The Dominion. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1912. PARLIAMENT AND DEFENCE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1547, 17 September 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1912. PARLIAMENT AND DEFENCE.

The wide.range of the discussion upon the Defence Estimates last Friday, and the temper in which a minority of the House approached the task of criticism, guaranteed a long sitting. It would have been longer had the Minister not been firm and tactful, anxious to satisfy oycry reasonable inquiry, and yet obviously determined to avoid saying a word more than was necessary. The country has no reason to complain of the debate as a whole. Nobody can hone'stly_ say that the different matters raised were not well worth raising.. The net result of the discussion was to show that the House is very nearly unanimous in loyalty to the .fundamentals of the defence system, and is in that a faithful representation of tho feeling of the nation. It cannot be said, however, that those members wore voicing any widespread or deeplyrooted feeling in the public mind who professed to feel alarmed lest the military character of the defence system might bring the people under the yoke of the soldier. This was tho attitude of the member for Avon, who wanted an assurance "that no attempt would be made to glorify the military clement at tho expense of civilians"; of Mr. Wilford, who talked about, without explaining, what he calls "the vicw- [ point of the civilian public"; and of Mr.. Ism and the other members who appear to dread as a sinister thing the ritual of uniform. Could anything be more grotesque than the suggestion that, m a country in which the Parliament, elnetod on n universal franchise, controls the dc-

fence system there is a danger of tweed-clad civilians being domineered over by tyrants in khaki and scarlet? We can only nuppuse that these members embarked Upon the discussion without a preliminary spell of quiet reflection upon the facts.

Very properly, the financial side of the system was lengthily debated) and if much of the criticism wits potty and wrong-headed, it is satisfactory that even the oiit--arid-out enthusiasts for defence are sincerely anxious to spend every penny that is required in order to secure efficieiuiy and at the same time sincerely desirous of not spending it jinnny more than that. This was tile mbst encouraging thing in the debate, and it is reassuring to he able Hi feel that there will be plenty of pertinent criticism at a later" date if tile Minister is Unable to carry out his undertaking Ultimately to keep the cost of the system at about £400,000 a year. That sum appears to us to be quite sufficiently great £ur some time to come, hecaUKc the Country must not overlook the fact that sooner or later, and sqpner rather than later, it will h c required to do something real in connection with the naval defence of the Empire. The very worst feature of the debate was the deplorable attempt by the incmber for Avon to represent that the salaries of the higher staff officers are too large, Ol"ic can understand the fervent' protests of Mr. Hind-marsh ! to him it is obviously a genuinely painful thing that there should be officers at all, or uniforms at all. With Ma. Russell the case is different. He may have few convictions of his own regarding defence, but he does know that the House and the Country are loyal to the principle of the defeitcc System, and he was a member of the Ministry partially responsible for the: Estimates. His invidious comparisons between the salaries of staff officers and the salaries of carefully selected officers in the ordinary Departments was merely an attempt to injure the system and the Ministry in the eves of the public. He does hot like being in Opposition, of course; hut that does not excuse, his trick of unfair and petty criticism. Several, probably, of those members who displayed so much concern about the military oath and the Cost oi dress iimformn and so Onj would be surprised and indignant if thev Vera told that they ate the spiritual cousins of those who unaffectedly hato and despise gtinS and soldiei's. let that would not bo an unfair description of them; for is hot their attitude one of resentment towards military things as things somehow antagonistic,to civilian life?- Time may be left to cure this feeling. The outstanding feature of the debate was, of course, tho attempt of .Mr. Isitt to persuade the House to adopt a motion which : would have wrecked the whole defenco system. For that is what would follow the adoption of tho provision that anybody liable to undergo training might evade training by simply declaring that he had a conscientious objection to it: The speeches against the motion cannot be_ said to have been particularly brilliant, however- well-intentioned. But speech was hardly necessary to point out the absurdity of pretending that anything can be kept compulsory by being made optional. The real question contained in the motion by the member for Christchurch North was whether'or not the Defence Act should remain upon the Statute Book, and that question has been, finally determined by the nation in the affirmative. By rejecting the motion by 60 votes to 5 the House did itself credit. The five in the minority were just those members whom we might have expected to find ready to assassinate the defence scheme. They are all of them —Messrs. Isitt, Laurexson, Payne, Bobertson, and Hindmarsh—members who have pretty often shown themselves to be extreme and extravagant in their views. Mr. Hindmarsh is on a somewhat different plane to his four associates—one may disagree with him and yet respect his sincerity—but the vote may be taken as fairly representative of the nature of such small opposition to the defence scheme as still exists here and there.