The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY. MARCH 20. 1880.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIII, Issue 5949, 20 March 1880, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY. MARCH 20. 1880.

The attention attracted by Mr Btaseey’s paper on the Empire marks a great stride of public opinion in England towards Imperial unity. When three years ago Sir Julius Vogel wrote on the subject, he did so iu the: tone of a man hoping rather to awaken interest than to produce a grand practical result. He achieved his object, for be selected a time when public opinion was changing from th e. lamer fuire disintegration policy of the Liberals to the Imperialistic aspirations’ of the Conservatives. Qn that occasion neither he nor his fellow-workers in the cause of Imperial union bad any reason to find fault With the reception of their ideas. Since then the subject has been kept very muph before the public. Public speakers made frequent allusions to it, and the editors of magazines found it to their interest to allow their pages to teem with articles upon it. It is easy to understand how Mr 1 Brassey’a address to tl?e Bradford Chamber of Commerce should have inet with sympathetic reception. The time when the mention of colonial questions was regarded by Parliament and society as soporifics has, it is evident, gone by. The new era does not, however, find the subject any simpler. When it was merely a question of arousing interest, the glowing periods of Sir Julius Vqgel, warm with hope, instinct with Imperial ideas, were sufficient for their purpose. Though:.; tinged with something too much of the despotic colour, they were, with the similar writings of , the time, received with considerable satisfaction. The instructors of public opinion must now take another step. It is necessary not only to show how the unity of the Empire is desirable, but to propound some feasible scheme to prove that union is attainable. With this difficulty of the subject Mr Brassey has found himself unable to deal. He cannot do more than hint at 'the various knotty points in the problem. He acknowledges that the Government of the united Empire.is a stumbling block, and professes himself content with the theories of Sir Julius Vogel of New Zealand, and Mr Strangways of South Australia. He reviews the state of the Colonial trade, dwelling on its magnitude and its value to the Mother Country. He compares its progress with the progress of the trade with other countries, and he concludes, as it has been argued before, that trade must follow the flag. He quotes a very spirited passage from the “Recollections and Suggestions ” of Earl Russell, and he speaks, iu an impressive way, of the loyalty of the Colonies to the Mother Country. But, , with all this, he is unable to see his way through the difficulties which bar the way to a federation of the Empire, composed chiefly of warring tariffs, diverse political interests, contending national aspirations, enormous distances, and the great question of representation. Hence he is glad to pass from the greater subject of Imperial union to the smaller subject of the maritime defence of the Empire. ’■ | On this question of defence, Mr Brassey is more at Lome, as the readers of his address are also. Both find in it something tangible and definite which can be grasped. It is in his admission of the preliminary necessity of Federation that Mr Brassey gives the key note of his ideas. When he speaks of the advantages of a comprehensive system of defence, he intends to apply a powerful argument to the furtherance of the theory of a Federated Empire. This is probably a fatal mistake. So much is to be said for a general scheme of Imperial maritime defence that such a scheme can be discussed on its own merits without reference to any other principle. The best way to us j i the defence question as an aid to the advancement of the greater principle, would he to establish a system of defence with a view to waiting for its eventual development into a scheme of federation, thus enlisting as an ally the process of gradual change, founded on community of general interests. But this error does not prevent Mr Brassey’s ideas on the details of maritime defence from receiving the attention which they deserve. Mr Brassey does not speak with the authority of an engineer officer, hut he has travelled over most of the ocean routes of which he treats, and he has made himself master of the various reports and writings of military men which are as numerous as they are valuable. There are a few inaccuracies in his account of what he has seen or picked up from other sources, the absence of which might - Have been very well afforded. For instance, when showing the progress of Colonial defence preparations, ho assigns the Cerberus to Sydney instead of to Melbourne, and he speaks of Tasmania as if the 800 Volunteers of that Colony (imperfectly trained) were the only specimens of a Volunteer Force to he found in all Australasia. Now, as everybody, knows, Volunteers |are |to be seen in very respectable numbers, and of considerable efficiency, in all the larger Australian Colonies. Mr Brassey would not have weakened his case by making mention of them in his account of their resources for defence. The same remark may he made, about his allusion to New Zealand, his knowledge of which in these matters appears to be confined to the existence of the Armed. Constabulary, which ho describes as “an efficient militia as a protection against the Maoris/’ He evidently has never seen the return to June 30 last, presented to Parliament, which places our Volunteer army at 8000 men, of course exclusive of Cadets, and gives the ordnance of the country at 74 guns, including 11 seven-ton guns for harbour defenbe. ll sixty-four pounders, and 11 2-5 mortars. /. But these omissions and<inaccuracies are natural

enough ini a writer .who does not pretend to be-exhaustive. ■ He has after all said quite enough to prove liis assertion that the Colonies f are ready to, spend money and raise men in their own defence. ' ‘ The gist of ,Mr Braasey’s observations on » maritime defence tends to show that there is but little difficulty to be encountered or expense to be incurred. Wo want plenty of coaling stations which we can defend without ironclads, with a few he&vy guns and plenty of . torpedoes. These stations once established in safety from attack will become' the basis for the operations of innumerable cruisers of the Boyal Navy , and of the better class of swift steamers drafted from the mercantile marine. and armed for coping with the predatory efforts of the enemy, of which we bear a great deal just - now in connection with the Enssian preparations in North American dockyards. Upon this question of employing merchant steamers Mr Brassey gives some very good advice to the Imperial authorities, showing bow ships can be built in accordance with fighting requirements at comparatively small cost to the country, and how they can be made available for immediate service when called upon. And here, unless the Government has, as it is not probable it has, thrown a commendable veil of secrecy ~ over its measures, Mr Brassey’s remarks are a severe but just reflection upon the conduct of the Government. The most satisfactory statement in the whole address regards the question of cost, which in all brave schemes is usually the most unsatisfactory. When the public is told authoritatively that the principal coaling stations on the great Indian, Chinese, and Australian routes can be made safe, for ah expenditure of less than a million sterling, the public must look upon the problem of the maritime defence of the Empire as very much simplified. It is not too muoh to expect, considering the attention which Mr Brassey’s address has excited, that the pressure of public opinion will be soon exercised upon Government to get this important matter placed on a proper footing. One result no doubt will be that the labours of the Colonial Defence Commission now: sitting will not be thrown away for want of appreciative public interest.