The Daily News. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1903 THE NAVAL DEFENCE OF THE COLONIES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 39, 13 February 1903, Page 2

The Daily News. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1903 THE NAVAL DEFENCE OF THE COLONIES.

, The London Times, in its issue of January 2nd, has a very strong article 1 dealing with New Zealand and Australian writers who have objected to the proposed new agreemant regarding the Imperial naval defence of the 1 colonies, on the ground that " the auxiliary squadron, maintained by colonial funds, may be withdrawn in time of darg?r in order to be used in the larger naval strategy, perhaps thousands of miles distant." The Times says : —" Such an utterance is nothing less than a direct negation of all round , principles of Imperial defence. If the the people of Australia were prepared to undertake the whole burden ef their own defence there might be something to be said for it, though not much even then. Bur, seeing that they are only asked to contribute a yearly snm of a little over Is per head of population toward a common system of Imperial defence, which costs evory m»n, woman, I and child in the United Kingdom no 1 less than 15s 2d psr annum, their reluctance to leave the supreme direction of the naval forces of the Empire in the , hands ef tho Imperial Government seams utterly unreasonable; • some might even call it shabby." The Thunderer goes on to point out " that the white population of the , Commonwealth is about three millions and thrte quarters, that of Holland is rather moie than five millions, and that of the Argentine Republic is about four millions and a half. The naval" expenditure of Holland is £1,400,000, i and that of Argentine £920,000 annually. " But," continues the Times, "having regard to the geographies! position of Australasia, it is not easy to see how it could be possible for the Commonwealth, if it stood alone, to avoid the influence of those forces which have compelled Japan to become a naval Power. Now the naval budget erf Japaa for the year 1901-1902 was £3,700,000, and this sum included nothing for interest-, sinking fund, or depreciation account in connection with former capital expenditure on stores, ships, dockyards, and naval bases. That the Commonwealth of Australia is only invited to contribute £200,000 toward the cost of naval defence—together with an additional sum of £40,000, to be contributed by New Zealand-subject to a guarantee that so long as the Imperial forces are ltfs in Imperial control, thosa colonics shall obtaiu a defence against oversea ; attack—tho only form of attack to which they are exposed - as complete as that which is afforded to any part of the Empire, the United Kingdom in-1 eluded. Surely the bargain is an extraordinarily advantageous one for the ptopleof Australia and New Zealand.', If they repudiate this ' cheap defence' of nations,' we shall have to say with Burke, in that context, that ' the age of chivalry is gone." '• If," obsorves the Times, " the financial t argument is shabby, and the censtii.u-j clonal argument flimsy, what are we to say of the strategic argument? Tie' only possible thing to say of it is that! it is childish. Tho bogey is conjured ! tip ihat 'after spending millions off m»nt-y in'keeping a fleet at Sydney ' during jaany yeais of peace, Austra- ! linns may wake up in time of war to \\ find their shores' without naval means' J of difi'Bco,' Now, stroDg as the British} i navy is, it is certain that, if ii.3 forces' l were dispersed all over the world for i \ the local defeji e of all the traasmariae t

possessions ef the Grown, it could ba smashed up in detail by a concentrated force far inferior in the aggregate to itself. . ■ . The claim of the Imparitil Government to move the Aug-; tralian squadron to the centre of strategic moment for the time being is merely a claim to employ it to the best advantage, and thereby to give the coasts of Australasia a measure of defence infinitely superior to any that the equadron could afford on the spot." The aiticle concludes as follows:—"Tbfi truth is that, as regards the financ : al aspect of the question, the Imp.-ri-.il Government never has asktd, andj luver wiil ask, the colonies to do more than recognite that Imperial unity has, is duties as well as i's rights, and to estimate its duties at their own valuation. Be their contribution great or 1 small, or nothing at all, it rests entirely wi<h them to determine its amount. But as regards the strategic aspect of the question, the broad and indefeasible principle has besn stated once for all by the First Lord of the Admiralty : -'lf the idea should unfortunately prevail that the problem is one of loc 1 defence, and that each portion of the En.pire can be content to have its allotment of ships for th<) purpose of the Separate protection of an individual spot, the "only possible result would ba that an en»my who had discarded this heresy, and combined his fleets, will attack in detail aod destroy those separated British squadrons which, united, could have defied defeat,"