NAVAL DEFENCE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 44, 15 October 1912, Page 3

NAVAL DEFENCE.

STATEMENT BY SIR JOSEPH WARD. In the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon, during the discussion on questions, Sir J. G. Ward made a statement in reply to Senator Pearce (Federal Minister of Defence), who recently asserted that Sir J. G. Ward had made a statement that the policy of the Federal Government would have the effect of taking the control of part of the Pacific out of the hands of the Admiralty. Sir Joseph said he had never made such a statement. Senator Pearce had further stated that he was inconsistent. Sir Joseph Ward said that he had never wavered in his opinions, and, in support of his statement, he quoted . an extract from his speech at the Imperial Conference dealing with that , subject. Mr Fisher and Mr Pearce both believed that they were doing right. He had never jaltered his opinion .that it: would be impqssible'for any of the young Colonies l to build; up a navy sufficiently large .to, defend the Pacific. ' It could only be done |b£{ dn j operation with the Imperial navy. He quoted from an article which appeared in the London Spectator on August 3 showing that if self-governing colonies contributed on the basis of New Zealand’s annual contribution the whole contributions would be:—Great Britain, £45,000,000; Canada, £2,700,000; Australia, £4,500,000; New Zealand, £1,000,000; South Africa, £1,300,000; '—total, £59,000,000. Ho believed that something on the lines of the article would have to be done before long, so that they would have one great navy with a central base. Mr Myers urged upon the Prime Minister the importance of getting firsthand information concerning the secrets of defence and the foreign, policy of the Imperial Government. He hoped the Prime Minister would make a definite statement before the session ended as to whether ho intended to attend the meeting of the Imperial Defence Committee during the recess. Mr Malcolm said he believed that local responsibility could be combined, with Imperial control. “A fleet in the south would stimulate the public,” he said. Pic quoted the military critic of the London Times in support of that view. That authority held that the time had arrived for Britain to accept the dominion navies and armies, provided the vital principled’ Imperial control was retained.

MR PEARCE REPLIES. (By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (United Press Association.) Melbourne, October 14. Admiral Pearce, replying to Sir Joseph Ward, quotes his proposal to Mr McKenna, then First Lord of the Admiralty, contained in the reports of the Imperial Conferences. Sir Joseph | Ward said: “I, however, consider it desirable that a portion of the ChinaPacific unit should remain in New Zealand waters. I suggest that two New Bristol cruisers, three destroyers, and

two submarines should bo, detached from the China station in the time of peace and stationed in New Zealand waters, these to be under the flag of the China unit. The flagship should make periodical visits to New Zealand, and there should bo an interchange of cruisers between New Zealand and China under conditions to bc s laid down.” Admiral Pearce concludes; “If that is not a proposal to take the control of the China-Pacific unit out of the hands of the Admiralty, I would like to know what it is.’ ’