The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, May 11, 1912. “SPOILT CHILDREN.”

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1042, 11 May 1912, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, May 11, 1912. “SPOILT CHILDREN.”

British dependencies in their youth, vigour and self assurance, have got into the habit of believing that they are more necessary to the Old Laud than the Old Land is to them. There is a disposition in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada to resent any “interference” on the part of the Home authorities. It would be reasonable enough if the Dominions were able to carry on without the linaucial aid of British sovereigns and the power of the British navy. Very curiously it is in Australia that the twaddle about “cutting the painter” and “independence” is the most common, and Australia, when it decided to invest in a navy actually seemed to believe that its pititul little pieces of ironmongery would be able to keep its enormous coast line sale in the time of trouble. By a fortuitous mistake and inconsonauce with his extra-imperialism Sir Joseph Ward declared against any infant navy for New Zealand believing that the supposed selfprotection of New Zealand by a mosquito war fleet would lead to the whole or partial withdrawal of the British naval squadron. It is an axiom that the British authorities are always calm and always kind. An irritated Colony which is defended with Downing Street, condemns British administration, suggests that John Bull is an old fool who knows nothing about running Colonies, and makes a noise. John Bull, because he has so much real international trouble to handle, keeps on making concessions to his own Colonies. His attitude is probably “all right then ! If you want a navy to play with go anead I won’t stop you. Besides, I want my owu navy to hove around in the Atlantic, in the North Sea, iu the Straits 01 Gibraltar, iu the Mediterranean.” And so . Australia, Canada and even South Africa with eighteenpenny navies of their owu believe they have grown to nationhood. Their nationhood is essentially the same as the manhood of the raw youth, who indulges iu expensive habits and expects his father to pay the piper. The lacts about naval protection iu the Colonies are, that now and iu the future the British navy will continue to do the real work, both as guardian and by its tremendous world influence, and that the teeming millions of Home folk will pay the largest proportion of the bill, while we in these distant Colonies do the liag-waggiug and advertising. New Zealand’s Dieahuougnt was a smart advertising idea and it “look,” but the Home Country would have had that Dreadnought all the same even if we hadn’t bought it with our grandchildren’s money. It doesn’t hurt iu these days of Colonial “independence” to mention that in the most trying times of Colonial life the Old Country alone made it possible to colonise these great lauds, that it supplied the very necessary naval and military deieuce without payment, and took the hardest part of the administration duties. The absurdity of fag ends of Colonial navies partially independent of admiralty control is patent to most people. Their swaggering little navies are vastly costly affairs, they are difficult to handle, and there will be trouble between them and the Admiralty when they are put to the use for which they were built. The Old Country runs its navy 40 per cent, cheaper ihau any Dominion is able to ; therefore there is no excuse for the expenditure by a Dominion iu tin-pot semi independent navies of their owu. In our view it has always been a mistake to permit British Colonies to decide its naval contributions. John Bull is the proper authority tor rating the whole Empire served by the Royal Navy with its cost.