The Seattle Post Intelligencer

THE ENGLISH NAVY

New York World.

Three British admirals testify in the November Fortnightly that England's reputed supremacy on the ocean now rests upon tradition and not upon more effective navy. Admiral Sir Thomas Symonds shows from official statements "that of really efficient modern fighting ships" the British have only 17, three of which are armed with obsolete muzzle-loading guns, while the French have 25, and eight splendid gunboats. The comparison as to inferior vessels is of less importance, but even in these the English possess no advantage.

The British battle-ships "are armored on only a part of the length of their water-line, while in the French the armor is continuous from end to end." The French have modern guns throughout—not so the British. With the latter, facilities for building and repairing are deficient. Docks are everywhere wanting." The French "now have actually 3000 more dock-yard workmen than the British," and a more fully manned navy in every respect.

These rather surprising statements are indorsed by Admirals Sir G. Phipps Hornby and Lord Alcester. And all three distinguished authorities unite in asserting that in view of the geographical distribution and commercial interests of the British empire, its navy, in order "to discharge its duties in a war alone, should be almost three times as strong as it is at present."

The presentation of the situation is sustained by strong arguments. More than half the food supply and more than half the raw material to keep the factories going in England depend upon her ocean-going commerce. The safety of this is vital to her. There is no other nation in the world so situated. There would certainly appear good reason for the sounding of this note of warning and the attendant demand for placing the navy upon a better footing. It is to be noted that on Saturday the British cabinet approved the plan of building eight first-class men-of-war, 20 swift cruisers and a number of torpedo-boats.