NAVAL DEFENCE OF THE COLONIES.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 4733, 15 August 1902, Page 4

NAVAL DEFENCE OF THE COLONIES.

Tlie agreement arrived at by the Premiers’ Conference in London, so far as it concerns the defence of the colonies, appears to bo in the direction, of retaining the absolute independence of Australia and New Zealand in the matter of their land forces; while at the same time enabling those countries to take a more active part than at present in the’ naval defence of their shores. In the absence of details, it'is impossible to arrive at the precise form taken by the new agreement; but, as Sir Edmund Barton declares it to be “satisfactory,” it probably embraces an extension of colonial authority and initiative in connection with the Australasian squadron, with corresponding increase of monetary contribution. The Australian aspiration was towards independent naval defence, while the iron, R. J. Seddon, representing New Zealand, stood for the maintenance of the Imperial connection. The latter view is undoubtedly the sound one—for half a century to come at any rate. We observe that Mr W. 3 r Napier, M.H.R. for Auckland, has contributed to the London “Spectator” an article on similar lines to one he wrote some months ago for our columns on the question, “Is a Colonial Navy Desirable?” Even those who disagree with Mr Napier’s negative reply to this question will be inclined to congratulate him upon placing the public opinion of this country on that important sub-

joct 4.' prominently before the Imperial authorities. His contribution to the columns (J one of the most staid yet autnoritativo newspapers at Homo displays some of the weakness as well as much ot the|strength of the man who has not comprehensively grasped the subject, yet who is so deeply interested in it from a local standpoint as to bo able to speak with much confidence and some judgment. What induced Mr Napier to address the people of Great Britain on this question was a suggestion made recently by the Commander of the Forces of Queensland that the Commonwealth should endeavour to lay the foundation of a colonial navy rather than continue “the present system of paying a monetary contribution to the Imperial Navy.” We may all agree with Mr Napier in his contention that any proposal which, if given effect to, would tend to emphasise the existence of Australia or New Zealand as a separate national entity, would not be desirable; but there must be some difference of opinion as to Mr Napier’s definition of “one of the so-called secrets of success so far as the belligerent power of the Navy is concerned.” The member for Auckland observes that “naval strategists of all ages agree that concentration of force, and not its dispersal,” is one of the secrets of success; but Captain Malian, who discourses upon the “Dispositions of Navies” in the “National llevicw’ for July, says “wo have the highest military authority for saying that war is a business of positions.” This definition includes the assignment of proportionate force to the several points occupied, and all this is embraced, Captain Mahan asserts, in the easy phrase, “the distVibution. of the fleets.”

But while there is apparent difference of opinion between Mr Napier and Captain Alahan on the subject of tho disposition of the fleets, there is manifestly much in common on the question whether an Australian or Now Zealand navy should bo created. A small colonial navy tied to its base would, Mr Napier thinks, be but a paltry substitute for tho protection of a great Imperial fleet, directed by ono mind and ablo to protect Australasia by destroying an enemy in the China Sea, before it could reach Australian waters. That is not, perhaps, tho direction from which tho trade of this country and Australia is most liable to ho attacked; hut Mr Napior is combating the idea of an Australasian Navy “tied to its base,” and never allowed to quit its homowaters lost tho Commonwealth or New Zealand might be attacked. Dealing with this aspect of the naval defence of these territories, Captain tells us that what we need is not a potty fraction of the Imperial Navy, a squadron assigned perpetually to these waters, but an organisation of a nav.il force which constitutes a firm grasp of tho universal naval situation. There is, then, considerable agreement between those authorities on tho question of a separate navy for Australia; and there is much force in Mr Napier’s opinion that tho moral effect upon the enemy of a strong Imperial navy would be infinitely greater than that, of “a congeries of naval atoms” scattered over the glohe. It cannot be believed that New Zealand’s safety from attack would he any the more secure were we to build, ennip and maintain a, fleet of onr own. Indeed, we are disposed to believe that its weakness would invito assault. Onr safety must for the present rest with tho Imperial Navy, and its strength,, efficiency and proper disposition are the mainstays of onr security and peace. It was Lord Selbome who said that “the Navy is the Empire’s safety,” and since our immunity from naval attack depends upon it, it devolves upon Ihe people of this country and of Australia to determine how much larger their con r tributions ought to be. We note with satisfaction that the Premiers’ Conference, in discussing tile naval defence of his -Majesty’s dominions in the South Pacific, has arranged, with the Secretary of State for the Colonics for greater facilities being granted for tho training of young mon from theso self-govern-ing possessions, so as to form an Imperial Naval Reserve. Since we cannot maintain a navy, we ought to be 1 allowed to offer our sous to the Imperial service, and bo ready to provide dockyard facilities for repairing war vessels and coaling stations for the convenience of the fleet. New Zealand’s contribution to the Navy is something under £22,000 per annum. That is relatively more than Australia’s, which last year amounted to £i2U*,UOO. India, it may be observed, contributes £161,600, and Cape Colony £30,000. But what is a quarter of a million compared with the trurty-five millions sterling that tho Navy annually costs the British taxpayer? When tho service rendered is considered, we might very well raise our contribution to £150,000 or £200,000, and in that case Australia might be expected to contribute from a million to a million and a half towards the maintenance of the Imperial Navy. That, with an indirect granfMn-aid to the British manufacturer in the form of preferential trade treatment, are ways in which we can share in the responsibilities of Empire. Having regard to the proposed rebate in Customs duties on British-made goods, the sum of £150,000 as New Zealand’s contribution to the Navy might be considered rather much, but wo ought to acknowledge out obligations to the Imperial Navy as our protector more generously than we do. While, therefore, this subject of increasing our contribution to the Navy might tie favourably considered, the establishment of a Colonial Naval Reserve, as suggested by Air Napier, and capable of manning the Imperial vessels in time of war, ought to be strenuously advocated. With sufficient training, we have no doubt that the young men of this country—onr naval volunteers would as. worthily stand the storm and stress of warfare on the sea as did their brothers in the recent South African campaign.