“THREE KEELS TO ONE.”

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 28, 18 September 1911, Page 6

“THREE KEELS TO ONE.”

FOll THE DEFENCE OF THE 4 . EMPIRE. Tiio sacrifice some years ago of the mush vaunted two-power standard basis lor t.hs first lino of tire Biitish imperial -defences was referred to at the Navy League Conference in Wellington on Wednesday evening last by Mr W.. J. Napier, of Auckland, who mov-., cd:— ‘'That, in tiie opinion of tins conference, the maintenance of the integrity of the omnire and the adequate protection of its commerce require the immediate recognition by the Imperial Government of the principle of laying down two keels for one in relation to the Gprnnui Navy.” The -motion .was seconded by Mr R. Darroch (Wellington), hut did not meet with general support. Mr' Jus. Allen thought that the conference would be well advised to leave the settlement of this question to the Motherland. The. two keels to one policy was an accepted article of policy by both political parties in England, so far as British predominance in the North Sea was concerned. But it was the opinion of thoughtful men, an opinion which he shared, and which was being accepted by an increasing majority of people, that two keels to one would not do for the defence of the Empire. 'I he Admiralty had arrived at the conclusion, and this conclusion, lie believed, was endorsed by the Admiralty, that the stratogic. l situation qf the Empire, having regard to the developments of the great Eastern motions, azv.l the changed conditions m the Pacific, demanded the creation of an Eastern fleet of Empire. He referred Mr Napier to a recent article on the subject of Asiatic immigr.tion, by the editor of the Sydney “Bulletin.”- . In that article it was pointed out that the advocacy of a white Australia involved certain consequences and certain inevitable responsibilities. To close the door to the Japanese immigrant was in effect to administer a slap in the face to a. powerful nation which was at present attached to the Mother Country by a friendly alliance. In the opinion ol the “Bulletin” writer—the speaker did hot agree with him—the perpetuation of the white Australia policy implied, ultimately, cutting the painter, if the Mother Country did not. endorse that'policy. He (Mr Allen) declared that such a contingency as a hostile alliance between Japan and Germany should lie regarded as a factor in the future naval situation in the Pacific, a situation which could net possibly be faced on the basis of two keels to one. The principle of strategy involved in the event - of such a .combination was to prevent the jnnctioriyof forces. Hence the necessity for the Eastern fleet. The nucleus of th.it fleet was set clown at three armoured cruisers, nine cruisers of .the Bristol class, 18 destroyers of the-same class, and nine submarines of the C class. Australia was to provide a third of this fleet. As for the suggestion that thhsO dominions would, have to bode-r fended in the North Sea, he thanked goodness that they had done with.all that- nonsense. The -Rev.. E. Eliot Chambers f upported the remarks of the previous speaker, and urged the withdrawal of the motion. ■ It was ultimately decided, however, to amend the proposition as follows :—-

“That this conference cordially endorses the principle of the parent league of at least two keels to one in relation to the next strongest naval power, and would express its henrty approval of the gradual building up of an Eastern fleet of the Empire.' ’ This was adopted.