The Press. FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1914. Sir Ian Hamilton's Report.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14974, 22 May 1914, Page 6

The Press. FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1914. Sir lan Hamilton's Report.

While it mil give no pleasure at all to tho enemies of the military training systems adopted by Australia and New Zealand, General Sir lan Hamilton's report is very far indeed from, being an unqualified ■ eulogy of the Commonwealth defence forces. , Tot it is a report which .on the whole will give encouragement to the friends of national service at this end of the world. Tho faults which he emphasises are just those which anyone might have expected to reveal themselves to his critical eye. Tho Australian system, as iv exists to-day, ho says, "is purely a pro- " duct of peace procedure, which could *' not carry on beyond' tho first few " weeks of war." This, howover, as -he is careful to explain, is a criticism only of what may be called the business . side of the system, tho necessity for improvement in which has already been admitted by Senator Miilen. Wo in New Zealand aro most interested, however, and properly so, in tho results of the actual training. It is therefore very satisfactory indeed to learn that "on the whole, the Regulars and three-fourths of the Militia "are sufficiently trained to take part in " a modern battle," and that on two weeks' notice the remaining fourth of tho Militia, with tho pick of the Riflo Clubs, would bo* available as reinforcements. A large proportion of tho forces are quite efficient enough in spirit and in technical skill to go well into action, and although Sir lan Hamilton thinks that against picked troops from oversea tbey would require to he in a majority of two to ono, wo can all feel sure that every year will furnish reason for a progressive reduction of this value-ratio. Tho people of Australia and New Zealand are sensible

enough and fair-minded enough to realise that we are still in Australasia at the very beginning of the system of national service, and Sir lan, in noting that proper allowances should be mado for initial difficulties, speaks words of good cheer. He has the right word for tho enemies of national service and tho right advice for- those of us who resent the mischievous and unpatriotic conspirators who spread abroad their venomous falsehoods concerning this great national movement: If tho Empire understood the full significance ot Australia's experiment, prayers would be continually offered for its success, but since most of tho peopl-j in the Northern Hemisphere have been carefully misinformed by interested fanatics", the Australians have to trust to their own good sen&o to pull the business through. With courage and perseverance they may yet be_ able to boast that they havo shown the way to tho great military Powers how to raise powerful armies with a minimum tax on the priceless time of tho adult maie worker.

The "Progressive" Parties. Many people must have wondered why tho "Liberals'' do not take steps to relieve themselves of their embarrassment concerning the communion between their party and the Social Democrats. Sir Joseph Ward and his friends could no easily thow how wide or how narrow a lino divides them from the Social Democrats by announcing the "Liberal" policy. They cannot complain, however, if, in default of any evidence that "Liberalism" and Ked Fedism are not either identical for all practical purposes, as the "New Zealand " Times" say 6, or . identical on nine points out of ton, as the Christchurch Opposition journal declares, the public prefers not to take the risk of trusting them. They certainly reply very angrily, overy timo the matter is mentioned, that it is a "malicious inven- " tion" that thero is any agreement between themselves and tho Social Democrats, but thoy always spoil tho effect by winding up with a renewed hope that tho "Liberals" and Social Democrats will unite to return a Government which will give effect to their joint aspirations. Whilo this little comedy is amusing tho public, and perplexing tho dwindling band ol tho faithful, an interesting witness comes forward in the person of 3lr A. W. Hogg, who was formerly a member of tho Ward Ministry, and is now the prospective Opposition candidate for Masterton. Mr Hogg is a plain, blunt man, who was sacrificed by his chief for his honest indiscretion in letting the " Liberal" cat out of the bag. He has a habit of blurting out the facts which tho more sophisticated " Liberals" strivo to koep from the public eye. Some of us remember, for example, his caustic revelation of tho deplorable condition into which Sir J. G. Ward had led his party in respect ot the land question. "As for "the Government's policy," ho confessed at the time, "I don't know " what it is now. \"I don't know that "the House knows it. i don't know "that the right hon. gentleman's-col- " leagues know it. At all events, it "■ was never disclosed to mc." And Mr Hogg had been a member of tho Cabinet. He now says that.ho looks upon tho "Liberal" and Labour parties as identical, and trusts that thoy will bo thoroughly united in the coming fight. Mr Hogg caves very little about the fortunes'of "Liberalism": it is in the interests of the Social Democrats that he will stand as the Opposition candidate, and that ho desires an end of the pretence that there is any real policy opposed to the Government's excepting tho policy of the Social Democrats. Thero are, of course, a great many, other "progressive" people bosides Mr Hogg, not formally enrolled in tho Social Democratic Party, who find irritating the pretence of the "Liberals" that they represent a real third party. These people know perfectly well that withont tho aid of the Social Democrats tbo '"Liberal" Party is nothing, and that they cannot obtain the aid of the .Social Democrats without giving Mr Scrapie a, quid pro quo. Everybody else will realise this before the election takes place, for the facts which Mr Hogg has not the patienco to conceal cannot be concealed indefinitely by anybody.