AN EMPIRE QUESTION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5, 6 January 1914, Page 5

AN EMPIRE QUESTION.

Naval Armament Position being Freely Discussed. Great Importance of the Mediterranean. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer Severely Criticised

[Bt Electric Telegraph—Copyright AN IMPORTANT OPINION. (Received 10.5 a.m.) Loudon, January 5. Captain Mahan, in the '‘Daily Mail,” says the British navy can abandon the Mediterranean without disaster to the Empire, but can Hardly hold the Mediterranean without disaster to Britain. The mere security of Britain was considered so imperilled that the majority of battleships were concentrated around Britain. Subordinate thereto, but directly related thereto, had been the withdrawal of, the Mediterranean fleet from Malta to Gibraltar. Captain Mahan points out that the Canadian and Australian community hold tenaciously to certain views, unifying iu a common purpose the Brit,„.j Pacific commonwealths, thus constituting a great Imperial interest, pendent, in possible contingencies,, upon preponderance in the Mediterranean. Captain Mahan asks how, m the event of a general war arising from the present critical situation in the Levant, can the British navy secure Egypt and Suez. He argues that whether Franco alone or with Britain’s support can •maintain the control of trade security and military effectiveness throughout the Mediterranean is the point for consideration. It would not suffice to secure the western half. He concludes; “The Empire needs the whole sea for the Imperial movement of commerce and for that Imperial naval effectiveness which is essential to the Empire’s existence.’

[United Press Association,] He served throughout the Civil M ax. In 188(1 lie was elected president o) the United States Naval War College and he was American delegate to the Peace Conference in 1899. Following are some oi his publications; “Influence of Sen Power upon History,” “Influence of Sea Power on French Revolution and Empire,’ “Life of Admiral Farragut,” “Life of Nelson,” “The Embodiment of the Sea Power of Great Britain,” “The Interest of the 1 nited States in Sea Power,” “Lessons of the War with Spain,” “A Short History of the South African War,” “The Problem of Asia.” In naval matters Captain Malian holds a unique position, especially in respect to Great Britain. He is detached from all official position in his own country and is probably free from allegiance to any United States political party. At any rate, he interests himself in the major naval operations of the great Powers, and his experience in the United States Navy entitles his opinions to a great degree of respect. It is a remarkable fact, showing the respect that is shown to him in Great Britain, that when an acute naval crisis arises, his view of the matter is placed before the Old World public and. in most cases, is cabled to the British colonial press. In short. Captain Mahan can be set down as the most disinterested and capable critic at present living of the naval affairs of any Power. As has been said, Captain Mahan’s opinion is regularly put before the British public (home and overseas) when a naiai crisis arises; and the fact tnat on the present occasion he has spoken can be safely calculated as indicating, if not that an actual crisis has arisen, that the naval position needs careful and cairn handling at the present moment. A well-known Encyclopaedia says of Captain MahanHis writings on naval history, traditions and power have won him world-wide recognition ■as a master-mind on maritime questions.

the cabinet united. LLOYD GEORGE ATTACKED. London, January r >- The Daily Chronicle declares that the Cabinet is united on the'armaments question. It instances Mr Churchill’s speech in the House o\ Commons on March 29th, and Ins speech at Alexandra Palace on -November 15, and also .Mr Asquith s Guildhall and Leeds addresses. Mr Lloyd George, it says, though strongly convinced of the value of improved relations with Germany, did not suggest any doubt of the continued efficacy and importance of the Triple Entente. Mr Chiozza Money, M.P., in a letter to the Daily Chronicle, says that it is impossible to maintain a supreme navy unless the estimates are increased. If these are not increased, contracts must be cancelled, thutrenching on the margin of superiority. He emphasises that Germany’s navy is independent of the Estimates, hut* Germany has a permanent law establishing its maintenance in perpetuity. Its navy is enormously bigger than Great Britain’s. Mr Chiozza Money asks: How can 61 Dreadnoughts, which the German law certainly establishes, bo the main for continued superiority by a British fleet founded on reduced estimates? Berlin, January 5. Count Revcntlow, in the Deutsche Tageszeitung, declares that Mr Lloyd George’s language only increases German mistrust. He especially resents Mr Lloyd George’s description of armaments, against which the industrial classes of Western Europe have revolted, as organised insanity. ITALIAN INTERPRETATIONS. “FORCED TO RESIGN.” Home, January 5. Some of the leading organs consider that since the British Cabinet is united on the question of abandoning the proposed increase in the Naval Estimates, Mr Lloyd George is forced to resign, especially as Mr i Churchill, will always he able and ready with Opposition support. Other newspapers interpret Mr Lloyd George’s conversation as not a promise of reduction of armaments, but as a warning that it is impossible to exceed actual limits, except with the risk of overturning a national edifice. AN ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERT. Captain Alfred T. Malian retired from the United States Navy in 1896. He was horn in 1841), being a son of Professor 1). H. Mahan, professor of Military Engineering at the United States Military Academy. He was granted the degree of LL.D. by the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, and Columbia (New York City). Ho was appointed to tbo U.S.'navr in 1856 and received his lieutenant's commission in 1801, receiving the rank of captain in 1885.

the growth in cost. A blue book issued by the British Admiralty throws an interesting light on the growth in the cost of armaments by tiie eight great Powers of the worid—Great Britain, Germany, Russia, France, Italy, Austria-Hun-gary, United States, and Japan. In 1901-1905, the year before the first Dreadnought was laid down, the naval expenditure of these eight Powers was £105,397,732, and the amount to be expended in 1913-1911 was £170,682,223, an increase of £65,284,191 in nine years. What is remarkable is that the actual increase in naval expenditure has been greater in the case of five of these eight great Powers than in Great Britain. The British figures for the year that lias just closed are £5,959,561 highei than for 1904-1905, but this amount is smaller than the increase of any of the other Powers except Italy and Austria-Hungary. Germany heads the list of increases with an addition of £12,934,194, and Russia comes next with an increase of £12,299,548. The following table shows the increases in naval expenditure of the great Powers during the past nine years;— Increase in 1913-11 9 years. £ £ Great- Britain 47,021,636 5,959,561 Germany' ... 23,039,194 12,904,194 Italy ' ...10,157,816 5,157,816 Austria-Hungary 6.006.551 3,391,091 Russia ... 24,249,451 12,299,548 France ... 20,84/,<63 8.465,330 United States 29,498,867 9,318,55. Japan ... 9,860,912 7,758,364 Totals . 170,682,223 65,284,491 The increases in the naval expenditure of the other great Powers during the past nine years, compared with Great Britain, are more striking when considered in relation to their previous expenditure. Germany, for instance, spent 127.7 per cent, more on her navy in 1913-1914 than in 1904-1905, whereas the increase in tiie British naval expenditure for the same period was only 1-3.1 per cent. The following table gives the percentage increases of the eight great Powers: — Per Cent. Breat Britain ... ... 15.1 Germany ... ••• I-'-' Austria-Hungary ... 130.8 Italy in ‘ 2 -° Russia ••• 10J-5 France ... ••• 6/.’ United States ... 47.5 Japan ... ... ... 366.6 The following table shows the naval

expenditure of Groat Britain and Q-ermany for each year from 1901ion<>._

One of tln> causes which has contributed to the increased expenditure on the world's navies is the increased cost of modern battleships md cruisers, which are much more heavily armed than the ships built If teen years ago. A modern Dreadlought costs over £2,000,000, but fifteen years ago the most powerful 'battleships afloat cost less than £l,100,000.

Great Britain Germany. £ £ 1901-02 ... 34.872,299 9,530,000 1902-03 ... 35,227,836 10,045,000 '903-0-1 ... 40.001,865 10,400,000 1904-05 ... 41,062,075 10.105.000 '905-06 ... 37.159,235 11,300.000 ! 900-07 ... 34,599,541 12.005,000 1907-08 ... 32,735.767 14,225,000 ' 908-09 ...' 33,511,719 16,490,000 '909-10 ... 36.059.652 2O,O90;000 '910-11 ... 41.118.66S 50.15 .| 5,000 1911-12 ... 1.1,061,539 22,031,788 '912-13 ... 45,075,400 22,609.510 1913-1 1 ... 46,309,300 22,876,675