The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1912. IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1552, 23 September 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1912. IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

It is interesting to note in connection with a question recently put in the House of Representatives, by Mil. A. M. Myers, who suggested that Now Zealand should'move in the direction of securing representation on an Imperial Council of; Defence, that this matter is'touched on in a valuable article published in the current issue of the Nineteenth Centunj. The text upon which the article 'is based is the increasing burden of naval defence which, it is submitted, cannot fail to exercise a profound influence upon the future relations of the Mother Country with the rest of.the Empire in the matter of Imperial defence and Imperial policy. This, perhaps, will'bo appreciated when it is stated that,' despite the enormous increase in Great Britain's naval expenditure in recent years. she is gradually losing ground in" her proportion of the aggregate expenditure of the eight principal Powers. In 1002 her share was 37.3 per cent, which in 1911 had dropped to 30.5 per cent. Moreover, Great Britain's ratio of increase was the smallest of any Power, with the exception of Russia. . The following table, giving the approximate figures will serve to make clear this point with unpleasant emphasis: ' Totnl Annual Nnval Expenditure. 1002. 1011. In In. Tnmil- mil- crease, nor Powor. .- lions, lions. £ v cent Great Britain ,'i!i} 14J n.C.it,210 "7 United States 16 27J 11,8:I5,G7;I 71 Germany 10 22 -11,086,788 110 France 12 W\ 4,520,690 37 Russia 101' lII} 2,82»i 27 Italy 4| 8.1 .1,539,940 73 Japan 3} 8| 5,(197,744 137 Austrin-H'gary 2 5J 3,197,7651 163 Total ....... 04J 147 52,656,803 56 These figures show clearly enough the enormous increase in the annual burden of naval expenditure and .ilso tho extent to which the other leading naval Powers aro creeping up to Great Britain. In the nine years between 1902 and 1911 the annual naval expenditure to the eight Powers named has increased by over 52 millions, while of that increase Great Britain was responsible ' for less than one-fifth. In other words, assuming that the money was equally well spent, the other 'Powers havo in every case, eiivo yuc iinjirovud.

their positions to a greater extent than the. Mother Country. In view of the position thus disclosod it is not at all surprising that the writer in the Nineteenth Century should raise the question as to what share the Overseas Dominions arc prepared to take of ■ the hpavv responsibility involved in the task of inaicitaining the supremacy of the British Navy. No doubt, as is pointed out, the Mother Country could afford to pay even more than she is doing at the present time for the upkeep and development of her naval strength and not feel the strain unduly; but should she be called on to bear the burden ? How much longer should the people of the Overseas Dominions leave this burden to their kinsmen in the Old Land 1 In point of wealth the British Empire greatly exceeds that of any other confederation and compared with its estimated national wealth the expenditure on defence may be regarded as small. The actual expenditure in this way is stated to be about £3 for every £100 of income. But the burden 'is not evenly distributed. The United ■Kingdom, it is shown, possesses 84 per cent- of the wealth, but it contributes 70 ■ per cent of the expenditure; Canada has 3 per cent of the wealth, but her contribution is little more than 2 per cent of the total. The following table, showing the national wealth and national income per lead of population, together with the national expenditure per head serves to illustrate the position: '

Kα- National Honal Expendiwealth income hire on. . .■ . per per defence lioau. head, per head. it -i ? ou ;i t . r - v - 1 £ •' •£ xs.d. ■ United Kingdom 351 44 112 3-'-■ Canada ■„• ;• 288 3G 0G 5 Australia S!B7 .'l6 10 0. South Africa 100 12 02 9 New Zealand ...... 320 40 "0 5 9 India in 2 013 'Does not include cost of Dreadnought. These figures obviously arc hot-up-to-date so far as.New Zealand is concerned. Since the introduction of the universal military training system the cost of defence has gone up to something "over 10s. per head, ex l clusivb. of the Dreadnought payments/ But it can be seen that even including the cost of the local military forces tho /people of tho Overseas 'Dominions; in proportion to their wealth and population, , pay very much less than their fellow-countrymen-in the United Kingdom. So far as naval defence is concerned the writer states that out of a total outlay of ~4b millions on the naval defence of the Empire, Great Britain contributes -15 millions, or 94 per cent.

But if the Overseas Dominions arc to be expected to bear a heavier share of the burden of defence they must have the right to participate more closely in the determination of tho dofence policy of the Empire. So at_ least runs tho argument in the Nineteenth Ucnlunj; •■ and so the argument has run for some time past in certain circles favourable to the creation of an Imperial Council of Defence. Tho scheme outlined in tho . article under review is in its essential: features very much on the lines of other proposals of a similar kind. The writer prefaces his idea with the admission of the: self-evident fact that "the problem of co-ordinating the United Itihgdom, the self-govern-ing Dominions and the heterogeneous communities of coloured races under the British Crown into an Imperial Federal Council of Defence is one of the peculiar delicacy and difficulty." His suggestion briefly stated ia to transform the existing Committee of Imperial Defence— which is nominated by the JPrimo Minister of Great Britain—into an Imperial Federal Council representative of the whole Empire. The most equitable basis of representation that suggests itself to the writer before- referred to, is one representative or one vote, on' the Council for every million of white population; with an additional representative or vote for every million pounds sterling expended on defence by caoh part of the Empire , provided suoh expenditure shall have received the approval of the Council. This would work out on the present state of things as follows:

ExWhite pendlture popula- ondetion in No. fence in No. i , ' • ""'- of mil- of Country. lions, reps, lions, reps. Tl England & Wales ,3G 3G Csj 6G 1O'» Scotland '4J 5 7} 7 !•> Ireland .(J 5 — _ jj Canada V 7 2J 2 9 Australia i\ 4 4}- 5 9 South Africa l| 1 | 14 New Zealand 11 J — j Mia - - 20| 20 "20 Other possessions — — — — 12 Total .59 " 101 174 South Africa is given four representatives, although only entitled to two, in order that each of the Federal States may be able to nominate a representative. The proposal is .chiefly of interest as indicating the lines along which the ■movement in favour of some permanent form of an Imperial Defence Council may possibly, run. The Council, it is suggested, should be as the existing Defence Committee now is, purely advisory. On the basis proposed Great Britain would

possess an overwhelming voting strength—ll9 votes, out of a total of

174. Various suggestions are put forward to meet possible objections to the size of such a Council assuming that the different countries thought it desirable to send their full number of representatives, instead of merely sending one,or more representatives who would' exercise the full voting strength of the country they represented. No country under this scheme would be forced to contribute to defence more than it

pleased, but'its representation would of Course be affected by the amount of its approved defence expenditure. The question bristles with difficulties and so far as New Zealand, is. concerned there is no occasion for haste. The Prime Minister informed Mr! Myers that the Government woftkl give the proposal that Ministers should move in the matter of secur-

ing representation for the Dominion serious consideration. It will 'be quite time enough to do so during the coming recess.