THE BRITISH NAVY.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9402, 24 March 1909, Page 5

THE BRITISH NAVY.

REASSURING’’SPSEOH BY MR

ASQUITH

United Press Association.— By Electric Telegraph. —Copyright. London, March 23. The House of Commons is discussing in ‘ Committee the vote for officers and men of the Navy. Mr Wyndham and Sir Charles Dilhe spoke, the latter deprecating the unworthy panic and insisting upon our preponderance of pre-Dread-nought ships. Mr Asquith raised an Opposition protest by describing the demand for a stronger navy as an extraordinary agitation of a very artificial kind, and he raised cheers by declaring that between ourselves and Germany there was no friction and no unfriendliness, but a mutual sense of , what was due to the independence of two nations and the common feeling hat they must in great matters of national defence primarily consider their : own interests. He asked for a suspension of judgment upon Britain’s informal communication to the German Government in 1909 until Sir Edward Grey shortly makes a full statement. Though the commnnioalpons did not result in all cases in bridging about all that Britain would have desired,,the Government'had nothing to complain of. Mr Asquith nest protested against absurd and' mischievous legends regarding Britain’s naval nnpreparedness, A more unpatriotic and unscrupulous misrepresentation of the actual situation never came andej his knowledge. He Cited figures showing what Britain’s strength would beMn 1912 compared with Germany’s, and appealed to the nation to believe that, whatever party was in power, care of every statesman worthy of the name would he to maintain intact, unassailable and nnohallengabJe onr naval superior!fcy.gwhereon our independeuce and freedom depended. (Loud Ministerialist cheers.)

MR BALFOUR’S REPLY

Mr Balfour made a vigorous reply. He said no one would deny the country was, nowi What the Opposition affirmed was thatfj the danger would begin in 1910 and increase in 1911. Messrs Asquith and McKenna’s speeches last week showed that it was impossible to view with indifference foreign Dreadnoughts and, while the preDraadUoughts ships were useful, the country could not consider the position safe if foreign Powers had ships of a better type and in almost equal or superior numbers. He added: “Because the Government will not budge a hair’s breadth from a policy involving great national peril, 1 take fhe course announced.” THE VOTE OP CENSURE. The debate on Mr Balfour’s motion of censure on the Government has been fixed for the 29th inst. Newspapers state that Mr Asquith, Sir E. Grey, and Mr McKenna have fought throughout for a strong navy. Many petitions have been presented to the Lord Mayor for a city meeting to support Mr Asquith’s Guildhall declaration. [ PRESS OPINIONS. The Chronicle, in a leading article headed “A Party-made Panic,” deprecates the exaggerated alarm, Imt admits that after allowing for the value of the pre-Dreadnought fleet, the maintenance of a superin ority in Dreadnoughts is. a vital question for the future. The newspapers’ suggestion that the overseas Dominions should offer a Dreadnought, Mr Fisher’s eulogy of the spirit that proposed the Australian Dreadnought, and the Sydney citizens’ splendid offer at Sir Harry Rawson’s banquet are keenly apprOoi ated. The naval question is dominating the Croydon election. Admiral Bowden Smith, interviewed, declared that there was no occasion for hysterics, but the situation was serious. Eight Dreadnoughts were immediately indispensable. Bight of the Edward VII. and two of the Nelson type of warships would be valuable adjuncts for several years. Dock accommodation was insufficient. ADMISSION BY GOVERNMENT PAPER. The Daily News states that by 1912 there will certainly be thirteen German Dreadnoughts, and possibly fifteen, but there cannot be more than seventeen, and that Britain will certainly have sixteen. The Government is prepared if necessary to increase the number to twenty. Meanwhile, New Zealand’s very handsome action should do some thing to restore the shattered nerves of our Imperialists. The Colonies enjoy the protection of the Navy, and this offer is an earnest and proof" of their readiness, should the burdenjjincrease, to take a share of the cost. There is no need indefinitely to increase the cost.

The Standard, in welcoming Kew Zealand’s noble gift, contrasts Sir Joseph Ward’s superb words, “if necessary two Dreadnoughts/’ with Mr Asquith’s “if necessary’’ grudgingly applied to conditional Dreadnoughts for April, 1910.

MR FISHER’S SECOND THOUGHTS.

Melbourne, March 23

The Federal Government has definitely decided not to offer a Dreadnongnt.

Mr Fisher, Premier, made an announcement’after a meeting of Cabinet. He added that Cabinet had agreed with the action lie had already taken, and in spite of his previous nebulous statement, he never had any intention of adopting the Dreadnought suggestion. Even before the scare broke out' he intimated to Lord Dudley that in the event of an emergency the resources of the Commonwealth would be immediately placed at the disposal of Britain. Whether this intimation was transmitted to' the Imperial authorities he did not know. The Imperial Government knew that Australian sympathy was so much with it that it was unnecessary to make any special communication at present. it must be remembered fcdat the .presentation of a Dreadnought would not be a policy, but a mere spasmodic action, a spectacular display. The only means to meet any danger to the Empire would ba by the adoption of a steady, persistent and determined policy for the defence of Australia, combined with a readiness to assist the Oonntiy in the event of an emergency. It was a matter of indifference to the Government whether, the refusal was misunderstood or misinterpreted.

THE PUBLIC ENTHUSIASTIC,

Despite the Federal Government’s attitude the proposed gift of a Dreadnought continues to receive enthusiastic public support. New Zealand’s action has roused a strong spirit of emulation, and it is described as a dazzling example of loyalty to British freedom and of splendid patriotism and far-seeing statemacship. LARGE PRIVATE SQBSORIP--7 TION. ' Sydney, March 23. The Lord Mayor has opened a Dreadnought fund, heading it himself by donating £IOOO. Mr Anthony Hofdern promised £IO,OOO towards a first Dreadnought, and a further £IO,OOO if a econd is required. The leading city club gives £SOOO, and altogether over £55,000 has been subscribed or promised within 24 hours. Melbourne, March 23. The Chamber of Commerce and the Employers’ Federation adopted resolutions in favour of the gift of a Dreadnought. NEW ZEALAND’S OFFER. SIR JOSEPH WARD’S REASONS. London, March 24. The Standard cabled the Prime 7 Minister asking for details of the Dominion’s offer and the reason thereof. Sir Joseph Ward replied: “You ask me what our offer is and why we made it. We offer the Motherland, without condition, the free gift, as soon as it can be .built in British yards, of a firsfc-olass battleship. The type is left entirely to the' Home authorities. Should later events show any need for it, New Zealand will offer again a second warship of the same class and the reason is this: We distant sons desire to stand in any peril beside the lion mother of our race, and to the utmost of our,resources to prove to her and to the world how dear to us are Britain’s name and greatness. We repognise that Britain’s acknowledged supremacy of the seas goes for the maintenance of peace and that any weakness either in the Home land or abroad makes what ought to be a dominant position a dangerous one.- Sacrifices/must be made to show competitive nations that, though separated by seas, we are in reality one for the preservation of our Empire’s greatness.”

GERMAN CONSUL’S VIEWS. press Association. Auckland, March 23. Mr Carl Seegner, Consul for Germany in New Zealand, was interviewed this [evening regarding [the offer made by the Government to provide a battleship. “I know nothing “of battleships,” he said, “they are not in my line. ” Pressed to state his views on the general subject of [naval supremacy in the sight of recent developmens at Home the German Consul said: “I have seen many scares—Japanese, Russian, Dutch, Boer, all kinds of scares—and I have got used to them. I do not believe,” Mr Seegner went on, “that there will be a war between Germany and isngiand in our time.”

“And what view do you take of the suggestion that Germany has designs in connection |with the Pacific?’’ Mr Seegner was asked. “Dr. Irwin, the German ConsulGeneral in Australia, ’’ he replied, “has already stated that the spheres of influence in the Pacific as between Gerniany and Great Britain were fixed long ago.’’ Speaking further, Mr Seegner expressed the opinion that the press of both countries was a great deal to blame for fomenting such “scares’’ as at present existed. In short, he added, “the whole thing is a fuss about nothing,’’ More he would not say, dismissing an inquiry as to his opinion of the action of Cabinet in offering a battle - ' hip'to the Old Country with a- re-

mark to the effect that that was a private matter. NAVY LEAGUE’S OPINION. “ Invercargill, March 33. Mr T. D. Pearce, President of the Southland branch of \the Navy League, said he had not been prepared to hear there was a crisis to warrant the sudden expenditure by New Zealand of millions. He could only conclude that such an unprecedented and unconstitutional act as that of voting nearly two millions without consulting the people s representatives,* a step tantamount to raising a loan and incurring au annual charge of sixty to seventy thousand interest, was warranted by the situation. Nothing else .could justify the action of the Cabinet. The Southland branch of the League always thought they would support the Premier. Mr Pearce favours the institution o f a “naval tax’’ so as to educate the people to a sense of their responsibilities. MESSAGE TO THE GOVERNOR. Wellington, March 23. The Secretary of State for the Colonies haa .cabled to the Governor ; --“You should hasten to assure your Prime Minister that his message has been received by me with the highest appreciation of the generous and spontaneous offer on behalf of New Zealand. It will be laid before His Majesty’s Government.” THE PREMIER’S APOLOGY. Wellington, March 23. Sir Joseph Ward says legislation will be required to give effect to the proposal, so that the idea suggested in some quarters that the Government has departed from its democratic attitude in hot consulting Parliament is not correct. CONTINUANCE OF THE DEBATE Received March 23, 8.10 a.m. London, March 23. In the debate on the naval vote Messrs H. W. Beanchamp and A. O. Beck (Liberals), urged Government to include the four conditional Dreadnoughts in the 1909-1910 programme. Mr E. R.Ridsale, another Liberal, emphasised the grave anxiety existing through the length and breadth of the land, and said it was unfair to describe it as manipulated. It could be allayed at the cost of four more Dreadnoughts. “For Heaven’s sake,” he said, “why not lay them down?’’ (Opposition cheers). The Lord Mayor of Bristol declined to receive a Navy League deputation In favour of calling a meeting to support a strtong naval poilcy, declaring that as a vote of censure was being discussed the question was now a political one. MORE PRESS COMMENTS.

The Star commends Mr Asquith for smashing the artificial naval agitation.

The Manchester Guardian describes Mr Balfour’s vote of censure as a war policy, and urges England to treat German professions as falsehoods. NEW ZEALAND OFFER RECEIVED. Received March 2, 8.15 a.m. London, March 23. Unionist newspapers applaud the j patriotic spirit prompting Australasian offers. They argue that the general feeling is “We ought not to need them and if we have failed in our duty this is not the occasion on which we ought to ask the Colonies to come to help us out.’* The papers indignantly depy that there is anything of the nature of a panic, but simplv a steady detrmination not be outstripped in a vital competition. The Morning Post declares that Australia’s splendid / example would have a far-reaching effect in quickening the spirit and hardening the Motherland’s resolution unflinchingly to face the task before her. [lt is clear that these papers believe that Australia is also going to give a Dreadnought ] The Times remarking that the censure debate was virtually anticipated in yesterday’s debate on the naval vote, warns Mr Asquitji that the unscrupulous agitator referred to in his speech was clever enough to rouse the city inlo indignat J on on the one hand ,and on the other cause New Zealand’s offer of one or even two Dreadnoughts/ which gave a striking demonstration of the daily recorded sense of partnership in Imperial responsibilities in all the selfgoverning Dominions. The Times adds the country and Empire by extraordinary unanimity has judged Mr Asquith’s measures as inadequate. Lord Plunket’s cablegram containing New Zealand’s offer of Dreadnoughts was immediately conveyed to the King, Mr Asquith and the Admiralty. Prominent ■ Canadians stirred by Australia’s lead are raising the question of offering a Dreadnought. The Daily Mail declares “We shall gladly accept precious gifts from the oversea Dominions but must be prepared ourselves to lay down eight Dreadnoughts and continue the process annually until our supremacy is indisputably established.”

BRAZILIAN SHIPS NOT TO BE„ BOUGHT.

, In the House of Commons Mr McKenna. in reply to Mr Lonsdale, said that Government did not tend to make an offer for the Brazilian Dreadnoughts now building in England.

AUSTRALIAN VIEWS. Received March 24, 10.5 a.m. Sydney, March 2. The newspapers are overflowing with letters for and against the presentation of a Dreadnought. The bulk are fervently enthusiastic and laudatory of New Zealand’s example. Suggestions range from the gift of one battleship to a squadron. The annual conference of Australian Natives Association resolved that the Parliaments and people should nnite in offering a Dreadnought, while at the same time emphasising the necessity of proceeding with the Australian defence policy. The Association decided to contribute £250 from its funds if a presentation list was opened.

Canterbury Naval League, Newmarket and Fort Chalmers Borough Councils, the Mayor of Invercargill, Bishop Neligan, and Messrs Macdonald, Malcolm and Brown, M.Ps., endorse the Premier’s action. Messrs Glover and Poole, M’s.P,, think members of Parliament should have been consulted and the Hon. E. Mitchelson is of similar opinion. Bishop Leniban declined to express any opinion. Mr Buiok, M.P., thinks Government was not justified in its precipitation, and that Parliament should have been consulted.