The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1911. EMPIRE PARLIAMENT OF DEFENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 262, 15 March 1911, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1911. EMPIRE PARLIAMENT OF DEFENCE.

None will be found to question the sound- : ness of Sir Joseph Ward's contention, put forward in Sydney, that the greatest question to come before the Imperial Parliament is the question of Empire defence. The world-wide increase of armaments has forced Britain to undertake unexampled precautions against attack on Britain herself, or, perhaps, it would be more explicit to say that Britain's precaution in the matter of naval 1 expansion lias forced corresponding precautions on other nations. The tremendous expansion of the great navies has, of course, vastly increased the number of men whose whole energies are con< centrated on defence. The existence of so great a class of men is excusable only for their problematical use. It is the business of this class to increase armaments, to show the necessity for their existence by prophesies of war, and to hope that war may come in order that they may be used for |;he purposes for which they joined. The naval or military idea of the Empire's maintenance of her position must be accepted by the inexpert, and with the increase of the caste, the responsibilities will appear to increase, by constant naval and military iterations of real o) alleged necessities. The layman is unable to judge of these necessities, and the statesman must be guided either by the opinions of professional fighters or his own instinct. Sir Joseph Ward referred to the rather wonderful unanimity of the dominions in establishing what appear to be finer systems of internal defence than ever before in colonial history. He suggested that a new system of unity must have wide and definite provisions to permit local autonomy, so that the wishes of the people of each self-govern-1 ing dominion may be served. It may occur to some that the Kitchener idea of an Empire army does not specify absolute local autonomy, the Imperial ambition being that the whole of the forces of the Empire shall be made a machine workable in part or whole and animated by Imperial and not merely local ideals. That is to say, in a day of Stress the troubles of one part of our Empire should be the concern of every other part, and that any portion of th# Imperial fighting machine should be used in mitigation of the trouble. Sir Joseph Ward has shown that although by new organisation and system there is a better chance of the overesa dominions giving a good account of themselves on land, the present naval policy leaves the shores of the dominions in some danger. In short, in naval concentration for attack, the power of Britain might be ineffective in maintaining absolute Imperial supremacy and, according to the Premier, "some broader naval system must be created. . . . The Navy must be increased," and so on. As Britain is at the moment wonderfully increasing her naval power, it seems to be clear that the Premier advocates the increase of colonial naval responsibility. The "systematic localised co-operation of all parts of the Empire" can only mean that each part of the Empire must not only be able to co-operate•in a military sense, but must create local navies, which, if "autonomous," are not Imperial. The duty of the colonies is to the Empire as well as to themselves, and the duty of Britain is to the colonies as well as to the British Isles. There is no doubt that the systematisation of Imperial defence could be better if the Imperial Parliament of Defence suggested by the Premier were established. If defence is the most important question that can be discussed by Imperial leaders, it follows that all parts of the great Empire and its people should be represented when international quarrels are to be settled either by arbitration or arms. The presence of oversea representatives In an Imperial Defence Parliament, capable of helping to decide whether there should be peace or war, would have an immense moral influence not only on the nations represented, but on the nations from which antagonism threatened. Sir Joseph Ward suggested the inevitability of Imperial severance if defensive unity is not accomplished, his obvious meaning being that all history showed that small nations growing greater naturally sought independence of status, lived up to new ideals and fought their own commercial and physical battles. The Imperial family ideal can be attained and maintained only by absolute and impartial brotherhood, by defensive union that had no jealousy, no division and a general responsibility. An Imperial Pefence Parliament might solve problems apparently incapable of solution while natural intercolonial jealousies and misunderstanding of responsibilities exist, while there are those who believe that the might of the British Navy exists to defend Albion alone and that "dominions" is a vague term, not synonymous with "Empire." We believe that Sir Joseph Ward's mission in this regard is a great one. He cannot be guided by the local affairs of a million people, and seems to have grasped the true spirit of a united Empire. His belief that oneness of thought, action and ideal throughout the Empire would ensure the maintenance of its present position and make war impossible or unpayable to other nations is an agreeable and acceptable one. Britain as "the strong man armed, keeping his castle," might with ease keep the marauder away from Britain, but Britain is not the Empire. Britain as a stong man armed, having many sons also armed and living only to maintain the position of the family, is unassailable. It is for the statesman to determine how close the bonds of unity between the strong man and his children shall be. Probably both father and children are willing enough if tliey are shown how tile in'eat ideal may be attained.