IMPERIAL NAVAL DEFENCE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2077, 11 May 1907, Page 4

IMPERIAL NAVAL DEFENCE

Press Association. —Copyright. » LONDON, May 9. At tho Imperial Conference Lord Tweedmouth stated that as tho result of an interview with tho Australian delegates, he was now able to summarise the Admiralty decisions so far as Australia and New Zealand wore concerned. Ho was willing to leave continuance ol the present subsidy entirely in their hands, leaving them to do whatever they thought best. Ho realised that Australia dv.l not favor tho present mode of contribution. Tho Admiralty was willing to adopt the principle of Australia choosing for herself, especially as the Admiralty wished to bo relieved of the obligations of the agreement respecting tho strength of tho squadrons to be kept on tho Australian sin tion. Thoy wisliod to unite the three squadrons of Australia, India, and China. If Australia desired to establish its own defence system, tho Admiralty would offer no objection. If New Zealand wished to continue the subsidy, or establish submarines, they would bo afforded facilities to do either.

Mr. Deakin followed on tlio lines of his despatch of August 28tli, 1905. He stated that assuming ho had Sir Joseph Ward's consent, he should ask the Commonwealth Parliament to terminate the agreement with Britain and apply the subsidy to securing harbors on tho coast by protecting them. Thoy would relievo the Admiralty in war time, and also bo providing a base of supply and sholter for merchantmen, and would increase the socurity of their own traders. In the event of a cruiser raid, Australia would possess power of resistance in her own ports, also when the British squadron arrived they would bo able to some extent to supply reinforcements. Australia’s desire to terminate tho agreement was not dictated by the motive of economy, since her new action would certainly cause greater outlay. Mr. Deakin recognised the restraints imposed on the Admiralty under the present agreement. He warmly acknowledged the liberal manner in which Australia’s wishes had been mot, and was convinced tho result would bo to strengthen tho Empire’s position in these waters. Sir Joseph Ward said New Zealand was not prepared to embark on heavy financial responsibility in building and maintaining a local navy, as the colony had much development work ahead, requiring the expenditure of millions. They did not desire to follow a dog-in-the-manger policy regarding Australia. Ho would be willing to assist to release Australia from, the conditions of the agreement in order to obtain the adoption of a policy she considered would better her interests. He woidd consult his colleagues and Parliament, recommending this course, and leaving New Zealand free to make her own arrangement's with the British Government for. the defence of New Zealand. There was no need to hurry matters.

Tho Daily Chronicle declares that the mainspring of Australia’s new policy is a spirit of nationalism, perhaps a little protection also, for doubtless Australia will create industries for building her own ships. SYDNEY, May 10.

Tho Herald says the scheme of naval defence submitted to the Imperial Conference requires the closest consideration. While a system of port defence is admirable, it would be a most inefficient substitute for the Australian squadron. It is plain from Lord Tweedmouth’s reply that the Admiralty would bo very glad to get rid of the agreement with Australia and New Zealand. Sir'-Joseph Ward has wisely stuck to the old agreement, though the Admiralty showed itself perfectly willing to let New Zealand out of tho bargain as well as Australia. The Telegraph says New Zealand will now be left by the Commonwealth, and must make her own bargain; that is the conspicuously weak feature of tho new arrangeemnt.