SHOULD BRITAIN MAIN-TAIN THE TWO-POWER STANDARD!

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14281, 1 August 1908, Page 4

SHOULD BRITAIN MAINTAIN THE TWO-POWER STANDARD!

By R. .Toxics.

Should England maintain the two-power Standard? To-day this question is puzzling the minds of nations, of empircv of dominions, and of the private individual. If we, as a nation, are going to maintain our supremacy of the wa, 'our freedom, our dominions,'our islands,'and our independence, tk»n it- behoves us as individuals to see to it that we maintain our two-power standard. In university life, in political life, in commercial life, there, is to be found at all times the spirit of ambition, the spirit to conquer; and so in the life of nations there is to-day the same spirit existing as regards the Ambition for conquering nations. Our chief opponent to-day is Germany, says Sir Edward Orey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Any weakening of the navy would be a disaster so great that no amount of conscription could possibly compensate for the. amount of danger involved by it. It is evident to us, then, that we must in our own interests project- ourselves, for from the latest statistics wo find that England is utterly unable to provide for her subjects for more than seven days; that is to say, if we neglect to look after onr imports of foodstuffs. If we allow the reduction on the Estimates for the navy as passed, then our commerce is in danger, and our very existence is in jeopardy, for the bulk of the raw material used in onr manufactures, and two-thirds of the food wo eat, is transported across the sea. If the supply of material and tlie export of manufactured products is arrested, the, wage £und will disappear, so that the purchasing power of the people must prove inadequate to their needs, and the available stare of provisions, however increased, -will bo utterly beyond their means; consequently, fortifications and military strength adequate to resist invasion will be powerless to avert, national disaster. ■The protection of commerco at sea is therefore vital to the people of this nation, ' and especially to the working classes. Commerco can be guarded only by a pupremely powerful navy able to assert and to maintain the command of the sea. Our navy, then, is our all in all:, we iinvdst see to it that the- spirit of patriotism is kept alive in the breasts of every unit of this vast Empire of ours. We say, then, that England must maintain a thoroughly efficient, adequate, and equipped army, a supreme fleet. It is l on tho British nnyy that the wealth, safety, and strength of our Empire chiefly depends. Says one of our great statesmen: "Keep the command of the sea, as you value national life, for' with it you can do everything; without it you >viil be speedily blotted out of the list of nations." How true, for in tho case of Rome her fall was largely due to insufficiency of funds! Again, we might cite in the rise and fall of nations Greece, Portugal, France, and the Dutch, all of them once powerful, now sunk into oblivion. As regards naval supremacy, that the Socialistic party is to blame for the reduction on this year's Estimates is clear. Says Sir John Brunner (Norwich): " Our navy is enormously more powerful than needed." Again, Dr V. H. 'Rutherford says it is our duty to take the initiative in the reduction of the armaments; ,and, further, it is time that we tried to teach the nations righteousness. So much for the Socialistic party. They evidently forget- that on the navy rests the solidity of the Empire. Tho cry of to-day among the Socialists is of the great socalled waste of money in shipbuilding and in the upkeep of the navy; but they forget that this money comes back indirectly to them, for there are thousands of men employed in the shipbuilding yards, and hi supplying the necessaries for the upkeep of the navy. This money, the judicious expenditure on navy, is nothing more nor less than the ordinary insurance which no sane person grudges in private affairs. Is not our naval supremacy the heritage handed down by generations of British seamen? This heritage has been alike the source of national prosperity and the sure safeguard! of the liberties of the people in periods of distress. In view of the shipbuilding and development of the shipbuilding programmes of other nations we must augment the naval strength of our Mother Land and her Dominions beyond the seas, but wo find that the British programmes have been 25 per cent less than those pro : nouneed by the Adinirality in 1905, though in the meantime Germany's programmes have been augmented (1) in size of ships, I (2) in number of ships, and further are to be added to in 1911. Britain to-day is slightly ahead of the next two powere in actually completed ships, but in Dreadnoughts building it has oidy seven to Gennany'6 seven and America's six. The margin of superiority in this class—the most powerful and important—is unfortunately vanishing. What we want is a supreme fleet, also an adequate and thoroughly efficient army. Great Britain is only an. island with some 6000 miles of sea const, and, assuming that war were to ho declared between her and Germany and Eraruce, or Germany and Russia, by careful concentration; of forces in Germany, and the fact of England being hut 12 Lours' steam away, it would be possible if ■we had not a strong and powerful navy for these forces to land, say, 20,000 infantry right into the heart of tlie metro•polis isiihm 24 hours. To-day every nation 'has her eyes on us. We must," in the interests of our divine command), see to itthat oar votes fov expenditure on the uiany.be.kept up to the highest possible Etandard. The question may bo asked: .Wiry should we not disarm, or why should We keep up the two power standard? I. would point out that there is no country under tho sun where liberty is so free, Iwhere barbarous treatment- is so much Unknown, but still I venture to say that iwe have a commission to fulfil in that the East has been given to us to protect, to enlighten, and to evangelise. India to-day is under the freedom of England. 'Egypt is also under our control. And again, look at our various islandls, which wo as a nation are seeking to uplift, ,infctead of as under foreign rule, which in some cases is barbarous to the extreme, lastly, in the interests of the individual, New Zealand is some weeks'sail from Great Britain, and in tho event of war or attempted seizure of this Dominion, and ■war at the same time being declared between Germany and England, where. I ask, would wo be without our two power etandard. The na-vy means our existence as an empire. It means the fact that we are free from invasion. It- means for us our daily food and daily employment. The navy is our all in all, and "everything. Therefore, though the cost 'is •great, it is little compared witii what it hringe back to us, for the moment we lose command of the sea this country ■will be at the mercy of the enemy. What we require is a fearless and progressive administration, open to any reform, never resting on its oars—for to stop is to go ■back,—and forecasting every eventuality. I have pointed out that we must maintain our tiro power standard in order do protect v our conrmerce, to protect our freedom, and because of our greatness as a- peacemaking nation, and further becouseof our scattered Dominions and colonies, and because of our position as Christian England. For in preparation for war lies the secret of peace, our call is to arms—a nation in •u:ms—and we must, and will, keep our standard as of yore. ]/>ng may the glorious Hag of freedom wave o'er our empire and its TJominions beyond) the seas.