The N. Z. Times SATURDAY, JANUARY 15, 1910. THE EMPIRE AND THE NAVY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7027, 15 January 1910, Page 4

The N. Z. Times

SATURDAY, JANUARY 15, 1910. THE EMPIRE AND THE NAVY

Wnn WHICH II INCORPOBATX3D THPS “WBLWHfiWOB ■ INJtrtPINDIHT.” , SSTABLISiISO 1646.

Presumably Sir Wilfrid Uauiier madaj a speech that Was not altogetiheH!, frivolous when introducing the Naral iDefenoo Bill into tlie Oanadiam Boueo of Commons an Wednesday, but beyond being told that .what he bad tosay was "necessarily brief" we are not] permitted by the cable ageocy to] know anything more ,about it. Instead?! ■mo havo been furnished witih an ex-J -bended report of the utterances which) fell from the leader of the Opposition-; and with newspaper oommeint upon,! tlio Prime Minister's attitude. Atj this end of the world we iaro tiherefora left without the key to such information as has been transmitted. It iij dear, however, that the Canadian Go-' vernment has adopted the suggestiona tnado by the Admiralty in regard to the constitution of the naval force to) "bo created by the Dominion. TJi» Canadian Government which (steadily refused to contribute a vessel to ta« Imperial Navy—indeed, Canada, an. like Australasia, has never paid a shilling to the Xavy-r-poiesented two plans to the meetings held in connection with the recent Defence Conference One incurred an annual expenditure of £4.00,000, the other of £600,000., The latter, is the one which

terms the practical basis of the Biil now beforo tho Canadian Parliament and tho recommendations of tho Ski ■Lords uponi points of detail have bo'j.i

adhered to. Thus Canada proposes to sot up a naval forco consisting of four Beaond-clas* cruisers, one, third-clas-i cruiser a.nd six destroyers, the capital cost being £2,333,000. In addition rfio will maintain tho dockyards at Halifax and Esquimault, tho vessels being divided between, tho Atlanticend Pacific seaboards.

For the policy whic4i actuates this procedure, both in regard to the creation of a separato naval force and the strength it is to assume Canada is entirely responsible. lb is neither approved or disapproved, officially, by tho Admiralty. Canada having decided upon her coarse of action and the amount of money sho would expond consulted the Admiralty only upon details of, administration. It would bo entirely erroneous to supposo that Canada's .policy represents What tho Sea Lords believo to bo tho most desirable to follow. "What it does ropre.sent is tho -belief of the dominant party in Canadian politics, l'liere is a strong and growing national sentiment in Oanada. The doctrine, •that witihoiit national patriotism there oan be no Imperial patriotism finds many friends. This brings us to what appears the moat significant part of Sir "Wilfrid Laurior's Bill—tie provision thiat the sanction of Parliament is necessary to permit the fleot being nt tho disposal of tho Admiralty in oaso of war. The mere inclusion, of a proposal like this shows how strong |Oainadiia,n nationalism must be. If it is passed' it will show how futile it is ito speak of the Canadian na-vtal force ibeing part of an Imperial Navy. Tho Canadian navy will be .a possible ally in time of emergency attid nothing 'more. It may bo that this is a sound ipolioy to pursue—'Bhat a country wihioh has no voice in making war.ahould be at liberty to decide when hostilities break out whether it will take any part in thorn. It is coritainly understandable, but we believe it to bo. dincmotriaally apposed to even a rudimentary conception of Empire.

part in thorn. It is ontainiy understandable, but we believe it to bo. diametrically apposed to even a rudimentary conception of Empire. • • * • » The attitude of Australia upom this pinnae of Imperial .vdrsus local defence is entirely different to that of Canada. Though the Commonwealth is undertalcing the administrative control of on [Australian naval force, subsidised by ■the British Government, it is upon (terms not of isolation but of co-opera-tion. '.The arrangement entered into j with the Admiralty is that in time of war or emergency or upon a declaration from the British Government that a startle of emergency esists, "all the /vessels of the Naval Force of the i Commonwealth, sihall be placed under .the orders of the Admiralty. Thus if iwar broke out the Australian fleet would immediately become a unit in the British Navy—part of a. truly Im(perdal fleet' so far as the Commonfwealtih was concerned. On the other !hand tlhe position of tho Canadian inavy would be indefinite until a meetjing of Parliament had been called to toonaidor. what it was going to do about the rmaitter—whether it was going to Ibeoome an ally of Britain or await ifurither developments. There is a fundamental difference it will be seen, between the two positions. » • • • » The attitude x of either country symbolises the outlook of its people, Canada looks towards independence in everything. A British defeat by a 'Continental power means less to her tShaa any part of the Empire. She could at least preserve her nationality —>or, at least,' tie United States is an ugly proposition which any assailant 'of her soil would have to ponder very deeply. With Australia, geographically ■ isolated ,and almost in touch with 'Asia, .the position is vastly different. 'A British defeat.'would leave her unIproteobed against invasion. To her an Imperial navy is, for tho present, a I feheet anchor against disaster. Hence j her willingness to co-operate in the way she has. Both the Commioawoalth land the Dominion subscribe to the I theory of "one Fleet for the Empire," •tut the measure of Canada's support fe best expressed by an additional word—" Sometimes." dearly when it] is proposed that the fleet shall not be at the disposal of the Admiralty until (Parliament gives sanation, the possi- j tdlity is contemplated of Parliament ■(refusing to do so. Therefore when we speak of an. Imperial navy in future it must "be with reservations .so faT as Canada is concerned.