Thames Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 1930. DEFENCE.

Thames Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 17925, 28 June 1930, Page 4

Thames Star.

SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 1930. DEFENCE.

"With malic* towards none; with charity for all; with firmness ,Cln the right, as God gives us to see the right."—Lincoln.

The policy of economy in public expenditure announced by the Government should have the support of all members of the House, regardless of party, provided it is on sound lines, but when tackling _such an unpopular policy experience [shows us that the line of least rej sistanee is often chosen, and that , appears to be why the Defence vote has been the only one actually indicated for a drastic cut. . The reason for this, presumably, is that at the moment there seems to be no likelihood of war," and also possibly the fact that compulsory training ! having been attacked more* cbnsisI'tently of recent years than heretofore has misled the Government into believing that there is a public de* sire to abandon the system. If this is so, then it is well to remember that these attacks have been made by persons and organisations for widely different motives. There are some whose sentimentality outruns their judgment, whose argument is: "Let us set the example, never mind what other nations are doing"; and the curious thing is that these sentimentalists are honest in their ideals and cannot see their utter impracticability in the face of an armj ed world. Do they carry this ideal •to a practical conclusion in private j life by leaving their houses unlockj eel as a "gesture" to the burglar? I We doubt it! There are others who i are always ready to join the honest j idealists because they want to see l the Empire defenceless; these men are merely following the directions of their revolutionary masters in Russie. Their professions of peace are mere hypocrisy, but their weight behind the idealists helps to swell the apyarent number who demand the , scrapping of our Defence system who have gained greater prominence than their numbers warrant. The suggestion that a big reduction be made in our Defence vote has stirred this silent majority into action, and the result was a big deputation to the Prime Minister, which put a very strong case for the maintenance of the system. Judging by the report of that interview, our above statement seems to be verified, namely, that the more noisy minority who oppose the system have scored off the silent majority who support it, because the Prime Minister referred to the amount of opposition evidenced to the system

by the number of prosecutions. If the prosecutions are to be a gauge of popularity or otherwise, we venture to say that this is rather a proof of the almost universal approval of a system when only about .2 per cent, of its "victims" protest and 98 per cent, carry out their obligations. We have for some years jpast advocated the need for expert investigation into all our public services to lay down sound lines on which to conduct their business, to eliminate waste and generally reorganise the system. This, we have contended, is the way to arrive at a reduction of expenditure, and at the same time render the fullest service to the public. We have also urged that economy should not be erected by curtailing services, but rather by rendering the same service more efficient. In the case of Defence, the policy, as announced, seems to be: "It is too costly,-so let us cut the vote and/ reduce the service" ; but we venture to urge that Defence is one of those State functions' which must not be reduced below the danger point, and therefore it would seem to be a sound policy to get expert opinion as •to what the minimum of safety would be, to budget on that, and thus maintain efficiency. This appears to be the only way in which, to use the Prime Minister words: "We can be sure of getting value for'the, money expended." But behind it all is the fundamental objective that Defence must not. be reduced below safety point . - ■ / i > N