DILKE ON DEFENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 180, 31 July 1900, Page 2

DILKE ON DEFENCE.

LECTURE AT STATISTICAL SO-

CIETY.

THE COST OF EMPIRE,

(From Our Special Correspondent.)

LONDON, June fi2.

At a meeting of the Royal Statistical Society last Tuesday evening Sir Chas. Dilke read a most interesting paper on the defence expenditure of the Empire In the course of his paper he drew atr tention to the fact that the normal or peace expenditure of England on our naval establishment was now thirtyone millions per annum and on military matters over twenty-four millions sterling. Coming to the money spent by India on military preparations he followed the Royal Commission, and put it at a sum which always exceeded twenty-five million' rupees. It was open to argument whether the rupee, when spent in India, should be talsen as still worth 2s there, or at the selling rate of silver in gold, or at a figure between the two and the translation into pounds sterling of the Indian military expenditure depended on the price taken for the rupee. It was always at the lowest value over seventeen, millions sterling's a year. He then turned to the examination of the other . land forces of the Empire, some of which were borne on Civil Service estimates, being under the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office. These included the forces in Eganda, the Niger Coast Protectorate Force, the West African Frontier Force, and others, computed by Ministers to yield 20,000 to 25,000 troops at a charge of about a million a year on civil estimates. He then turned to colonial expenditure, part only of which was shown as appropriations in aid on the face of the Home estimates. Taking the expenditure of the colonies one by' one he added it up to half a million a year as a safe figure for the expenditure of the Crown colonies be : yond that on mere military ptlice; and one and a quarter millions as the military ' expenditure of eleven selfgoverning colonies on land forces. The expenditure on the land forces of the Empire in a normal year of peace was thus brought up to 52} millions, or 44| million pounds sterling, according to whether the highest or the lowest value was taken for the rupee, and the total defence expenditure of the Empire 83| millions, or 75J millions, according as they took one or other of the alternative values assignable to the rupee. As to the great cost' of our military forces, Sir Charles Dilke said it was appalling; but we are tied by traditions, prejudice, and habits Which it is hopeless to overcome. On the other hand, he said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in declaring that the absence of conscription was not by any means the sole cause of cost. Conscription enters into the account,, but does not at all fully account, or even mainly account, for the cost of our army as compared with foreign armies. The small garrisons were shown to be one of the costliest portions of our system, entailing as they did great charges for staff and transport, and involving much complication of accounts, for doubtful gain, and in some cases *rith the positive loss of efficiency to Imperial defence. Sir Charles, however, reminded his hearers that the self-governing colonies had made an immense contribution towards the present war. It was in respect of normal expenditure, with which alone he dealt, that the contribution of the colonies was small. He did not forget that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ceylon and Some other of the colonies had given blood and treasure without stint' towards the South African campaign. In con-, elusion, he remarked that his hearers would probably be struck, as he himself had been, by the largeness of the contribution towards the defence of the Empire made by India, and by the smallness of the sums which came from those portions of the ..Empire outside the. United Kingdom and that great dependency.

In the discussion ensuingl, Mr Spencer Wilkinson, the able civil critic of military and naval affairs, said he thought thai; when they were taking into consideration the general cost of the defence of the Empire they ought to keep in the account the amount of money paid in interest on money borrowed for previous wars. In his opinion expenditure on means of defence was an absolute necessity for every nation, and it was exceedingly difficult to say what was a reasonable and what was an unreasonable amount to spend. The society could throw a great deal of light upon the subject by drawing up some kind of estimate as to what had been spent in the past in that direction, giving the average proportion of "the income of any nation spent on preparations for defence. His impression" was that the amount would always be' found to be very large.

Sir John Colomb, M.P., said all must look forward to a growth, of naval and military expenditure. They might look forward to getting more for their money, but not to getting what was wanted for less money. Sir Charles Dilke had not alluded to the fact that the revenue of the United Kingdom had in no way extended in proportion to thatincrease of expenditure on the army and navy; but in dealing with the defence of the Empire as a whole they were bound to look at the means of meeting the expenditure in reference to the revenue of the Empire as a whole.

Sir Robert Giffen, the eminent statistician, could not quite grasp the precise object in comparing the expenditure of the United Kingdom with that of the colonies, but said it seemed to point in the direction that in some way or other the various possessions of the Empire should be made to contribute more than they did 'to the common defence. If that subject was to be entered into they must take into consideration not merely the revenue, but also the actual ability, to contribute, which was a different thing. If they compared the resources of other parts of the Empire with those of the United Kingdom they might perhaps find that there was some discrepancy—thateome parts of the Empire Contributed more than they ought, while other parts did not contribute so much in proportion. Treating it as a practical question, he could not approve altogether of the ventilation of that idea. Some of the possessions which it affected were selfgoverning countries like this country. They had been going on in a certain groove with their expenditure, and if this country suddenly came down upon

them and said they should contribute a part of this great expenditure, however theoretically right they might be, they would raise a political question of the greatest magnitude. Before any such question was raised there ought to be some great necessity pressing upon the United Kingdom. We ought to be feeling the burden of naval and military expenditure in a serious way, and it should be a matter of life and death before we called upon the possessions of the Empire to help in the matter. We were spending a very small sum indeed for the insurance of the British Empire. The aggregate income of the people of the United Kingdom was somewhere between 1500 millions .and 1600 millions sterling, so they were spending not quite five per cent, for purposes of defence. Was that too much or too little? If it was necessary to spend so much, this amount ought not to be grudged, and ought not to be considered an extravagant sum. It might be wise economy to spend that amount rather than neglect our armaments. In the present war we had spent one hundred millions sterling in a few months, and It was for them to consider whether, if the country had spent three or four or five millions more during past years in making the army more ready to take the field, they might not have saved the greater part of that 100 millions. As to whether India was not paying more than its proper share he called attention to the use made of Indian troops for the defence of the whole Empire. In that case the subject ought to be reconsidered as far as India was concerned, and if it was taken up at all it should be taken up from a point of view of that kind, and not from the point of view of relieving the United Kingdom.