THE NAVY LEAGUE AND THE ESTIMATIS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2669, 10 May 1905, Page 14

THE NAVY LEAGUE AND THE ESTIMAT IS.

Captain C. W. Crutchley, the secretary of the Navy League, esks us to publish the following communication : —

The Navy .Estimates for tfce forthcoming year show that the battleship programme is the smallest recorded since 1895, when no battleships at all were laid down. Takinga period of four years (1902-5), the battleship programmes of those four years were only 10 ships, as against 14- for the four years 1898-1901, and 16 for the period 18947; so that the programme for 1905 is not only in itself exceedingly small, but it also follows upon a series of small programmes in 1902, 1903, and 1904.

In view of these facts, the question must be faced whether it is sufficient. And here it must be remembered that :

(1) Germany x and _ cc t he United States arelaying down two battleships apiece, while in France a-- programme of two battleships is contemplated; though not as yet definitely sanctioned, and in Russia_ a very large programme (of 16 battleships) is under ctiscussion. If the two-Power standard is to be maintained in the naval programme of each year, at least four battleships sihould have been laid down by England. Nor is it reassuring to observe that Germany, a single P<wer. has laid down 15 battleships in the past seven years against the British 17. The British advantage against not a combination of Powers, but a single Power, in that period is only two in point of numbers in the most important class of ship. (2) A large armoured cruiser and a number of destroyers belonging to last year's Estimates have been abandoned, though duly voted by Parliament — a remarkable departure, and surely a dangerous precedent. (3) Thirteen battleships which figured a3 efficient in the 1904- official Admiralty return, of battleships have been struck off the effective list, reducing the number of British battleships to the lowest ever recorded in the recent history of the navy. The Navy League is aware that the losses of the Russian navy in the Far East are adduced to justify the small battleship programme. But I would point out that the ships lost a/11 'belonged to the Russian naval force which was opposed to Germany in. the Baltic, and the existence of which has at times been used in the past to justify the larsre German programme of construction. It is significant that the elimination of these six Russian ships has not affected German plans. The same number of battleships as was projected in 1900, when the German Navy Bill was passed, is being laid down in 1905. Further, Admiral Tirpitz has informed the Reichstag that a. supplementary programme of six large armoured cruisers may be introduoad in the course of the- autumn. This announcement was made after the insignificant proportions of the British programme were generally known. It is difficult to understand why, if Germany has not reduced her programme, but on the contrary increased it, England should serioxialy reduce her efforts to maintain the naval position.

"Battleships are the infantry and artillery of the sea in one." says the United States Secretary of the Navy in a reeeart memorandum dwelling on the absolute necessity of aii ample force of these ships. The public should therefore- understand that " infantry and artillery" are not being supplied to the British navy in 1905 in the same proportion as they are being supplied to foreign, navies. There is no escape from this dilemma ; either we over-built greatly in the past or we are under-building to-day. But a long series of extracts from First Lords' speeches and memoranda could be produced, and will be produced if necessary, to prove that past Estimates only provided the minimum requisite for safety.