AUSTRALIAN NAVAL DEFENCE.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11151, 18 December 1901, Page 6

AUSTRALIAN NAVAL DEFENCE.

It is to ba regretted that an ex-officer of the Royal Navy, auoh.aa is Captain Oreswell, Naval Commandant of Queensland, should in any way assist the movement for on Australian Navy, and suggest the decrease of the contribution to the Imperial Government, for which Australia receives so large a benefit. The idea of an independent Australian Navy was hatcHed in the brain of either Sir John' Forrest, the Federal Minister of Defence, or of the "Age ,, newspaper. Both, support it with, all the enthusiasm bom of incapacity to see that the naval defence of Australia is not a matter of a few coast defence vessels, or of a solitary cruiser here and there. It consists of the presence in Australian waters of a strong squadron, which in the case of the outbreak of war could go and meet the enemy, not just outside the threemile limit as some Australians seem to think, but, if necessary, in Eastern, perhaps- in Chinese, waters. Those enemies of England which would be potential assailants of Australia must, as we have pointed out before, be met on the open seas, and beaten there. The suggestion that the Commonwealth should build up a navy of her own at the rate of one cruiser every other year for several years is the most utter nonsense that has been put before the Australians for many years. The first cost, and that oi maintenance, as even Captain Creswell shows, would be very great, and by the time all the vessels were acquired those first purchased would be getting hopelessly out of date. It has been urged that a> continuance of the present system for twenty yeara would leave Australia just where she is to-day. Those who put this forward as an argument for an alteration conveniently overlook the fact that the present Australian squadron is not to be despised, and thai in twenty years it will not consist of the presient vessels, .but in accordance with, the Admiralty method, of up-to-date ships. England can always find a use in some port of tie world for out-of-date warships, such

.as those of the Australian squadron will ba in a few years. What usie would Australia make of her antiquated ships, sup* posing she were to adopt the scheme propounded by Captain Creswell? They would be amply so much old iron on her hands. As against this foolish proposal, how full of common sense appears the scheme submitted by request to the Governor-General by Admiral In this he suggests that in place of the present auxiliary squadron -the Commonwealth should cause to be maintained on the Australian station a squadron of at least six flrst-olass cruisers in commission, two of them of the first class, of 7000 or 8000 tons each, and four of the second class, of the improved high-flyer type, with two additional second" class cruisers in i-eserve. These vessels should be replaced gradually by more modern ships, as naval construction advances or the increase of foreign fleets necessitates. The cost of such a squadron would, of course, be greater than that of the present auxiliary squadron, but one has no difficulty in agreeing with ilie Admiral that by this means the greatest amount of good would be obtained at the minimum cost. As long as the arrangement lasted Australia would have a well-equipped homogeneous squadron, in which old ships would be constantly exchanged l for new ones, and which could engage with confidence at any time the strongest force likely to be dtespatohed against it by an enemy. Comparison of the two schemes is impossible, because Admiral Beaumont's is so immeasurably superior to the other. We do trust that in their new pride of nationhood the Australian people will not hastily reject a plan of complete and efficient naval defence at comparatively small cost in favour of one which can be neither complete nor efficient, and certainly would not cost less in the long run.