The question of our threatened supremacy in destroyers was raised
in the Navy debate on Tuesday by Mr. Pretyman, who pointed out that only four had been completed for sea-service since 1905. Mr. McKenna, who said that the majority would be finished in August, 1910, and all by September, admitted that part of the programme which ought to have - been cqm- pleted had not yet been realised. But it was not the fault of the Admiralty that seven more destroyers ought to be in com- mission ; the construction had been delayed by strikes, and the delay was not in the least dangerous. The twenty destroyers of this year's programme would be completed in July, 1911, and, altogether, when existing programmes were carried out, we should have a fleet of eight-four destroyers to Germany's seventy-two and France's sixty. In regard to ciuisers, our
superiority over Germany in armoured vessels was such as altogether to outweigh any supposed inferiority in smaller ships. In short, heroic efforts were being made to ensure for our Fleet a superiority in every type of vessel. Mr. Lee refused to accept Mr. McKenna's statement as satisfactory. It was absurd to speak of heroic efforts when the twenty new destroyers would not be completed for two years. The proportion of eighty-four destroyers to Germany's seventy-two was almost ludicrously inadequate. In the subsequent debate Mr. Bellaire anticipated that immense naval expenditure would be needed next year, and advocated the method of a loan as the only solution of the difficulty. Dr. Macnamara having expressed his resentment against the charge that the Admiralty had neglected the country's naval needs, the report of the Naval Votes was agreed to without a division.
Previous page
