NAVAL POLICY AND BRITISH CRITICISM.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14842, 6 December 1913, Page 10

NAVAL POLICY AND BRITISH CRITICISM.

No donbt it was only; because they consider themselves bound to oppose eveiytiiii.-g Uie Government may say, or do, or propose, that the Opposition havo displayed some hostility to the Government's naval policy. For tho most part the Opposition neither know nor car* much about naral policy generally, but. of coursa. thav axa sot

behind the Government in their desire that the interests of the Dominion, and of the Empire, should be well guarded. Pcrhapc they will think less of their little criticisms when they know that an excellent effect was produced in Britain by Mr Massey's speech on hi 3 policy towards the end of October. "Tho Times," for example, while noting that the Government's policy—like Sir J. G. Ward s 1909 policy, we should add — does not touch "tho deeper problems" of unity, says that it goes upon lines " which should stimulate the desire of " New Zealanders to give of their own " brain and sinew to tho task of main"taining the supremacy of the Empire " on the seas intact." "Mr Massey's speech" ("The Times'' proceeds), "when it reached this wider aspect of his subject, had a stirring and confident ring, and New Zealand's past record is earnest of the spirit in which she will address herself to this new work. We have long maintained that the creation of local flotillas, whilo it cannot completely provide for naval security, must be an essential part of any adequate and lasting system of common naval defence. The gift of the battle-cruiser New Zealand to serve with the Imperial squadrons, and tho provision in New Zealand of trained men for the sea servico, and of tho necessary auxiliaries to battle fleets, typify between them very clearly the double responsibility which every selfgoverning people within the Empire is called on to face; and we look to that twofold policy as the most hopeful means of naval co-operation yet thought out."

The Opposition would do much better to recognise this fact than to bemuse themselves with the rather silly idea that they most carp at the Government for "departing from" a policy which was never a real policy at all. The "Morning Post" makes fun of what, with inverted commas, it falls the "loyal New Zealand policy," meaning the policy of subsidy pure and simple. "New Zealand (says the 'Tost") launches herself upon the bine water** of the Pacific, like a true chip of the old block, and makes ' a beginning, small it may be, but none the less Hopeful, on the road to sea power. We of Old England who very long ago made the same beginning with such glorious results, cannot quarrel with our Antipodean colonists for following oar example, especially as we have failed to keeu our p'edjxus to patrol their coasts. . . Only tnose who are without imaginations and know nothing of the possibilities ot Australia and New Zealand will saiUo at Mr Massey's magniloquence. Tho Com monwealth and tho Dominion liaye great resources, magnince-is and & robust populatioa. They ar« right to be confident in the future, an-1 they are also right to make a start now and get things put in hand. The policy will cost New Zealand money, and it will also cost much in labour and devotion. There will be mistakes made, there will be waeto, and thero wilL be faint-hearts who will advise retreat. But with pluck and devotion, it is, wo are more and more convinced, the right policy for the Dominions." At all events, no alternative policy which will meet the ,case has been suggested by the Opposition, and perhaps the opinions we have quoted will help them to assist loyally in the prosecution of the policy to which our country is now committed.