The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2216, 21 October 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1907.

AUSTRALIA’S NAVAL POLICY. At it he time of the recent’lmperial Conference the attitude of the Commonwealth Premier, Mr. Deakin, on the naval agreement with the Mother Country occasioned something approaching consternation amongst those Australians who recognise how completely their country is at the present time dependent -upon the protection of the British navy. His utterances gave rise to the belief that the agreement was to be terminated, and that In some-sort of undefined 'fashion the Commonwealth was to arrange for its own protection. It now appears that nothing quite so dreadful was contemplated. The only dearly ascertained facts so far in connection with Australia's share in the naval agreement are tint, Mr. iDeakin asked for and obtained .from the Admiralty a sanction to submit to Parliament, if he so desired, a Bill to amend the naval agreement.

The question -as to how far Mr. Deakin will .ask the House to go has been discussed among " Federal members recently. The general opinion is that lie will not .propose the cancellation of tho agreement. It is considered doubtful if Mr. Deakin had gone to London with an oper. mind on the subject whether he would, after hearing the debates, have proposed any 'alteration in the present arrangement until the expiration of the term of agreement. It is well known that at the time Sir Edmund Barton first proposed the agreement, 'Mr. Deakin, as the second In command in that Government, was favorable to .the scheme. Doubts seem ,to have .arisen ill his mind in consequence of the .persistent clamor of local critics, whoso arguments wore allowed to go by ‘default, because tho fear •that the agreement would be interfered with during its currency was not seriously entertained. Doubtless it was this persistent criticism which led Mr.' Deakin as far back as August, 190-5, iii a memorandum to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to say, that tho “navel agreement appeared to he coldly regarded there,” and to idd that “.there is much truth in the customary interpretation that its want of popularity Is due to the fact that, except .to a small extent permitted by articles V., VI., mud VII., none off our grant is applied to any distinctively Australian purpose.” Air. Deakin went to London with what- the Sydney Morning Herald describes as this erroneous opinion as to the view of .Australia. 'The traditional policy of tile Imperial Government lias been to respect the wishes of the autonomous Slates in all matters in .'which their interests alone are concerned, and when Air. Deakin represented that Australia viewed the agreement unfavorably, Lord Tweed mouth immediately said 'that the Imperial Government would offer no opposition to its termination. it is from this point of view that Mr. Deakin has to decide on future action. It is (says our .Australian contemporary) considered fairly certain by those in bis confidence’that, after the fuller light thrown .on the whole matter by the decis’ons of the Imperial 'Conference, he would not now commit himself to the opinions expressed in his despatch of August, 1905. Apart altogether from the merits of the agreement there seems to he something almost whimsical, when sueli .a question as Imperial defence is concerned, to propose breaking through an agreement of such a

short tenure as ten years, when it has not half concluded its course. In addition Australian opinion has more -fully expressed itself .since Mr. Di akin’s return, and be can scarcely be blind to the fact that the ■weight of .public sentiment is entirely opposed to a fundamental departure from the agreement. In the next place, it iis quite impossible that any substitution tor the agreement could bo proposed and agreed to during this session. It would he well on in 1908 before any such .arrangement would receive the sanction of the Imperial Government and the Federal P.arllament. There is, moreover, nothing in Die 'present agreement in any sense repugnant to the idea that Australia should proceed to provide whatever other means it may consider necessary and practicable for its own defence. One criticism levelled against the present •agreement is that the payment of £200,000 per annum is a contribution inadequate to our share of Imperial responsibilities. If that be so there is nothing to prevent the Commonwealth Parliament inorcasingithe contribution and embarking on expenditure 'for defence works concurrently with the maintenance of the naval agreement. It is generally anticipated that this mill be Itlio general policy proposed by Mr. Dcakin.