IMPERIAL DEFENCE COMMENTS ON THE 'PREMIERS REPLY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2649, 21 December 1904, Page 34

IMPERIAL DEFENCE COMMENTS ON THE 'PREMIERS REPLY.

THE CONFERENCE WELCOMED.

LONDON, December 12,

The majority of the newspapers praise Mr Balfour's broad treatment of the family idea in his reply to the deputation which waited on him, and say that the children should, if they so wish, become partners.

The Times says that the idea of placing the fiscal question in juxtaposition to the naval one sets it in its true perspective and lifts it, out of the dust of the party arena:

The Daily News (R.) agrees with Mr Balfour in deprecating any bargaining spirit, but declares that if the naval contribution be overlooked the Motherland cannot in fairness be asked to tax food on behalf of the colonies.

Mr Grainger (Agent-general for South Australia), when interviewed, opposed any Australian contribution. He declared that Australia is and can be self-protective. Personally, he considered that the Agentsgeneral had) no cause of complaint against either Mr Balfour's or Mr Lyttelton's treatment of them. He regretted to find) that both Newfoundland and Natal loomed larger in the eyes of the Imperial Government than any of the Australian States. That was one of the penalties of federation, which South Australia should recognise.

December 13.

Mr Chamberlain, in reply to the editor of the Fill Mall Gazette regarding Imperiol defence md the suggested Imperial Conference, welcomes Mr Balfour's pro-po-als, adding that he is absolutely free to discuss any question of mutual interest.

Mr Austen Chamberlain, in the course ol a speech at Rparkliill, dM'elt on the falling ifcvei-ue t'nd loss of prosperity. He urged that although it was essential to maintain England's normal efficiency, the country should cheek unnecessary expenditure and restrict borrowing. He welcomed an open conference, as affording an opportunity for endeavouring to understand Iheir mutual standpoint. They must not attempt to impese on the colonies their own views of

what was for the common good,

Loid James of Hereford says that Mr Balfour's remarks are nebulous. A practical business scheme of Imperial defence ought to be submitted to the Motherland in conjunction with one of mutual trade, but it may be hard to arrange so complex ft problem.