The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1909. THE PRIME MINISTER'S DEFENCE

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 626, 1 October 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1909. THE PRIME MINISTER'S DEFENCE

•. The ' first thijrg that must strike, any careful reader of Sir Joseph Ward's very long, and in som« rospccts interesting, statement ujwn tho result of the Defence Conference, is. the, absence of any buoyancy in his tone. Ho has made the best of the situation, but it is an ; extremely disappointing best. Mr. Asquith's statement, in the House of Commons, and tho Press' Association's more rcccnt summary of results, • made it impossible that the Prime Minister could give us any new information of a material character, but there are sorao points in his statement which call for notice. He has evidently been kept advised, by-cable or otherwise, of the criticisms that have appeared in the New Zealand press; for his statement was of course 1 prepared before the Challenger arrived in Auckland. - Tho advices sent to him,'however, were evidently not as "intelligently framed as they might have been, or ha would not have spent eo much space in repudiating an allegation that was nevor made,- so far as we, are: aware, namely, that he had suggested "some change,in raferenco to the ; offer of a Dreadnought." As a matter of fact, what was chiefly condemned,' and is; still condemned, woe Sir Joseph's seeming insistence _upcm tho gift of a single first-class ship, as this country's new naval policy. The. great-majority of the people ofNew Zealand feel that the Prime Minister's child-like innocence of anything like a 1 definite ind progressive naval idea resulted in his being'ablo to affect the Conference'only in tho direction of giving ithc Admiralty 'a- little trouble in working out a scheme that would'bo an aot of politeness to the Now Zealand- publ'ic. That tho Prime Minister is him?.elf hot unconscious of tho comparatively poor figure that New Zealand will' rcut in the- Empire's naval family ia a reasonable deduction .from the stress which ho lays_upon the honour of providing the flagship of the Pacific. " He thought,'■ he said, " it should boregarded as complimentary to New Zealand that its battleship was selected io be the Admiral's flagship of tho Pacific fleet. Our ■ ship could easily have been mride one of tho Channel Fleet, without njiy such distinction being conferred on ,it." ; And, returning to the .-point':later-1 on, he'said ho "might-also say.we w'ero to prpvido tho name for our battleship, and he had held this over in order to have the matter pf the namo considered ia . New' Zealand. It . would ,thus bo, seen that not only' did 'our- battleship become,' the flagship of the Pacific Squadron, its ir dividuality standing out markedly in that respect, 'but that tho right of naming it would enable .New Zealand in •years to como ;to follow tho' movements' and destiny of tho first battleship , offered by a "self-governing dominion and ac- . ccpted by tho:Old Land;" The reasoning here , is as odd as * it is_ characteristic- of its author. Wo can only express, the ; hope tha,t as tho christening seoms likely, to-be tho grand climacteric of oiir arduous labours oh behalf of the Empire's defence, all the statesmanship possible' should go to'the choosing of. the name; It is cleaj from tho opening sentence in the letter sent by Sir , Joseph-to Mr. v M'Kenna on August ll::-that-the. Admiralty. hacL. made-up its mind—seeing that the'_ Ncvr Zealand/Government had no policy on which to base a fleet uniir—to .form a Pacific l flcet. of three units, one of which would be furnished by Australia. ,'lHr. M'Konna's letter of reply, dated August ;18, shows plainly that so--far as Ne',?; Zealand was cpnrernedj '.the Admiralty,had. only to concern itself with mak- • irig some polite arrangements in matters : of detaiir relating, to the China unit. The ' Admiralty,, in fact, had t6 act on Sir. Joseph's, hint that '.'some suitable: provision ,"- hat}, to bo made: for vNew Zealand, and "it has done so '-very■ handsomely. 'At Auckland •'yesterday, tho Prime-Minis'ter' spoke as if the British naval authorities, had decided that what Zealand.proposed was the best thing possible; he said,that "they had decided" etc. : As a matter of fact tho Admiralty stated bcforohand that each country must decide for itself ; it allowed itself no option but to accept what Sir . Joseph Ward proposed. There should bo no confusion about this; when Parliament meets, it must remember that it is not bound to anything, ■ and that the. Admiralty will ] accept a really good proposal as readily as the Prime Minister's makeshift. .. Parliament must not bo. misled into supposing t that • the provisional arrangement' 1 awaiting its attention is -the only possible. one^ if wo are to have,,in the Prime Minister's words, : " the direct' connection between. New Zealand.and the Royal Navy maintained in some concrete form." Sir-Joseph 1 made so many references to' ." direct. attachment" to the v Imperial-Navy-that he must be considered anxious that , the public and Parliament should beliove that his_ way is'the only way : ,of securing that .direct connection. : - Tho most interesting portion ' of' Sir Joseph' 'Ward's. statement. is tho' letter written to him oh August 13 by tho Australian . representative, Colonel Poxton, If Colonel Foxton did not make out an independent case, for the amalgamation of New Zealand and Australia in tho . creation of a joint Australasian fleet ie at any , rate made very clear the hollowness of the pretension that New Zealand has taken any definitely individual part: , in furnishing tlje Pacific guard. . Basing his figures, evidently, on .the sum of the New Zealand subsidy ot £100,000. and its: battleship instalment of £150,000 a 1 year, Colonql Foxton said:Tho New Zealand - subsidy of £250,000 , per annum is to bo -applied, ■ we are 'told, towards the upkeep of the China fleet unit, but as it is to be paid unconditionally to the Imperial' Government, it will practically : go into the consolidated revenue of the "United Kingdom, and might just as woll bo. designated as being : applicable .to, augment the ' funds required for the maintenance of the Australian (or Australasian) unit as towards thoso required for the China Unit of . tho Eastern fleet.. May I point out that except in mere name New Zealand's contribution will, under what you now pro-' pose, have practically'the same effect "so far as New Zealand 'is concerned, inasmuch' as you will bo paying' £250,000 per year to tho Imperial Government, and,the latter will, bo subsidising Australia to a somewhat similar if not, larger amount. ■ Would it liot bo well that instead of this sum being nominally applied towards' maintaining the unit in China, it should bo' applied towards the maintenance of tho Australasian unit, which will almost certainly be tho one to which New Zealand will havo in tho first instance to look for her protection? :, In other words, New Zealand is simply paying , in a roundabout way for part of the upkeep of tho Australian Squadron. That this really is so becomes perfectly clear whon it is remembered that even if New Zealand did not spend a penny the China'unit would still no provided by Britain, and the Pacific fleet would still have, a flagship. It is quite; idle to. talk, in a-eply, of a " dircct attachment" to',-tho British Navy. , Will not Canada and Australia also have a direct connection with the' British Navy, • ovon anubuxh■ in pcoco time- thoy "con-; trol- their \ 'shipisl Uut the chief

weakness of Sir Joseph Ward's scheme is in the fact that it will not supply that' incentive to a spirit of naval progrcssiveness and to the development of a naval sense which has been supplied in the case of Australia and Canada. Nothing could be moro extraordinary and irrelevant than Sir.Joseph Ward's explanation of his objection to a local navy. Ho is against the establishment of a local navy because ho believes " that it is better for us to have the . full support of the whole British Navy for the protection of New Zealand among the other great interests of the Empiro"! Docs he really expect jib to beliove that Canada and Australia have forfeited " the full support.of the wholo British " by building • ships of their own 1 ' The real truth of the matter'is that Sir Joseph Ward cannot-faco the cost and tho statesmanship involved in a policy, with backbone in it. Australia, with five million people, is building a navy with the sincere approval not only of tho British Government but of,the naval experts of Britain. And Sir Joseph says that New Zealand—New Zealand that he speaks of in such extravagant language when it suits his purpose—could not pay for tho -cost - of a local fleet even if her population wore ten millions. No information as to the Government's proposals regarding, the land forces is ayailablo.as a set-off to tho disappointing'character of its naval policy, or rather want of policy; Upon'tho whole tho friends of Sir Joseph must feel that, ho has failed to afford any justification, for having forced the postponement of the Parliamentary session. • It is possible that he now recognises this himself. '