A.--4

64

2nd Day.} Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Your Houses of Parliament ought to have been out of existence 25 years ago, if that argument is a sound one. Mr. FISHER : You cannot keep a fighting ship in permanent repair; the Admiralty will tell you that. Sir JOSEPH WARD : As a matter of fact they are kept in repair now. Even on the 10s. per capita basis I am suggesting the utilisation of only half the amount that would be given per annum for the purpose of providing the interest and sinking fund, and warships that would be up to date could be built in your own country with great promptitude compared to what is being done now, and this would make for early protective efficiency without having the uncertainty that an inadequate fleet must create if its building up is extended over a long period of years. Mr. FISHER : I only say that I think it is a faulty calculation. Sir JOSEPH WARD : In my opinion, where you are providing for the full redemption of debt in a period of years, the argument my friend Mr. Fisher is putting forward is not a sound one, because the same principle applies to replacements. If you provide a sinking fund for the complete restoration of anything within a given period, there can be no such thing as. it being out of existence at the end of the time, otherwise no railway system would exist after a period of years has passed by. They would all disappear. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Railways are producing revenue, and they are therefore replaced all the time; but warships do not produce any revenue. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Railways are built out of capital borrowed, and not out of revenue, but out of that revenue there should be a sinking fund established, and continual repair on the railways should be effected out of revenue also. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Yes, out of revenues of the railway. There is no possible comparison between the two things. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I do not agree, because the 10s. per capita that I suggest takes the place of the ordinary revenue received from any commercial department such as railways. Howpver, I want to place on record my view on this matter, and to say that in mv opinion a position of enormous strength, with at least three of the most powerful battleships, could be provided for Australia; that six of them could be provided for Canada for dealing- with both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts; that three of thpm could be provided for South Africa, if South Africa required them, although I know they are in a similar position to New Zealand in the matter of their naval defences; two could be provided for New Zealand, and one for Newfoundland, and all the subsidiary vessels that make up fleet units could be provided for all those countries. In addition, ten Dreadnoughts could be added promptly to the British Navy, and all this could be done entirely by the oversea Dominions out of the proposal which I am speaking of at the present moment. Mr. BATCHELOR : That policy could be adopted now, could it not? Sir JOSEPH WARD : If you could tell me, Mr. Batchelor, what machinery there is in existence to enable all of the oversea countries and the Motherland to adopt a uniform policy in the matter of naval defence to make an invulnerable Empire Navy, no suggestion of mine is necessary; because at the present time we do not act together—for instance. Sir Wilfrid Laurier holds a pronounced view in one direction, and I do not hold the same view with him: the Commonwealth of Australia holds a different view; if it comes to individual attempts to act on the part of the respective countries, then how could we possibly act together ?