DEFENCE MATTERS.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 853, 30 March 1903, Page 2

DEFENCE MATTERS.

LOCAL AND IMPERIAL,

By .telegraph—Press Association-* .Copyright. Received 5.26 p.m., March 29.

LONDON, March 28

The Duke of Devonshire stated, in the House of Lords, that it was necessary one hundred and twenty thousand troops should be available for service abroad, to secure India against internal disturbance, and to protect the Indian, Canadian, and the West Africa frontiers and naval bases, also to strike a decisive blow against Powers invulnerable against the operations of the fleet.

Received 5.26 p.m., March 29.

.SYDNEY, March 29

The Sunday Times publishes an interview with Mr Heard, on qne;,-’ lions of local and Imperial defence. Itwould, lie states, he unwise for either Australia or New Zealand to undertake the raising of a local navy for local defence. Apart from tiic expense, which would he an intolerable burden, Australia and i New Zealand would have to be defended in their commerce all the way from here to London. Therefore British and Australian defences arc so much the one problem that they can scarcely be considered separately. It is unlikely, that Australasia would be seriously threatened unless the British power were broken. In that event our navy would not avail us long. *Thc great sea fight of the future would not he fought in Australian waters. A local navy for Australian defence would not have taken any appreciable share in the defence of the Empire, nor would it be entitled to a share of the glory of victory. It is an incontcstible proposition that an Australian squadron, to be fully effective, must he entirely at the disposal of the British naval authorities. There was iust the possibility.that an independent navy might be the beginning of a movement for separation front the Motherland. On questions of naval defence and a preferential, tariff, his view was entirely in line with that of Mr.Seddon. They feared there might be an anti-imperial un-der-current in the agitation for a local navy, as in opposition to preferential trade,