COLONIES AND IMPERIAL DEFENCE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 27, 1 February 1913, Page 10

COLONIES AND IMPERIAL DEFENCE

TWO POINTS OF VIEW. In tt eating of the Canadian piovision for the Nu\y the Outlook says :— "There is nothing Mny now in tins idea of calling our ou-iM-a fellow -Mibjcets to our counsels through the Committee of Dofence. Tho Prime Minister has again and again invited Colonial representatives when certain questions of special interest to anj particular Dominion or Colony was being considered. The new proposal is only a natural development of these incidents. It will suffice for the present to bring tho responsible representatives of the Dominions into touch with tho "arcana Imperii," a necessary sequel to these generous contributions of naval strength. We need not attempt to forecast the subsequent sttps in the same direction. A united Enioiie cannot be realised at one spring." _ "We have to proceed by well considered and well-approved .stages, and we have no doubt that though the dooivs of the Committee of Defence, in the first instance, the Dominions may advance towards a real and responsible participation in the control of those interests which are common to the Enipirc at large." The Nation t subjects the Canadian offer of warships to critical examination : — "Let us therefore be careful lest this new form of Imperialism gives us and the free Colonies a gift which neither of us desires. The Admiralty has already withdrawn the British taxpayer from the circle of this new benefit. We are to build as many ships as ever on our account, and to pay for the upkeep of the Canadian vessels as well, so that the Canadian Pailiament imposes, by this gift of "Dreadnoughts," a new tax on Great Britain. Germany is mostly silent and observant of these transactions, but the renewed exertions of the German Admiralty will, in due cour&e. respond to the Canadian stimulus, and the margin of our naval advantage will soon shrink to its earlier and sufficient measure. What is the gain? Ships that we do not want. 111-will that we do not want either. Debate with our youngei nations as to a partition of power that cannot be fixed on a representative basis, and cannot be equated as between communities of very different populations inhabitating wideiy sundered tciritorics. A simpler, wiser, safer solution was offered us. Why have we rejected it? Because we are afraid, the Admiralty governs the Government, instead of- the Government governing Iho Admiralty."