IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14629, 15 March 1911, Page 7

IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

DEBATE ON THE ESTIMATES

THE ''LITTLE NAVYITES."

REDUCTION OF VOTES URGED.

RACE WITH GERMANY,

TWO-KEELS-TO-ONE POLICY. By Telegraph.—Press Association.— (Received March 14, 11.50 p.m.) London, March 14. A debate was initiated in the House of Commons to-day by the "Little Navyites" on Mr. Murray Mac Donald's motion urging that army and navy expenditure ought to be diminished, and Mr. Joseph King's amendment advocating the simultaneous international restriction of warlike preparations.

Mr. A. A. Ponsonby (Liberal member for Stirling Burghs), deprecating the comparisons with Germany, urged the abandonment of the policy founded on the mischievous scare of 1909.

Lord Charles Beresford contended that our fleet margin was too small. He suggested, amidst cheers, the possibility of inducing the great English-speaking nations to unite for peace. If that were possible we could reduce armaments, but meanwhile the expenditure must continue. He argued that the present Estimates were inadequate to secure an unassailable position at sea. THE IMPROVED DREADNOUGHTS. Mr. McKenna (First Lord of the Admiralty) assured supporters of the motion that the sole object of the huge and costly ships was to make Britain secure in all contingencies. We should have freedom on the ocean highway, but this was impossible unless the navy was supreme as against any foreign navy, and any reasonable probable combination of Powers that we might have to meet single-handed. He contended that it was impossible to avoid reference to the growth of the German navy. He emphasised the drastic amendments to the German Navy Law of 1906 and 1908, which had provided much larger ships and doubled Germany's Naval Estimates for ensuing years.

After justifying his inference in 1909, which had,|ed to the building of the four contingent ships, ho remarked that although the information regarding the dates was wrong, that concerning the size and cost was right. He was unwilling in 1909, when finally aware that Germany, though not accelerating her programme, was building greater and stronger ships, to say anything calculated to cause a scare. The situation now had changed. The German ships were there, and much larger ships were building, but Britain had given her answer to them; consequently the time for scare had gone. The answer took the shape of improved Dreadnoughts, including the Orion and Lion, affording a reasonable margin of security, inasmuch as in the spring of 1914 Britain would have 30 and Germany 21 Dreadnoughts. IF, as he had every reason to hope and believe, the German Navy Law was not further amended, our. Estimates in 1912-1913 would show a reduction.

" But," he added, amid Opposition cheers, "we cannot pledge _ ourselves to any reduction until w© know what are the developments of foreign navies." IS THE PROGRAMME ADEQUATE? . Mr. Balfour said he did not think the Government overrated the possible dangers of the situation. He feared that the Estimates erred in proposing too few battleships and cruisers. After characterising Admiral Wilson's and General Hamilton's views as dangerous, he inquired whether the Government adhered to the policy of two-keels-to-one. REVOLT AGAINST TAXATION. Sir Edward Grey (Foreign Secretary) replied by reiterating Mr. Asquith's policy to maintain, in regard to European Powers, a twoPower standard. The United States must not be taken into account in the same way as a European nation. The motion ignored the expenditure of other Powers. Our foreign relations were not strained. . , Referring to the friendly expressions of Herr von Bethmann Hollweg (the German Imperial Chancellar) in December, he said that Britain desired cordial relations with Germany. Some thought that the growth of armaments would lead to war, but it was more likely to end by the revolt of the masses against the taxation necessitated. Regarding the suggested agreement with Germany it required careful handling, inasmuch as the German Navy Law must be executed, and the better plan was a frank exchange of information to prevent surprises.

AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT. Proceeding Sir Edward eulogised President Taft's speech on arbitration, and added, " An agreement to refer everything to arbitration would entail Eiome risk, and as President Taft remarked, some sacrifice of national pride. Britain would be delighted to receive such a sweeping proposal, but I should feel, it so momentous and so far-reaching in its possible consequences that I should require the signatures of both Governments and the deliberate and decided sanction of Parliament, and that, I believe, could be obtained." Amidst tremendous cheering Mr. King's amendment was then put and carried by 276 votes to 56. SIR JOSEPH WARD'S SPEECH. COMMENTS OF THE PRESS. London, March 13. The Pall Mall Gazette says that Sir Joseph Ward gives a ringing voice w to the gercepjion which has- lately

seized Britons overseas .that the Empire's defence is a burden which Britain is no longer able to carry alone.' .

Sir Joseph Ward's is the first candid official announcement that the dominions are ready to fully discharge their moral obligations, and their claim to participation in control must be accepted.

The Globe recalls. Mr. Bevan Edwards's Imperial Defence Parliament. The main difficulty of both schemes is the possibility of any new Imperial Parliament superseding existing Parliaments. The House of Commons will never abandon its historic right to control a great spending department. A possible alternative would be the House of Commons Committee on Home Defence co-operating with similar defence committees elected by the overseas Parliaments. Sydney, March 14. The Sydney Morning Herald, commenting on Sir Joseph Ward's speech on Imperial defence, says that it was refreshingly wide of the limitations of local politics. In that way alone the Imperial Conference had done immeasurable service to the Empire.

The Daily Telegraph says that Sir Joseph Ward's scheme is new only so far as it postulates full local autohomy for each unit of the Imperial Federation. He will have' to develop the scheme considerably before it can be placed on the table of the Imperial Conference in a form that can even be discussed by practical statesmen.

BRITISH AND GERMAN FLEETS

THE RATIO OF INCREASE. London, March 13. Mr. Reginald McKenna (First Lord of the Admiralty), in reply to la, question in the House of Commons last night, said that the aggregate expenditure on new naval construction in the last three years in the United Kingdom was £34,531,000, and in Germany; £29,365,000, showing Britain's increase to be 16 per cent.' compared with 1904, and Germany's 166 per cent, as compared with the same year.

THE FIFTEEN-INCH GUN. London, March }3. It is reported that the Admiralty is experimenting with a 15in gun. Since the original Dreadnought was put afloat in 1906, two new types of big guns liave been adopted by tho British Navy. The heavy gun of the 106-7 programme was a 12in, with a length of 45 calibres and a muzzle energy of 47,000 foot-tons. In tho ships of the neet two programmes, and in the early chips of the 1909-10 programme, a 12in gun of the length of 50 calibres, and with muzzle energy of something over 50,000 foot-tons, was adopted... With its projectile of 8501b, this gun is capable of penetrating over 9in of cemented armour at 10,000 yards. Towards the end of last year it became known that another step forward had been taken. So far as the length of the gun was concerned, . the experts generally agreed that the limit had been reached. It was, however, desirable to obtain an increase in the weight of ! the bursting charge. The objects aimed at (says a writer in the Times) could be met by increasing the diameter of the bore, while maintaining the same lergth of gun as in the 12in of 50 calibres. The 13.5 in gun, with a length of 45 calibres, thus came into existence. The muzzle energy was increased to the extent of 10 per cent., and the weight of the projectile from 8501b to 12501b. No armour at present in use can withstand these guns at six miles, range. THE AUSTRALIAN SCHEME. NO PATCHWORK ATTEMPTS. <, Sydney, March 14. Admiral Henderson's report on the naval defence of Australia says that once tho command of the sea was lost by the Empire no local system of defence, naval or military, could secure Australia's autonomy, and she would be the prey of the strongest maritime Power.

Australia should spend on her fleet a sura bearing the same proportion to the Imperial naval expenditure as Australia's population and oversea commerce bear to those of Britain.

On this basis ' the annual naval provision would be £4,000,000, increasing proportionately with the increase of population. ■ '-• '""." \

The complete fleet'would be 5 divided into eastern and western divisions, each under an admiral or commodore, divided into squadrons or flotillas. Sydney would be the primary base for the eastern and Fremantle for the western division, with destroyer - and v submarine sub-bases : at other ports. Tho two divisions would not always bo kept on their own bases, but the chips would be ;■; from time to time exchanged, to give the officers and men a chance of acquainting themselves with all Australian waters. There would also be yearly manoeuvres, in which both divisions would be combined.

The Sydney Morning Herald, discussing Admiral Henderson's report, after a reference to the large capital outlay involved, and the possibility of the Estimates being conservative, 6ays : "We do not asseit that these things are impossible, but we must look fairly in the face the chance of them being' done, and not fritter away money and strength on trivial patchwork attempts to set a scheme afloat."

The Daily Telegraph commends the value of the recommendations, but whether the Commonwealth can find the money to build hi)(I man the ships is problematical. It. strongly endorses Admiral Henderson's contention that th« administration must be free from political influence. It suggests that a navy taking 22 years to build is in danger of being obsolete before it is finished.