NAVAL DEFENCE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LX, Issue 143808, 5 June 1912, Page 3

NAVAL DEFENCE.

THE PROBLEM DISCTJSST3). By Electric Tolegraijli-—Copyright. LONDON, June 4. The Pall Mall Gazette, in an article entitled “Imperial, Cross-currents, Kays that it rests with the statesmen of the Motherland to find a common denominator to enable divergent ovcrBoas’ aspirations to be utilised for the common good. Hr. Fisher had stated his position with admirable precision, which was not less worthy of commendation than Canada’s and Now Zealand’s desire to have ships where danger was nearest. The weakness of the positions of both Canada and New Zealand is that their policies do not satisfy the aspirations of the spirit of nationality within the Empire and that they lead away from the ultimate hope of an Empire navy built and manned by the several States proportionately to their resources. The Australians’ position avoids that disadvantage, but avoids it by. the sacrifice of strategical principle and effectiveness. Tho retention of the New Zealand Dreadnought sins against the principle of Mr. Churchill’s Imperial patrol. Australia should recognise that the giving up of the cruiser Australia to patrol does not mean a split in the fleet, but makes use of the material their patriotism provided. There must be one guiding brain. That brain for the present can only be the Admiralty.