THE COLONIST. Published Daily-(Mornings). Monday, March 21, 1910.

Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12748, 21 March 1910, Page 2

THE COLONIST. Published Daily-(Mornings). Monday, March 21, 1910.

'"A SOCIALIST ON EMPIRE ..•.- DEFENCE.

sad Mr. Blatchford's articles been written by a soldier or a sailor, or even by a politician "of either of the great schools of political. belief in England, they would hardly have attracted more, than passing attention. They j would certainly not have swayed the recent general' election. All Mr. Blatchford's arguments for strengthening Imperial defences against the danger of a German invasion have been used again and -again by others, and English readeis are tolerably well acquainted : with them. But Mr. Blatchford is one of the foremost Socialists of , England, a man whose creed is utterly .opposed to warfare and warlike preparations, but who believes the Empire to be in danger and with whom love of his country comes first. It was for this reason that Mr. Blatchford's articles in the "Daily Mail'?, on "Germany and England" became at once the literary sensation of the year. Tho same reason that would have limited to the extent of practically their effect ;Vad they appeared, in the paper of which their writer is the editor, the Socialist. "Clarion .' ' "To be effective they, must be read by the greatest possible- number, hence Mr. Blatchford -appeared for the once as a contributor .to the : "Daily Mail." Mr. ■Blatchford's assurance that he did not write from political motives must be accepted. His^ own convictions are well known ; for them he has suffered much -without flinching, but, unlike the majority of Socialists, his Little Englan^ism: was! never of the rabid,description. .Himself an old soldier, he has- 'always advocated compulsory military ''"service, as much for other .considerations as for defence purposes. His attitude in. the recent crisis lost him 'the 'sympathy and much of the confidence of the Socialist party in j England, and insured his favour with one -of the -great "golit'cal camps. Clearly then hb hacl- little to gain I<y ■; coming but as an advocate of strengthening the defences of tne Empire, and

the fact that his advocacy lent strength to the claims of the Unionists was merely a coincidence. What Mr. Blatchford urges for Brita'aiis what New Zealand and Australia gained by their recent Defence Acts— a standing army of greater strength and efficiency. Britain, he says, has io maintain the balance of power in Europe. On tlie day whenshei fails to mainta'n the biilance/df power in Europe her fall begins. Now, he says, the command of the seas will not enable Britain to maintain the balance of power ; therefore the Blue Water theory is wrong, and Lord Roberts is right. Britain must have both an Army and an invincible Navy. If she had an Army of two millions of trained men of the best class, and capable otrapid mobilisation,, the balance^of power would be safe, and the German dream of invasion would vanish into thin air. Tlie idea of a two-Power standard Navy and an Army, Mr., Blatchford urges, would not b© nearly so terrible as might at first sight seem probable. It would not be equal to the cost of the South African war, and Britain paid for that, and paid for it without serious inconvenience. If Britain could pay three hundred million pounds for a war, how much could she pay for peace? Fratice and Germany can afford to pay for universal training; Britain is richer than Germany, a.ud Germany is already doin^ all Britain need do for safety.cost of peace," says Mr. Blatchford,j "may be high; but peace is worth it. many times told. Let usrthink of the cost of defeat and ruin." ■ ■