Forty-four Millions for the Navy

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLV, Issue 23, 7 June 1911, Page 57

Forty-four Millions for the Navy

The Navy Estimates issued in London will make many people stand aghast. In the piping times of peace we are now spending well over £44.000,000 on the Navy and have advanced to that huge figure by leaps and bounds. Ten or twelve years ago our Navy cost a trifle over 31 millions per annum, of ■which sum between 7 and 8 millions were spent in new construction. In 1909-10 the figures reached 35} millions and- 9} millions respectively, whilst the estimates for 1910-11 were £40,603,000, which included £13.250,000 for new eon-

Btructicn. Even at the«e figure* there those who declared that our Navy was being ‘Starved’* and shrieks were raided for more ships and more men. The estimate'* for the coming year exceeded those of 1910 11 by no less than £3.7Bi<.o<>o, the total required for the iNavy in the financial year commencing on April Ist being £44,392.000.

The principal increases are under the Beads of shipbuilding and armaments which between them are expected to swallow up nearly three minions of money. Provision is also made for an increase in personnel to the extent of 3000 men. Their pay, victualling and

clothing will cost the nation about a quarter of a million extra. New construction will cost £15.083,877, as against £13,279.830 for 1910-11. Of this amount, will be spent on the continuation of work on the ships already under construction, and £1,738,845 for beginning work on ships of the new programme, which is composed as follows—

Five large armoured ships, 3 protected cruisers, I unarmoured cruiser, 20 destroyers, 6 submarines, 2 river gunboats, a depot ship for destroyers, and a hospital ship.

The Government programme for 1911-

12 would seem extensive and expensive enough to satisfy anyone, but it does not. By anti-Government journals we are assured that it is wholly insufficient to assure England the command of the sea; that in the near future we shall find Germany treading on our heels in the race for naval supremacy, and that “a programme of five ships, hovering between the cosmopolitan snivellings of Socialists and the demands of true Imperialism” will only serve to perpetuate the competition in armaments which Mr Asquith and his friends have so often deplored. On the other hand we are counselled to be well content with the

new programme, which is not only adequate to Britain's naval needs, but if anything errs on the side of prodigality. In a multitude of counsellors there is more often confusion than wisdom, and when these counsellors are “naval expertsf’ the layman's brain is likely to become addled. For, by figures, these experts can prove most . aueiu-ively either that England’s naval supremacy remains unchallenged, or that if she de«ires to continue* to rule the waves, even for the next ten year', we must be prepared to spend mill’s ns more per annum than we are now doing.