NAVAL DEFENCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2657, 12 November 1909, Page 2

NAVAL DEFENCE.

STATEMENT BY SIR JOSEPH 'WARE.

The following is the full text Joseph Ward’s remarks, in the 'course of the Financial Statement, on the subject of naval defence: Honorable members ore aware that the Imperial Defence Conference., which was attended by me as ; opresentative of this Dominion, arrived at a decision in connection with the strength of the British navy .which calls for action on the part, or New /•■ ■■ land. The offer of Dreadnoughts -nrh by this country was accepted by ’mBritish Government, and the necessary steps require to be taken to enablethe vessel to be built and handed over to the Admiralty. For this purpose I ipropose to ask the House for authority to raise a loan of up to two millions at a rate of interest not exceeding 34per cent, until the vessel is actually completed. It is not possible to say what the exact amount of the expenditure will be, but it will be withm the amount I have named. Having regard to- the nature of the expenditure, you will, I hope, agree with me that it should not be treated as part of our public debt, and r propose that wo make provision for paying it off within IS years. For this purpose a sinking fund of 4 per cent, will require to be provided, and proposals in this connection will be submitted to you. It- is scarcely necessary to say anything at this time in support of our offer of a Dreadnought. Jhe Government made it. subject, of course, to ratification by Parliament. 1 arhament ratified it. and in doing so acted, I am convinced, with the hearty approval of the great body of the public. It was the most effective method of strengthoiling the Empire• • At the Coiifeißnce t-he overseas representatives weie o-t one mind in their willingness to take some share in Imperial Defence, though they differed as to the form it should take. Local sentiment and local conditions no doubt weighed with them. -Some preferred local nav ics, otiieis, amongst them myself, thought the more excellent way was to contribute a quota to the British navy itself. After quoting the correspondence already published between the Right Hon. R. McKenna and himself, Sir Joseph Ward proceeded : In making these proposals I acted on what, alter full consideration, I believed to be best- for New Zealand, and most in ciccorcl&ncc with tho EGiit.l- - of her -people. It would be quite out of place for me to attempt to question or even to criticise the decision of Canada and Australia to establish lecal navies. It is for these great dependencies themselves to determine the lines on which they are to proceed, and I fully recognise that they are the best judges of their own best- interests. It will be clearly understood then, that the reasons winch moved rr.e in the course I tcok had no relation to them. Omitting all such controversial points as the difficulty or maintaining a common standard and arranging for interchanges, the risk ‘of defeat" in detail if the British ’fleets were crushed, and .so on, there remains one consideration, which is purely personal to New Zealand, and in m\ ov,n opinion determines the whole matter. A LOCAL FLEET. This is the question of cost. To show local fleet unit. I quote an extract from loci fleet unit,'! quote an extract from an Admiralty memo, that Mr. McKenna. the First Lord, submitted to the Conference: "The fleet unit to be armed as it- should be, in the opinion or the Admiralty, should consist of the following: One armored cruiser of the pew Indomitable class, which is of the Dreadnought- type, three unarmored cruisers of the Bristol class, _ six destroyers, three submarines, with the necessary auxiliaries, such as depot and store ships, etc*. Such a fleet unit would be capable of action, nou only for the defence of the coasts, but also the trade routes, and would be sufficiently powerful to deal with small hostile squadrons, should such ever attempt to act in those waters, and simply to man such a squadion, omitting auxiliary requirements ancl anv margin for reliefs, sickness, etc., the minimum numbers required wou.d be about 2000 officers and men according to the Admiralty scheme of complements, including the rear-admiral or commodore and staff, and captain, tour commanders, 43 lieutenants and sablieutenants, 16 engineer plficers, besides medical and accountant ouicers and warrant and petty officers of various classes. THE QUESTION OF COST.

The estimated first cost of building and arming the class of ships indicated would be:lndomitable (new) £2,000,000, Bristol £350,000, destroyer (river class) £BO,OOO, submarine (C class) £55,000. It is difficult to estimate tlie annual cost of maintenance, i.e., upkeep of hull and machinery, sea stores, fuel, etc., under the new conditions contemplated, hut it- may be taken that it would amount- approximately to: Indomitable £52,000, Bristol £16,500, destroy er (river class) £10,700, submarine (C class). £2300. It is also difficult to estimate the amount which should represent interest and depreciation on first cost. The life of the Indomitable and Bristol classes may be estimated at twenty years, and that of the destroyers and submarines at fifteen years, but the amount to be calculated on this basis would vary according to the rate of interest prevailing in each country. It has not, therefore, been included. The total first cost,, accordingly, of building and arming a fleet unit, .apart from auxiliaries, would oe: One Indomitable (new) £2,000,000, three Bristols £1,050.000, six destroyers (river class) £480,000, three submarines (C class) £165,000; total, £3,695,000, and the total annual cost of mainteance would be: One Indomitable £52,000, three Bristols £49,500, six destroyers (river class) £64.200, three submarines (C class), £6900; total, £172,600. The above figures do not- include cost of personnel, which should be to the annual charge for maintenance. The active service pay of 2000 officers and men and their victualling and other like expenses would amount approxi-

mately to £156,000 a year, calculatedon tlie rates payable in tho Royal Navy, only it will be noticed that, as in - the case of the material of tho licet unit, the -estimated cost of the personnel required to man the ships- does not comprise the whole cost.. There would be other charges to bo provided for, such as the-pay of persons employed in subsidiary services, those undergoing, training, sick, in reserve, etc. In the course of discussion Mr. McKenna said that at Imperial rates the total annual dost of such. a fleet and unit would be about £600,000. Sir F. W. Borden, speaking for Canada, said that in the case of'that Dominion it could not be less ihan £BOO,OOO. Alter going;, into careful calculations, I stated that in the case of New Zealand it would be at least £700,000. Putting it at that, and I am quite satisfied the estimate is a very moderate one, it js manifest that such an annual expenditure is quite beyond our resources, and must be so for many years to come-. The proposals made by me involve a yearly total of £250,000, made up thus : Dreadnought interest and sinking fund for each of IS years, £lo0,000; contribution to the Admiralty to cover the difference between Imperial and local rates of pay, etc., £100,000; total, £250,000. Deducting from this , the £IOO,OOO whi.-ffi we are at present paying as our contribution to the cast of tlie Australasian squadron, and which is to be dropped when the new scheme is adopted, the net result will .be: Yearly increase £150,000 on the amount we at present paying. • Recognising as wc all do our duty to take upon ui a reasonable share in the general burden cf Imperial defence, I. feel satisfied that neither Parliament nor the country consider such expenditure excessive." Proposals on the subject will be’ submitted at a.h early date for your consideration.