New-York tribune., 1909-02-26
NATIONAL INSURANCE h
The British Nauy-Increasing k'sks
of Marine Protection.
Iondonn February 10.


A powerful navy is necessary form OF ma
tionaI insurance No maritime country WIZ" eN
handing commerce and colonial dependencies can
-. e. rae,act so effective safeguard inc
s;,l,irg fund service may be suspended IN tiihe
of financial stress social reforms may De ue-
ferred until there is money In sight 10 pa! t'l
them retrenchment of expenses may De eleo'e
safely in other branches of the pupIlc SCI VIC
hut insurance against impaired sea power iiius'
he kept up year by year by every hIet Ci0'
mower This policy is accepted by the Lioerai
government in England on abstract srouius'
crcb differences of opinion there are relate 10
tho methods of measuring efficiency, ana ssPe-
ciaI1v 70 the two-power standard. Ihese are
seldom serious, because II is always easy 'o
feet a compromise on the broad assumption .'i0'
the nation requires a strong navy ana suli0io
from n sense of insecurity If Its supremacy d'
sea is menaced at any point Every SPRING
there are rumors that the Cabinet VIII Dreak up
over the naval estimates. but inVarlaply II puilS
itsa1f together and keeps up the most important
of tho national insurances 1t Is not likely Iha1
there will be an exception to the rule TINS year
A,xio,s as progressive Radicals may be TO
save money for the social reforms In "fiich tieS
are deeply interested, there is no revolt agalhSt
t,,oraosad estimates for naval construction when
a strong case is made out for them' AieIe
6 dissatisfaction, however. when the naval mar
e4ap5ard until II ceases have logical torce-
Cornnarisons were not ineffective a few years
eqo when France was jealous and resenttol anu
was in alliance with Russia The experts were
oonsidared reasonable when they insisted that
1he British navy must be more than mateh ioi
the French and Russian fleets comblneo. lheS
- ~, now carry conviction when they assert
that the British navy must be superior III SHIPS
Guns and men to the American and German
acts VIII; margin of at least 10 per cent 10
+ba sood The comparison invites dissent De
,.,ee II Is a fantastic and irrational coahtoh-
The Americans and the Germans, ior reasons oi
enlightened self-interest, may consider strong
navy Indispensable. but it Is simply lncfeuioie
that they should ever join forces IN an attack
rnon England. Anglo-American friendship Is
sincere and consistent when it compels the set
Element of every possible source OF mlsunder-
standing by new series of conventions; ana
even If it were less trustworthy than it is there
is the invincible American prejudice against an
entangling alliance with any foreign power.
Naval experts only waste their breath wheh
they ask for an immense increase IN consruc-
ton on the ground that Germany and America
NAV be leagued against England in some un-
foreseen for mastery in sea power NO sane
Engishman believes that such coalition Is
within the range OF possibilities
1t is not strange that immoderate demands for
naval expenditures should be met with practical
suggestions for a revision of the two-power
standard. Mr. Bellairs. who defeated Mr..
Bow-les the economist at Kings Lynn, is the
only naval officer in the Commons, and has the
reputation Of being a practical man. He advo-
Gates the construction every year OF SIX battle
Ships six cruisers and twenty-four destroyers,
and admits that it will not cost less than f13-
100000 annually to carry out this minimum
programme" When additional construction is
proposed on SC large a scale for long period
there ought to be a better reason for II than
anything 80 chimerical a coalition between
America and Germany against England. That
is what sturdy Radicals saying with stormy
emphasis and some OF them are in the Cabinet.
They assert that the two power standard should
be modified so as to exclude so trustworthy
friend as America, which never makes alliances.
and so useful an associate Japan, which Is
bound by treaty to stand by England in the Far
East. That is to say, the British navy should
be strengthened with view to the possibilities
of European conflict and not arbitrarily and
irresponsibly. when the strongest competitors
happen to be America and Germany-pacific
nations which in the natural order of human
events can never be allies in battle for sea
power. A large increase Of costly construction
may be necessary but 1t cannot be justified by
a fantastic application of the two-power stand
ard It is insurance against imaginary risks.
There seems TO be 4 characteristic English
habit Of magnfying sources OF weakness and
minimizing of strength 1t Is illustrated
by the incessant talk about invasion. No other
European country has smaller risks of invasion
than England with its insular position and su-
Derior navy yet there is a national passion for
discrediting the home defeDces and portraying
the horrors OF foreign occupation In the press
and on the stage England is constantly repre-