The Press. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1908. NAVAL DEFENCE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13232, 28 September 1908, Page 6

The Press. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1908. NAVAL DEFENCE.

Wβ shall have a better idea of the exact nature of the Admiralty's attitude with regard to Australian naval defence- when the Australian papers come to hand. At present, it must beadmitted, the position is not quite clear. It is evident, however, that Mr Deakin was quite correct when he said, at the end of last year, that the views of Admiralty experts on the subject . of local navies were changing. The present offer of the Admiralty would certainly not have been made ten years ago. The Commonwealth Government's original proposal was that instoad of paying an annual subsidy of £200.000 to the Imperial Navy, as at present, it should provide the services of a thousand seamen, Australians if possible, for the warships on the Australian station, that the balance of the subsidy should bo applied to submarines and destroyers, that two cruisers, to be manned by 400 of the IGCO men referred to, should, bo retained on the coast in peace or war, and t-hat the Admiralty should further lend the Commonwealth two cruisers, to be used for training tho local naval militia. In explaining the proposals in the Commonwealth Parliament- last December Mr Deakin showed plainly that it was not suggested that the money to bo spent on submarines or destroyers should be limited to £100,000 a year, for ho outlined a scheme whereby in -three years Australia would have nine submarines and six powerful destroyers, at a total cost, for purchase and maintenance, of a million and a quarter. The scheme- now under consideration docs not apparently contemplate the. purchaso of tho vessels by Australia, and it varies in some details from Mr Deakin's original scheme, ljut the annual cest is put down at £346,000,- and that at Imperial, and not Australian, ratos of pay. But although tho viowa of the Admiralty . and tho Commonwealth GoTermnent are much closer than they would have been at one time, tliero still remains one point upon which they are apparently irreconcilable. That is the question of control. One-of Mr Deakin's aims in promoting the scheme is the development of the uaval spirit

in Australia, and he holds strongly! that this cannot bo done as long as Australia only'makes a money contribution to the Navy, and unless the proposed Commonwealth flotilla is undr-r , the control of tho Government. "Tho "whole control," said Mr Deakin in his defence* policy sjw-ech. ''would be in j i- the hands of the Commonwealth, but "if in timo of danger the Couimon- " wealth thought-that the best- interests "of Australia would be t-ervc<] by plac- ; •■ ing our ships under tho Admiralty, it j "would tk> so." Tho Admiralty did; not agree with this view, and stated j in the course of negotiations j that they regarded ii as essen- j tial that complete control in timo' of war over the local naval forces . must- be secured in the Commander-in- j Chief. "So that," commented Mr Don- j kin. "while invited to take a leading part. r " in naval defence, that leading part ■ "is confined to times of peace so far j "as control is concerned. There is to "be no leading pnrt <md no control "in timo of war." The Government again reiterated that tho control of j vessels built and maintained at tho; expenso of tho Commonwealth must! rest -with its Parliament, which would ■ place it under the Comrcander-in-Chief, > '"' whenever that was deemed 1 nows-' "sary," and the Admiralty has again; stipulated that in war-time its control ' of tho Australian Navy "must bo abeo- j •'lute." As a nvatler of naval policy j the Admiralty must be admitted to bo j in tho right, but wo doubt whether \ that view will command much support; in the Federal House, and th? ckwd- j lock appears to be tolerably complete, j The result of tho approaching debate] on tho subject will bo of direct iv tercet ! to New Zoalam-d, for if a working arrangement is arrived at and tho A us-1 tralian subsidy is dropped, the obliga- j tions of the Admiralty towards these! colonies, so for as tho maintenance of a squadron of a certain strength are concerned, will undergo material alteration. Sir Joseph Ward's state-! ment when lie proposes tho increato of i our naval subsidy to £100,000 a year should throw some light on the matter, which is of decided importance to i the Dominion.