DEFENCE SCHEME.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1836, 17 August 1906, Page 2

DEFENCE SCHEME.

PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT Melbourne, August 16. The report approved hv the Committee of Imperial D.f-icoe prepared at the re4ucpu ui duo rßuerai ooverntnene deals exhaustively with the question of defence of the Commonweahh, A second report -supplied by the Committee, covering de tails and est’matos of a revision of the coast defence, is seoret, end was not tabled lost n’ght with the scheme of defence. The opening part of the report discusses broad principles of Imperial and naval defence, and the necessity of maintaining supremacy of the sea. It says aoy attempt to wrest it from Britain can only be made by fighting naval battlo3 in which the main floats of the contending Powers are concentratsd. Although raids on distant portions of the Empire would only bo of secondary importance as an ultimate asset tho war must depend on the result of float actions, ThS constant policy of tho Admiralty is to keep British squadrons on distant stations sufficiently strong to protect (rade from the normal foreign squadrons at sea. Tae report continues:—“ The object of making the naval commander of tho China station responsible for the strategical distribution of oruisers on tho China, Australia, and East Indian stations is simply to ensure that all Bhips of the enemy in these seas maybe dealt with at the earliest possible moment wherever found. Closely concerted offensive action by powerful seagoing ships will afford the only effective protection to Austialia’s floating trade, whether on the high seas or io local waters.” ,

Regarding the risk of raids on the Australian ooast, the report says that so long as British naval strength is maintained, the basis of security cf command of the sea against all probable onemies’ attacks on the Australian coast will be limited. Hasty raids by single vessels or small squadrons will be checked. Discussing tho means of meeting raid?, tho Committee urgo the necessity of having fortified harbors of refugo. There is no likelihood of undefendod towns being subjeeted to bombardment, as an alternative to payment of indemnity ; even were it not the oase, any wanton damage would provoke reprisals which must fall heavier on the weaker maritime power. 1 Stress is laid on the need of defending the oable landing places. The only fortified forts required as strategic harbors of rcjEoge are Fremantle, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane, Normanby Sound, 1 and Hobart. i

It is calculated that the maximum number of vessels engaged in a raid would be three or four, with a dissmbarking foroe of one tbousand at the outside. The report says the chief defect of the I present Australian armaments is the want of homogeneity and deficiencies io accessories. A echems of reorganisation is outlined.

R-garding Captain Cre-sweli’s proposals | for a local navy, the Committee is if the opinion that the proposals appear to be based cn imperfeot coooept'ons of the requirements of naval strategy of the present day, and proper application of naval force. The repoit concludes 11 The natural , and legitimate aspiration of Australia to • furnish a distinctively Australian element 3 So the sea power of the Empire will find I satisfactory real's stiou in an increasing 1 degree when the tchorne, still in its infancy, initiated by the naval Agreement of 19C3, has bad time to take full effeot. Io I future if may be expeoted that an increasing nurnbor of ships epeciaily manned and officered fay Australians will be inoludod in the fleets of the Royal navy. This will in tints of poaca ensure wide opportunities

for training, and enhance the fighting I value of tho units to a digeee unobiain- I j able in a small navy, while in the event of war these ships will represent Aus- [ trail a, and enablo her to take a more

woitby share in the operations than if her

naval activity w»s confiaed to guarding against problematical attacks on her coasts.”

Received 11,3.5 p.m,, August 16. Melbourne, August 16. In the Semite Mr Play for J, Minister for Defence in reply to questions regarding the Defence Cnmm ttet's report, stited that

reports had not yet b ea received from the Government’s own dimers. A great many inquiries were rrqaiiol to be made before the Government would he able to say how far they aquiesoed in the recommendations. He almiited that he w. s personally more favorable to tho recommendation of Gap- I tain Oreswell than the Committee repre. flontalivea.