OUR DEFENCES.

Western Star, Issue 2087, 22 February 1896, Page 1

OUR DEFENCES.

Discussing these, the 0. D. Times in a leading article says —We regret 1 to state that expert opinion does not 1 warrant a feeling of security in the coast line of defences. Against a combined attack by a squadron—even a small one—not ono New Zealand port could venture to raise a finger. A capitulation, with terms as honourable as could be extracted, would be the only possible result. And this operation might be repeated successively at the other ports unless the Australian squadron should by chance happen to be within the call of help. But we raav be sure that the same intelligence that would plan the looting of the colony would provide for the absence of its naval safeguard by a false scent, or possibly a real one, of attack elsewhere. The utmost then that any one port could hope to do would he to resist an attack by a single cruiser, or at most a couple of them. Such a contigeney is not impossible. It may or may not be remote, but it is always impossible, and it is the duty of a colony to be ready for such a possibility, which is one that European - complications, kaleidoscopical as they are in -'their charges, may convert into a probability at any moment. Would it be possible, for instance, to mobilise the Otago and Southland volunteers at a day’s notice and plant them at any given point along the coast prepared to resist a hostile attack ? Experts say it would not be possible, and nothing has deen done to show that they are wrong. It baa been said with good authority that little or no connection exists between the permanent artillery who man the forts and the volunteers who sh.iuld support them. It is even said that the permanent artillery would be literally at sea if set to fi re at a moving target. It may be that this wholesale adverse criticism is not justified, I but it probably indicaes a certain lack i of efficiency.