NAVAL DEFENCE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVII, Issue 20, 24 January 1913, Page 3

NAVAL DEFENCE.

CANADA'S PROGRAMME

AN INTRICATE PROBLEM

(Post Correspondent.)

LONDON, Dec. 14. So much has been said about the making of "epochs" lately that it is difficult to ascertain where an epoch begins and where, it ends. There has been a new ebullition of enthusiasm in the press over Canada's naval programme, but after the first few days the leader-writers discovered that this was only part of the "epoch" which they said New Zealand ushered in in 1909.

There is, however, one very distinct difference between the enthusiasm of 1912 and that of 1909, and it is in virtue of that difference that the Pall Mall Gazette is able to write of what it calls "The Miracle of the Empire," and to quote the poet— "Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric grew." What distinguishes this present discussion of the subject from that of 1909 is the entire absence of any disposition to criticise the form of oversea co-operation. Tliree years ago, it will be remembered, there was rather an acrimonious discussion on the local navy v. contribution controversy. Now, that question might as well be dead. It is certainly not dead m Canada, but, as The Times says, there is very little difference in spirit between Mr Borden and Sir Wilfrid Laurier; and the actual form upon which the Canadian Parliament decides is no concern of the Old Country's.

The announcement that a Canadian Minister resident in London will attend the meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence created quite a sensation. Replying to a question on the subject, Mr Asquith said: — "The proposal that one or more representatives of the Dominions should be invited to attend the meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence was put forward last year by his Majesty's Government in the proceedings connected with the Imperial Conference, and was accepted as desirable in principle' by all the Prime Ministers." A FLY IN THE AMBER. Mr T. Gibson Bowles has raised a voice of anxiety lest we are going too '■fast. Quoting Mr Borden, that "no important step in foreign policy would be undertaken without consultation with such representative of Canada," and that this is to be "pending a final solution of the question of voice and influence" of Canada in the councils of England, he feels some uneasiness lest more should j be granted in the future, and adds:— "This is all very unexpected, and very, very, new. What does it all j mean? Is Canada to have a veto on the war plans elaborated by our Defence Committee? _ Is she also to have j a veto on every important step we propose to take in foreign policy? Is she alone to have such vetoes, and are j Australia, the Cape, New 'Zealand, and India to be left out of representation and consultation as well as out of the veto, if any? And is our own Parliament to have any share in the j right to previous consultation now j granted to Canada?" The Times steps in to correct this impression, saying:—"This very obvious consideration has no relevance whatever to the further question of the limits of Ministerial liberty and the nature of Parliamentary control over defence or policy or both. The I Committee of Defence can commit the j country or the Empire to nothing. It I has neither responsibility nor power. jjt is purely a consultative body, and juts character will not be altered by i.the appointment of a Canadian Minisj ter." . The Times continues to hammer | away with the demand for a wider ;■ naval policy altogether, and especially I for a square understanding with Aus- ; tralasia, which it feels has been badly i treated over the withdrawal of Brit- ; ish naval power from the Pacific. It ! insists:—"We must have a European. 1 standard. The strength of these ; must be absolutely distinct, and it is ! only in the latter that we must count : Dominion ships. The security of Brit- , ish interests in Europe is our own affair. Even if it were certain that the Netf Zealand Government may not prefer to have its ship in the . Pacific, it would still be a dangerous and indefensible thing that Great Britain should depend upon a distant Dominion to make up the naval | strength required in her own seas. I The New Zealand ship must be free Ito go and come as the Government j which built her desires. Any other : position would be intolerable. Howis she to be freed?" All this forms part of the very intricate problem which Mr Allen has to discuss with the Imperial Government. NO HINT TO MALAY STATES. Mr Harcourt denies indignantly that an official hint was thrown out Ito the Federated Malay States, | prompting them to offer a Dread- | nought. -He says:—"l have seen it hinted that this gift may have been j pressed or suggested from Home; I j should like to take this opportunity of emphatically denying the statement. The gift came to me with as ! much surprise as it did to the public. It appears that the whole councilrulers, officials, and non-officials— were unanimous in their desire and resolution to take this step, and from first to last, no member of the British Government has taken any share m its promotion." SOUTH AFRICAN TROUBLE. General Hertzog, Minister for Justice, says that South Africans were always prepared to fulfil their obligations to protect their interests, but because the Malay States had given a Dreadnought it was ridiculous to cay that South Africa must also give one. Nevertheless, he predicted that when the time came South Africa would be ready to do its share in protecting its own interests in the first place and the Empire's in the second. General Botha: "There is no need for nervousness regarding the naval question in South Africa. It will be put right soon, but is allied with many i other questions. Opinion in South Africa is divided whether to continue the contribution to give Dreadnoughts or to have our own navy. It would be foolish to make a party question of the navy. My colleagues recognise their responsibility to undertake \ the naval defence of South Africa as they had done with the defence of the country on land."