AUSTRALIAN NAVY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1100, 12 April 1911, Page 7

AUSTRALIAN NAVY.

LORD DUDLEY'S ADVICE.-, Dγ Telegraph-Press AEsocialion-CopvriEht Sydnoy, April 11. At the opening of the Pioneer Club, Lord Dudley, the. Governor-General, delivered a speech. Referring to the Navy, lip derlarrd the interests of Australia and the Motherland were hound together, and (bat for many years to come the, br-st way for Australia lo help herself would be by helping the Old Country and the Empire. He understood Iho impelling sentiment behind the. estnhlishlncnt of Australia's own navy. It was a national Australian sentiment, that .was proper and legitimate. .L_: .. The best, way of defeating an enemy was, continued Lord Dudley, to go out and seek him. Australia would make the greatest mistake if she imagined that her shores were best protected by retaining her ships in Australian waters ; therefore nothing should hinder her fullest co-operation with other parts of the Empire.' He would like to see the Imperialistic spirit predominate. THE NEW DEFENCE SCHEMES. IS TOO MUCH ASKED OF AUSTRALIA? ' ' The Melbourne "Age" has taken up a decidedly critical attitude towards Admiral Hendcrion's 'scheme for the Australian Navy. Iu a recent special it j says:— .. . I "When Australia, rpsolwd. to have her own navy, and - to hear her share in the defence of the Empire, the cost was not calculated at the high figure of Admiral Henderson's report. Wo seem to hay*' had bur a Vague , idea of the premium payable for insuring 'ourselves-against attack or invasion, or for protecting our commerce against hostile cruisers. Seeing that we have only d.iSO.OOO people, and our increase of population, whether from nature or immigration, is of slow growth, we might in the course of nine or ten years have looked forward to 5,000,000 odd, and in that case w? would have been willing to bear a defence burden of ■£3,500,000 towards the end of the decade, or say Us. per lifad. This would bo a very substantial tax for a young country, double the amount wo had to pay during the financial year 100D-1910.- It must be remembered that Australia is in a different position to any European Power. None of the older countries has any responsibility for reclaiming her territory from the , primeval bush Tand making it habitable. ' ■' • "Our expenditure on defence in 1910 was ,£1,575,000. It would be a big jump to increase that, by .£2,000,000. per annum (the amount we havo assumed as possibly acceptable) in the course of a few years. But if the Henderson-Kitche-ner schemes are carried out the annual defence expenditure of th? Commonwealth in 1918 will be £5,881,000. If we had to pay the latter amount in the present year defence would cost us £1 6s. per head. Probably in ssven years' time the capitation outlay would bo ,S1 3s. Having regard to the conditions imposed on a new country in the duties and responsibilities of settlement, this is an enormous sum. Xo other country in the world has to undertake such a. task. Tho expenditure on defence among various nations is as follows:— DEFENCE EXPENDITURE. _..'... . . . . ' Per Inhabitant, ,- —- - £s. d. Great Britain 1 6 10 Germany :..'. 0 19 :2 France 1 3 0 Italy 0 !) 9 Austria-Hungary 0 6 6 Switzerland 0 8 11 Russia • ;.....-,„..,... 0. 8- 8 Spain 0 8 i Norway i -.':.l...ttWA..h(li\..:;if.'( (K>B 11 Sweden 0 13 9 Denmark 0 8 11 Holland 0 13 i Belgium • 0 6 5 United States :.... 0 11 10 Canada 0 I 0 Japan • 0 6 8 Australia (under Kitchcner-Hen-derson scheme) 13 0 Later in the article, tho writer . proceeds:— "Neither population nor wealth is the commanding factor in the situation; the main point is the vulnerability of Australia, to attack. Tho circumstances of the United ■Kingdom and, the. Commonwealth are as wide apart -as the , riles. As we have already pointed put, if Australia were completely cut off from America and Europe, nnd not a single ship arrived at or left our ports, our international trade would no doubt, euffer. Importing houses ■ would collapse, and certain imported luxuries, like rilks, and champagne, would become very dear. But we could live. We should have an abundance of beef, mutton, .flour, fruit, and vegetables, and more v;ool than we could ever manufacture into clothing. If we could restrain the enemy from shelling tho capitals—to talk of his landing anywhere, is surely preposterous—our internal trade would go on very much the same, and probably enjoy an unusual boom. We should be so thrown upon our own resources; in (lie manufacture of everything we'' required that no inconvenience would i.irije from the cessation of imports. In fact, during the time of the blockade wo should learn'to realise so completely the merits, of local manufacture that isolation might, be a r bless-, ins in disguise! 1 etinrtilatins patriotism, and showing fha't the'•£6o,ooo,ooo'we now spend annually on imported merchandise £an be better applied in encouraging the skill nnd industry of our own people'. . . . . Why not cut our coat according to Our cloth and according to our own designer'not to British patterns? We consult the Admiralty as to the class of ship. But the strength of tho Navy is a matter for. ourselves. We cannot protect our oversea commerce -any more than little Denmark could protect its large trade with . Great Britain if the latter were engaged in war with Germany. We have a trade, however, between the Stales themselves and with New Zealand of about .£50,000,000 • annually. Let us try to protect that. We ought to be able to do so without having to build a squadron consisting of 52 ships and costing, in the course of twenty-two years,