ESTABLISHED 1866. The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. MONDAY, JULY 20, 1914. THE NAVAL DEFENCE QUESTION.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVIII, Issue 168, 20 July 1914, Page 4

ESTABLISHED 1866. The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. MONDAY, JULY 20, 1914. THE NAVAL DEFENCE QUESTION.

H.M.S. Philomel has been duly taken over from the British Admiralty by the New Zealand Government, and \ we have now made a formal start j with the absurd local navy scheme so dear to the heart of Mr James Allen, j but regarded, we believe, with scant enthusiasm by Mr Massey. j There was no firing of guns, or blowing of trumpets, brazen or human, when, ' on Wednesday hist, the Philomel was transferred to New Zealand control. There was not any official function at all,' and so far as the public were concerned the transference of a coal- \ hulk from one shipping company to another would not have left them more unmoved than did the formal

\ inauguration of New Zealand'sinavy. ' 'j The fact is that no one except Mr } j Allen has any confidence in or any ; j liking for the local navy scheme. ; t Members of the Government declare, j it is true, in the House thaib they j "warmly approve the far-seeing ; policy of the Minister for Defence"— J or words to that effect. But in the j lobbies, it is rumored, they sing quite • a different tune, and no doubjt with the fact in mind that our military j system is costing us close on £800,000 j a year, grumble deep and loud over j the possibility of the expenditure on useful public works being cut down j to make up for what is bound to be- j come, in a very few- years, the colossal \ additional burden of a local navy. At Home, in military and naval j circles, New Zealand's local navy j i policy is regarded with profound dis- . I trust, a distrust which finds expres- ! t sion, in the' Service journals, in •i strongly-worded articles. B Unfortunately, it appears to be | assumed by the Home critics that [i ithe majority of New Zealanders favor j IMr Allen's policy. Thus, for instance, j E the Naval and Military Record ot« May 20 contains an article which ! mabjes singularly unpleasant reading] ! for New Zealanders. The journal in question, after blaming the British. Government for its "want of statesmanship 'in dealing with the Pacific] problem." prdceeds to declare that j "the Ministers of the Dominion" (of j New Zealand) "are showing no great wisdom." Says the Record: — The whole white population of the i Pacific is not as-large as that of the : counties of Yorkshire and Lanca- ! Shire, and yet their politicians are talking menacingly of whafc they will do if the- Mother Country does not speedily come to their aid. This is sheer folly, because these distant peoples have^everything to lose by alienating the sympathies of the taxpayers of the. .United Kingdom, who in the present year are not only providing a large expeditionary force for the Empire, but are paying £51,500,000 ior naval defence. We who live on this side of the world ha,ve watched with admiration the growth of a spirit of\ independence in Australia and New Zealand, but we; cannot^ help wondering where the present ipolicy will eventually lead them. '' ■ " Mr 'Allen, we believe, is tremendously proud, of his scheme for training New Zealanders for naval service. That scheme is good- so ■ far as it goes, although we doubt whether the population- of the Dominion is, as yeffc, large enough sto allow of sufficient men. of the right class being procured locally to serve in the local , navy. In any case., the local training is of no real ■ imjporjiance when the danger of .invasion for'of_ interference with our merchant marine, is concerned, for -one/ single Japanese or German warship would be able to blow to smithereens any local navy this country is likely to possess for sfche next quarter of 'a, century to come at least. The Record.duly notes that the "politicians of New Zealand are busy-: ing themselves a scheme for training officers and men for service at sea." "Bu\tv" asks the > Record, "what can it all lead to?" If these two Dominions (Australia and New Zealand) /secure the partial co-operation'of .-.'Canada, the combined mov,emen;t will not provide naval forces half or even a quarter as strong as those under . the Japanese flagi , The only protection which;can be; complete must be afforded by., tih^ Royal Navy. Colonial .opinion lias not been educated. It is..'(fo'ijgpibten that the British Navy exists only that it may fight battles in'the last resort. The scheme of British defence presumes that the combined naval forces under the White Ensign will be maintained -ai?: f such a strength as will make war an unprofitable venture on thep.arit ofi any other country. Whatever isolated action the i Dominions may, take —and they are well advised v to provide -local flotillas —the main defence of every Imi perial interest 'will■ continue to be the great batifcle "fl-eets, and not local forces^ however' numerous the lat- ( ter may be."' 'Colonial politicians, • by ; encouraging ' their followers to place confidence in localised forces, ; are incurring S 'grave peril at the very moment : t v British supremacy-—the''general supremacy of the seas^i^i&idire seriously ciijai-.. lenged tliail"at l'any time during the past hundred..yeaijs. Our D^hedin :-'contemporary, \the , Evening Star, refers to the Record's article as ''this' humiliating castigation," and declares that the obvious comment is that.the people of New Zealand are noi quite as backward as the editor of the Record, "misled by our politicians, imagines.'' The Stair declares with perfect truth that "Mr Allen does not represent even a fraction of the people in his views | on naval defence." The Star says: i "Our policy, first, last, and all the time, must be 'Trust the Ad- \ miralty' ''; and continues: ' 'We raise ; no objection to the training of our' own personnel .... and there is! no objection to the protection of our ■ harbors and so on, Subject to the ap- ] proval of the Admiralty as to its! necessity and the means to be j adopted." The supreme need, how-j ever, says our Dunedin contemporary, j tis that "our politicians shall cease ; talking against and lecturing ithe Ad-, j miralty. It is the Admiralty and not j Mr Massey or Mr Allen which is alone . able to ensure pur safety, and we i must—there is no help for it—do what ■ the Admiralty says:" This is plain : j speaking, but it hits the right nail on ' | the head. Mr Allen may be—indeed, \ I we are xuye he is—sincerely patriotic ' j in his desire to see the naval defence \ of Australia and New Zealand depend , upon local effort and local control; ■ but he cannot he. considered an ex- , pert in ,this mrttter. In England ! expert naval opinion* is dead against _ him. It is to be hoped that Mr Massey, j who we believe is far from being so' i sound on the local navy goose as Mr ! ! Allen would like him to he, will exer- • | cisc a gentle but none the less firm ; I checlt upon the personal, desires and ■ j projects of the Minister for Defence. ; [Mr Allen, it is true, disavows any i intention of committing the country ; I to a situation of independence of the ; j British Admiralty in naval affairs, i But his local navy policy, if carried | to its logical conclusion-, can have no ' other effect. i