles Beresford. Speaking in August, he said' that . our prestige in India and in Egypt had received a fatal blow by the removal of the fleet from the Mediterranean, 'but public opinion had forced Mr Churchill to say that he would, send the fleet back. Mr Churchill had"-told them that in 1914. they would have 33 ships to Germany's 29. .Were they to risk the Empire; on a margin of four ships ? The • danger was more serious than the Government would admit, but his advice was to "stop fooling the people and tell them the truth." + **•». It was doubtless facts such as these, that caused the Imperial ' Maritime League last week to declare,, according to a cable, that "Britain has neverv'been in such a plight for centuries." The League protested against the British Government's reported intention to send to the "Mediterranean eight battle-ships composing the Third Battle Squadron of the First--fleet. In the /protest the League said : —"This will leave us in an absolute inferiority in Home waters should the German navy exereisfc the initiative." And these are the reasons advanced :..."Allowing for the admitted necessity to deduct 25 per cent from .an instantly . ready fleet at Germany's selected and- our average moment, we would 'be unable after the despatch of the third squadron to confront Germany's 25 battle vessels with more than 19. And in fully manned destroyers ready for allowing the same deduction, we would have 51 ships and Germany 66."

Whatever Germany's intentions are, it is clear that Great Britain should ' be prepared for war. The new German Ambassador in London, Prince Lich'ribwsky, has declared that the Ai.gfoGerman tension is slackening, and. ihat there is a possibility of agreement on Anglo-German questions. Unfortunate- ' ly, this view of things appears to be rather optimistic, for Germany's viitisal to meet Sir Henry Campbell-Banner--1 man's invitation, to agree to a reduction in expenditure upon armaments, has been the main cause of; the tension of the last few years. And it is still open for Germany to negotiate on the lines suggested, as the recent declarations of Mr Asquith and 'Sir Edward Grey clearly show. "All we can do we are doing," they have stated, "and shall continue to do, to demonstrate that we nave no aggressive desires, and that no friendship we have with anyone else is directed towards aggressive designs against another Power." The position in regard' to the advances is clearly put by Sir George Toulmin, M.P., i n the "'Contemporary Review" : "If their policy is a policy of peace; if they negotiate treaties of arbitration; if they show willingness to limit their programme of shipbuilding, responsibility for the answers they receive must be beyond the sea. It takes two to ratify an agreement. A war between two'nations such as Germany and England would be a crime against humanity. But whose crime? Are we not to fight if attacked; and if we fight are we to be half-prepared ? Of course not. Even < those who voted against the Government agree that we cannot be. left 'behind. The policy of the late Premier was carried far enough to prove our bona.fides. The response did not^ make it possible to continue. But there it is, an. act of peace, on record." But failing an agreement, and it is clear that Germany is to blame for its absence, the only course open to Great Britain is to maintain and increase her margin of supremacy.