CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8065, 28 September 1887, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

"BRITAIN, GUARD YOUR PORTS." TO THB BDITOB. Sie,—The whole country has been stumped, from North to South, by our noble army of would be legislators ; and the whole beginning, middle, and end of their speeches and addressee has been the parrot cry of retrenchment. I quite agree that retrenchment is absolutely necessary in the case of this overburdened and overgoverned country; but, as a comparative etranger, it seems to me that amongst all their propositions for effecting that much-needed retrenchment no one hss hit the right nail on the head. Some propose to retrench by sticking on more taxes, like Mr. Dargaville, who gravely proposes a tax of £4 10s per ton on kauri gum as the only way to effect retrenchment. Others propose Gutting down this, that, and t'other; every proposition being uncommonly like that of Artemue Ward, who proposed to shed the last drop of his brother's blood for his bleeding country. Some of the proposed retrench" ments are wild, some impracticable, eorce silly, some dangerou*, j,ud all of them more calculated to inoreaso our depression than to help us in anyway. The oountry does not want the sudden cessation of all our public works, thereby throwing its labouring population out of work ; nor does it want the laying on of fresh taxation, as it cannot stand it. The proper mode of retrenchment is to curtail the army of Government hangers-on, free passes, and Ministerial perquisite*; to cut oil all expenditure that is not reproductive ; and to realise our assets.

Amongst the assets that we should realiae I plaoe the enormous and unproductive sum of £400,000, which has been spent on defence works. I thmk we might fairly look to the rich British Government to refund that money apent for Imperial purposes by an impoverished colony. Wβ are as much a part of the British Empire &e England ia ; and our coaat towns have aa much right to be protected by Britain as London or Portsmouth. We don*t hear that the inhabitants of any of the fortified to tens of England have to pay the British Government the coat of their or to provide their own fiueta. Yet, that k precisely what we are told to do by that same Government, and our extravagant and time-aerving Administration eeema to have quietly agreed to do so, without protest Was Sir Julius Vogel knighted for that, I wonder? We have no foreign euemiea who would injuie us, and never made any j for have we not always treated foreign representatives and foreign men-o'-war with the greatest hospitality ? But, should England go to war with any maritime nation, we are liable to have to drink the cup of the horrors of war to the dregs, without having ft voice in the matter. Our towns are liable to be sacked, our property destroyed, our bullion carried away, our (hipping burnt, and oar wives and daughters exposed to nameless dangers; and all for a matter that we have do more to do with, or power to prevent, than the man in the moon.

Now, I think, that aa our belonging to England exposes ue to ml these things, it is the duty of the British Government to undertake oar defence, as far as regards our coasts, leaving as to man and maintain them only. Therefore, I think Biitainshould refund to us that £400,000 that we have spent on the defence of our towns, seeing that these defences enable her to muster nearly all her fleet. for her own defence, because those defences enable ua x> guard our chief towns from England's enemies (unless made in over, whelming force), and therefore the fleet is not necessary. Why ihould we pay, not only for the erection of our batteries, but also for the cannon, store*, munitions of war, etc., etc. That ought t> be an Imperial concern. Our businesi should be merely to maintain those batteries in ;ime of peace, and defend them in time of war. This contention has beea urged on she Secretary of State for the Colonies, by Sir T. Uppington, Premier of Cape Colony, who insisted, when in England, that it was Eng'and's duty to defend her coasts, and thut colonial coasts were as muoh a part of th>9 Empire as the coasts of England herself. The British Government admitted that claim/ and are now about to oonstruot, at their own cost, a railway from the naval station at Simonstown to Capetown, in addition to ths other defences also constructed at the cost of Britain. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ; and, if the Cape Colony has asserted her rights, and those rights have been admitted, why should we not do the same ? 1 consider we are entitled to a refund of that £400,000, as it has been spent by ui for unproductive. Imperial purposes, and under the direction of Imperial officers. Yet, strangely enough, amid all the roaring for retrenchment thai; I have lately read, or listened to, I see no reference whatever to our right to den. and fmm England a refund of what w z have spent on batteries and war materia'*. Are our members all so confident of their own abilities that they all expeot to rise to such eminence in colonial politics as to deserve knighthood, and will not risk their chances by calling on the British Government to disgorge? It seems strange that that Government provides

fortifications, war materials, strategical rail* ways, and men-of-war for all parts of her empire, but expects the Australian oolonies to do ail ths.t themselves. It is time that they ehonld demand equal rights with the other parts of the British Empire, especially aa so much of the wealth of that empire is . derived from them, and their expense to the home Government is almost nil. That money whiob we have spent on Imperial purpose* would 'have extended our Northern railway from Belensvflle nearly to Whangarei. besides circulating tbe money amongst ourselves and employing our workmen for years. Why ehould we quietly agree to eink it in Imperial works, that will not only never pay ne one penny of interest, but also oost us a large annual sum to mac, maintain, and keep in efficiency.—l am, &c., W. J. ConatNK. Ponsonby, September 26, 1887.