The Daily News FRIDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1929. SAFEGUARDING THE EMPIRE

Taranaki Daily News, 27 December 1929, Page 10

The Daily News FRIDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1929. SAFEGUARDING THE EMPIRE

ISo closely are the 5 interests of the Dominions bound up with those of the Mother Country that it is only natural for the people of New Zealand to sympathise with the Home Government in its onerous and responsible duties, especially under the special troubles which are so formidable at present. At the same time, no matter what political party may be in power in the Old Country it is only right that the tie which unites the Dominions to Britain should involve a reciprocal bond on the head of the Empire to safeguard, as far as is humanly possible, the territories, the commerce and the lives of the citizens owing allegiance to the Crown and inhabiting the countries constituting the Commonwealth of Nations comprised in the Empire. If, as should certainly be the case, the Dominions have won for themselves the right of equal status with the Motherland in the great Imperial partnership- which now firmly faces the world four square, without losing a jot of independent nationhood, then there exists not only a sentimental tie, but a real partnership, in which each branch manages its affairs in its own way, but so as to give strength and growth to the whole. In the main these fundamentals are recognised and appreciated by all three political parties at Home, but there are marked differences, not only in the translation of some of the principles involved, but also in regard to the policy to be pursued on important matters affcctingthe Empire. Under the party government system it is scarcely possible to expect continuity of policy, but what the Dominions are entitled to look for is that the British Government will do all in its power to ensure that measure of safety and fair treatment which one partner in business should render to the others. In the recent debate which took place in the House of Lords relative to naval strength, which is vital to the -Dominions and Colonies, Lord Beatty emphasised that the matter of reductions in the number of battleships and cruisers was in no sense a political party question, it being the duty of the Admiralty to provide naval strength adequate to carry out the policy of the Government and to protect sea communications, trade routes and the units of the Empire from hostile attacks. He contended that on the average 9-f millicn tons of British shipping were found bn sea routes extending over 80,000 miles, and that to maintain the number of cruisers at 50 within i the. coming years it would he necessary to lay down 26. Yet the 1928 programme had been suspended, while nothing had been done in regard to 1929, hence Britain was entering into the forthcoming naval conference with an extremely low limit of cruiser tonnage. The loi g and successful career of Lord Beatty in the Navy entities him to speak with the authority derived from experience [and a full knowledge of the Empire’s requirements at the hands of the first line of defence, so that the policy of the Government at the conference cannot but be re■garded with a measure of anxiety. In his reply on behalf of the Government Lord Thomson made the statement—satisfactory as far as verbal assurances go—that tlye Labour Government’s naval policy was to provide “absolute security for the Empire,” but inasmuch as he pointed out that the naval conference was obviously being held with the object of making reductions, much will depend upon how the ■ present Government will translate the phrase “absolute security-” It is not as if the time had arrived when perfect peace between the nations was assured, or that all fear- of the safety of Empire commer: : and transport on the high s : ; was eliminated. Though the trend of the Great Powers is peacewards, the, accident of a moment may create, an outburst of war. The point for the British delegates at the conference to ’ remember is that cruisers cannot be b*uilt and equipped at a moment’s notice. Lack of cruisers in the event-of an emergency- arising might mean that Britain’s food supplies would be cut off, the seaborne commerce of the Empire destroyed, and possibly the units of the Empire attacked and over-run by hostile forces. That, of course, is an extreme view, but it is always as wise to guard against possibilities as to prepare, for probabilities.