MR BARCLAY EXPLAINS.

Evening Star, Issue 11695, 29 September 1902, Page 7

MR BARCLAY EXPLAINS.

ATJBBim MISREPRESENTATION. [Vmk Ora Pauuiorast BnoKna.] WEO.INOTON, September 29. H will be MedDected that dining the discussion on the Australasian Squadron Defence Bill Mr Barclay fell foul of certain members of the House. The junior member for Dunedin compKans that bo was misrepresented in a “jotting” which appeared in the ‘Stax, 1 in which ho was made to state England was losing, her supremacy. The hon. member bas handed mo his ‘ Hansard’ proof, which runs as follows: —“Mi Barclay : I shonld not bare risen to speak in this debate except for a slight misunderstanding that has arisen ’in regard to an interjection by myself on the part of the honorable member for Christchurch City (Mr Colima).—Mr Collins: I should be very glad if I did misunderstand you.—Mr Barclay : I • shall be able to snow that the honorable gentleman did misunderstand me. The point upon which ho was dwelling was a reference by the honorable member for Wellington City (Mr Atkinson) to the danger, in case of anything happening te the fleet, of the roads in New Zealand becoming Russian roads. I interjected that even if something did happen to the fleet, there was no fear of the roads of New Zealand becoming Russian roads .or the reads of any other country. That is the point upon which I took issue with the honorable gentleman. My reason for doing so is that it seems to me childish to talk m this way about roads that would be seized in New Zealand. We have before our eyes the illustration of what has happened in South Africa lately. There, a small State of 250,000 inhabitants defied for nearly three years the power of the greatest Empire of the world to-day. and there was no fleet on the ocean to stop our transports going to Africa. Our nation had plenty of bases in their own hands in Africa itself, and yet for nearly three years the stmgggle for the possession of the little bit of country went on. What would happen, then, if a Russian or any other Power came to this country? In the first place, they would be far away from any suitable base of supplies; and then, how many ships conld they afford to send? And, in the last place, how long wonld the men last in this country? They could not by any means send more than a few, whom we could make

mincemeat of in no time. It is intolerable nonsense for some hon. members to talk as they have done. It is like setting np a scarecrow to frighten birds in the fields. This country ia far away from any great continent except Australia, and cannot be reached without a very long voyage, in which ths ships of a foreign Power would have to go far away from their base for. coal supplies, for food, and for any other requisites. We have four times the population of the little Transvaal, and yet hon. members get up and say: " Oh, what a dreadful thing it would be if the Russians came here! Otrr roads would become Russian roads if it were not for the fleet.’ It is amusing, laughable, absurd. No person, as far aa I know, advocates isolation—that is to say, ‘ cutting the painter ’ with the Mother Country—and anyone who advocates that ia not only unpatriotic, but is not a very wise person; indeed, is a very foo'ish j*rson. It is to our interest to be attached to the Mother Land. At present it is to our material interest toi maintain that attachment. It is not only to otrr interest, but it conduces to our safety. We are at one in that. I desire to say, emphatically, that this is so. The sole point of difference with these gentlemen is that I think this fleet in Australasia is not absolutely indispensable to us. The interests of Britain in the fleet is the question. It is England that must need the fleet most, not us, because she mast have her food supplies in the case of war. That ia most essential. If war broke out to-morrow, as far as wo are concerned, this country is self-contained to a large extent. We can live, because we are not dependent upon outside supplies; but England, cut off Irom her food supplies, would starve in six months.— An hon. member: How would you pay your debts?—Mr Barc'ay: That is another thing, and it is not under discussion at present. T am talking just now of protection in time of war. I say that it is mainly for Britain that we keep the navy, and it is on Britain’s account mainly that the expense is incurred, and on that account she should pay the lion's share—tho greater part of the cost. I have no objection, however, to our bearing such part as we do now. Ail I object to is these bogies that bon. members set up and try to frighten us with to scare into paying more, on the ground that if we do not we shall be swallowed up by some other Power, on the principle that Bums tells us : The fear of hell’s tho hangman’s whip To hand the wretch in order. —The Hon. Mr Hall-Jones: They are nervous.—Mr Barclay: It may be nervousness or something else. I have finished. I do not know that I should have addressed the House but for the desire to put myself right with the hon. member for Christchurch City (Mr Collins) and those hon. members who have misunderstood my interjection.”

That Mr Barclay was understood by members of the House to express himself to the purport stated is shown by Mr Wilfoni’s remarks. It is well known" (said the member for Wellington Suburbs) to members of the Haase that the last speaker (the hon. member for Dunedin City) is a professor of constitutional history,—An Hon. Member; A lecturer.—Mr Wtlford; Surely he professes what he lectures, or lectures what he professes—a professor of constitutional history—and the hon. member has proved to us quite satisfactorily that it is possible to lead a man to a university and yet not be able to make him think. * I want to point out to the hon. member that the views ho has put before us are not aceptable to the House at all. I feel quite certain I am voicing the; opinion of practically the whole of the members to-night whenj I say that we have no leaning towards pro-Boer views. —Mr Hornsby : I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member for the Suburbs entitled to impute pro-Boerish views to members of this honorable House in the way he has just done?—Mr Speaker: I understood him to say that he did not impute such views to members of the House.—Mr Wilford: That is exactly what I did sav. Sir I was careful to put. it that way." I am sorry the hon. member for Wairarapa is stung by the remark. I never meant anv personal application to himself, and I make that explanation that 1 did not intend reflecting on him. I want to say that there is no doubt whatever. I am sorry the hon member for Dunedin City has ‘gone out! These is no doubt whatever that it is the duty of Parliament to vote the proposed expenditure. We have discussed the question and have considered the point of naval supremacy, which must be admitted to have been brought about by Knglaud’s great navai power We must also realise that the navy of England is the defence of England, and that the prepared state of her gUara;ntee of because it is a well-known maxim that if you are ore pared for war, you will probably have peace, fat if you are unprepared for war you wffl probably have wi. ’