THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1896.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10081, 17 March 1896, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1896.

The report of the interview had by our representative with His Excellency Admiral Bridge, as published in another column, will, we venture to think, be perused with deep interest by all our readers. The quickening of the public mind, occasioned by the recent threatened crises over Venezuela and Transvaal, when the British race throughout Her Majesty's wide dominions, seemed to rise to its feet as one man, ready if need be to meet the world in arms, has left a realised sense of the importance attaching to the navy, that was hardly felt before in the general mind; and in the circumstances a statement like this will be cordially welcomed as coming from one who has keenly watched events from a professional point of view, in their bearing on the position and defences of the empire. His Excellency's statement of the case is so thoughtful and so pregnant with suggestion that we cannot peruse it without seeing a iloocl of light thrown on many subjects on which we really required light and guidance, and without seeing the relations of the colonies and the mother country, the attitude and the obligations of each in new aspects. No one doubts the necessity that exists for the naval defence of the enormous floating commerce of the British Empire, constituting 70 per cent, of the whole commerce of the globe. But we frankly own that there lias been a sentiment ruling in many minds in the colonies, that in so far as affects the maritime trade between the colonies and the mother country the duty of defending it devolves on the mother country rather than on the colonies. To those who have thought so we commend the simple statement of the case by Admiral Bridge. Our commerce is of to England, of course, as is every streamlet that pours into that great ocean of trade, but it is simply indispensable to the colonies, and if suddenly arrested by the destruction or removal of outlines of ocean traffic, if our wool, our meat, our kauri gum, our products generally were shut up within the limits of our coast lines, even if those coasts were not subjected to the more serious evil of hostile occupation, the colonies would be swept with ruin. The ships that carry our produce may hi 1 from the mother land, and as such may call for the protection of the Imperial Navy, but while their withdrawal, diversion, or destruction would be loss to the mother country, it would be to us disaster. The idea, however, that the colonies have little or no obligation in relation to the naval defence of the commerce of the empire, like the belated ideas of the Little Englanders about the valuelessness of the Colonial Empire, belongs to a school that has almost entirely passed away, and the intelligent public opinion of all these colonies realises the obligation, and only differs as to the best way in which outshare of that obligation can be discharged.

And it is for the light it throws on this question that the statement of Admiral Bridge is especially valuable. There is no complaint in this statement as to the amount of contribution made to the defence of the Empire, but there is no mistaking the force which His Excellency attaches to the duty of a thorough local defence. The historical parallels which he draws be- | tween periods in which the naval Power of England was entangled in the work of defending local positions, and those periods in which it was relieved of this and left free to do its own proper work, that of operating on the ocean, are instructive in the present position of the question of the part to be played by the colonies in Imperial defence. As a matter of fact our meagre contribution of 126,000 a year from all the Australian colonies to part pay the costs ijif the Auxiliary Squadron is but a drop in the bucket of the £19,613,821 paid last year by the taxpayers in the United Kingdom for the maintenance of tho navy, and if we could not point to what lias been done in the way of local defence, the colonies would appear to play a very small part in the protection of the Empire. And that this is a legitimate plea may be readily deduced from the argument of Admiral Bridge, who evidently attaches a paramount value to the work the colonies may do, by completing their own local defences , as their contribution to Imperial defence. But there are two points in his observations on this subject that are specially deserving of attention; one is the value which ho sets on the personal element as compared with the fortifications and other

material&ments in the defend nf. port. 1% no means disparages SU M material Us of defence, but J*J gards as fiinore valuable the lituoat factor m |P«»fah«l yo ;,7 drilled inS And now that we I, expended llliis colony alone half a vtl sterling on defence works, lfc lb, last stage of f ooli , economy tolv, those works to a la 1 extent ine%„t for their iIU ' d =j purpose by lwjng them, if not insu*!; ciently mamlj at least '. byasufccienfained force to proUl(t them from frtlg into the hands of (| „ enemy. The Amd point, on v,hi -n \\ miral Bridge |s stress is th« Vil '. giving assuraig to the war .ships tint if they have to r| for shelter to a Port in the time oivar, they shall not U surprised by «ing the enemy i„ L" session, or to Jive left after" levyi t '„ supplies and lining destruction 0 < military or nail requirements. s-j,., a testimony asc here remb'ivd l, y j naval expert looks at the i,. lU „ r only from the ifcit of view 0 f a i,av t > fighting force—he, value of tie' A ,\ defences of .he Iks and harbours ] coaling stations, weij;h wiiJ, t i p Government of t| colony, and i:,,i, a serious considertion of the necvsMry of making morj adequate prov JU for an efficient (Ifence than lias be'-, done during the fast few years.

And here we < imot resist the temp, tation to comps t what is bt-iu',' ,j... H in this colony- ; fact, we mi-!,- Y: in all the col ties—for the c0me,,.,, defence, with iiat is being dune by the ratepayers o|the United Kii.Hoia We take it that eery intelligent. c;t : > a admits that wethave just as i.. nterest in defend of our shorts and u f commerce as haw the British Island, And how are wet realising the obi:.; tion? Taking last year's exp?'ndr.: 4( we find that for 41 the items of ! i:: J defence, the militaW, the fortitinti and harbour defends, there was vo>,i the sum of £64,676,\0 which if we , u | the subsidy to the Auxiliary Srnn-lf):), £•25,000, our contribution 10 the defies of the Empire amounted to This includes every that wenn under any excuse describe as given by the colony for the defence of tie- Kmpire, and of itself as.ii; intftul ptrt of tlieEmpire, and it was all really-expeinW for local defence in the tirsl in-Unco. That was about 2s 4d per l)a-l of the population as compared wit! about las per head contributed in theUm- time by the taxpayers of the Unf.nl Kmcdom for the navy alone. l) tl,.•[■>■ ii any colonist that does not fefl a twinge of shame at a position at onii so unfair and so ignoble, he is not of tje stud of which true colonists are mid". With more diffused wealth than tlivy have in England, with greater cruelty in general as taxpayers, with leas poverty and more general comfort we are simply resting on the British taxpayer for the safety of our shores and trade. It is not that we are asked to increase our contributions to the navy; ou> present miserable contribution 0 £120,000 a year from the who!" of tin colonies is a dishonour rather than 1 credit, and barely pays for the odd lihlpence in the various accounts of th naval expenditure. But at thleast, the colony and the colonies miglr. be expected to contribute something tt the defence of the Empire bearing a more reasonable proportion to that contributed by the United Kingdom when the object is primarily to place our own shores in a position of efficient defence. This does not arise in any way as a suggestion out of the valuable statement of His Excellency the Admiral on he duties of defence; but one can hardly peruse his remarks on the navy and its work without comparing the magnanimous conduct of the British Islands in this regard with the rather mean ™nd shabby part played by the colonies in providing for their own, and for the common defence.