THE EMPIRE'S DEFENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20307, 15 July 1929, Page 11

THE EMPIRE'S DEFENCE.

DECLINE OF BRITISH FLEET.

FAR BELOW PRE-WAR LEVEL. AMERICAN MISTORIAN'S VIEW. BY sill ARCHIBALD HUI!I>. Whereas the Uniled States, Japan and Italy arc maintaining greater navies than lioforo the Great War, the strength of the British Fleet is still declining, actually and relatively. It is becoming weaker in personnel as well as in material; reductions in ships and men and naval bases are still continuing. Before the war the British battle squadrons were stronger than those of the next two strongest Powers combined, Germany and the United States; now they are somewhat weaker than those of the United States alone. There were 114 British cruisers and now there are only 52. The superiority in destroyers and submarines was even greater; tho British destroyers and submarines arc to-day less numerous than those of the United States, 253 as compared with 427, including destroyers and submarines now under construction. Since the end of the war* British men-of-war aggregating 2,160,000 tons have been scrapped in the interests of economy and disarmament—a greater tonnage, 1 believe, than has been discarded by all the oilier naval Powers combined. As to trained officers and men, provision is made in the Navy Estimates for the present year for 46,200 fewer than in 1914. Great Reduction in Cost. Altogether, making due allowance for the difference in the value of money, the expenditure on the British I"leet is now less by £27,500,000 than it was in 1914, although, first, the non-effective vote —the vote for retired pay, etc. —has been increased bv £5,500,000, owing, in large measure, to the influence of the Great War, and, secondly, provision has had to be made this year for supplementing the contributions made by New Zealand, ilie Malay States and Hongkong toward the creation of the new naval base at Singapore, the final cost of which is estimated at £7,750,000. The Navy Estimates now represents only 6.9 per cent, of the lotal national Budget, whereas in 1914 the charges amounted to 24.5 per cent. Year by year the sum provided by the British taxpayer for sea defence continues to decline. Nevertheless, foreign Powers, which maintain larger armies and air forces than ever before, fed by various methods of conscription, and support navies which, for the most part, have not been reduced, ignore the sacrifices which the people of the British Isles have made to promote the movement for the limitation of armaments.

A Matter lor the Empire. At present equality in strength iri capital ships possessed by the British Empire, on the one hand, and, on the other, by the United States, .is ensured by the Washington Naval Treaty, and it has been suggested that the same parity should be established for men-of-war of all types, including cruisers. There is, however, no parity in responsibilities. The British Empire. embracing nearly one-quarter of the land surface of the globe, is widely distributed; is essentially maritime because its highways are the sea; and is inhabited by about 500,000,000 people, to whose liberty and wealth, in the last analysis, naval force furnishes the first line of defence. On the other hand, the United States is of relatively much smaller areais very compact, its essential means of communication consisting of railways and not nf ships; and the American ' population is less than one-quarter of that of tiio British Empire. Antidote to Military Power. These are considerations which should not be ignored when proposals for the further restriction of navies are considered, particularly in view of the fact that naval power is the antidote to military power—the shield against invasion —and that the land forces of every country represented at the Washington Conference in 1921 are far greater than they were before the war. Hitherto reduction of armaments has applied only io navies, and the British Fleet has suffered eclipse in the course of repeated discussions, while, on the other hand, the American Fleet has been slowly, but methodically, expanded; the expenditure upon it is now £73,000,000, or more than twice the sum which was. spent before the Great War. The amount which has recently been voted by the British House of Commons is £55,865,000, which may bo increased by something less than £10.000,000 to cover the outlay of the Dominions, thus making an aggregate of about £65,865,000. The Mission o! the British Navy. The decline of British naval strength is a matter of grave concern, because (lie British Fleet has been a great civilising influence and a bulwark of weaco in past time. It suppressed piraov on the high seas, making them safe for vessels, crowded with passengers' and laden with cargoes, proceeding on their lawful occasions; it put down slave trading, a renroach (o the conscience of humanity: it**charted the oceans, robbing them of their peril to peaceful navigation; and it has always been the champion of the free State. On this aspect of its mission. Admiral Mahan, the greatest, of all naval historians, though of American birth and upbringing, has borne his testimony. In writing upon the gradual yet perpetual process by which a higher civilisation impinges on a lower, ho described tho influence which the British Fleet exerted:—

"Why do English innate political conceptions of popular representative Government, of tlie balance of law and liberty, prevail in North America from tho Arctic Circlo to the Gulf of Mexico, from tho Atlcutio to tho Pacific? Because tho command of the sea at the decisive era belonged to Great Britain. In India and Egypt administrative efficiency has taken the place of a welter of tyranny, feudal struggle and bloodshed, achieving thereby the comparative welfare of the once harried populations. underlies this administrative efficiency ? Ino British Navy, assuring, in the first instance, British control instead of French, and tliercaftcr communication with tho homo eountrv. whence the local power without whicli administration everywhere is J""le.. " 1 at the moment the Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed, insured beyond pcradyenturo . 10 immunity from foreign oppression of tho Spanish-American colonies in their struggle for independence? The command of the sea bv Great Britain, hacked by the feeble navy but imposing strategic position of the United States, with her swarm of potential com-merce-destroyers, which a decade had harassed the trade of even the mistress of the 6cas. ••

Admiral Malum also mentioned South Africa, a union of .peoples of different nationalities, as illustrating the beneficent influence of British sea power, and he might have, mentioned Australia, New Zealand and Canada, won by sea power and by the same power defended against aggression on their freedom. Vital to Empire's Life. The same naval historian, imbued with American sentiments, in writing on naval strategy in his famous monograph on that subject, urged that it would ho " a mistaken policy for the United States to push Great Britain toward exhaustion by an attempt to rival her in a degree of naval strength of which we have no need; whereas her dependence on it is vital and cannot by her be neglected." Theso words may be appropriately recalled at a moment when the United States, by action in Congress and by appeal to international conferences, is definitely chai- . lenging tho British naval position, tor that is what the movement from Wash- .■■■ ington amounts to. It is a matter that vitallv concerns the wliolo British Empire * at a 'moment when pressure is evidently to be exerted once more with a view bringing about, a farther reduction of too British Fleet.