Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

FIGILANI ET AUDAX.
PERTH, THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1903.
Sir Edmund Barton was at his best in
speaking on the naval agreement on
Tuesday. He realised that, in a certain
sense, he wan on his trial. When in
London. last year. he had pledged him
self to secure the increase of subsidy
from £106,000 to £200,000 a year. Had
the pledge been made in vain--had the
Federal Parliament shown its podr
opinion of the Prime Minister by con
.temptuously refusing to ratify the word
he had given at the Colonial Conference
-then a situation would have been cre
ated which even the Federal Cabinet.,
flexible as it has. -shown itself, could
scarcely have tolerated and retained
office. Sir Edmund knew that there
were strong forces against him. He
had the antagonism of a strong element
in the Labour Party, of an unknown
number of the Opposition, and of a re
markably powerful organ. He spoke
with his back to the wall. And it is in
such circumstances that he invariably
does himself justice., He is no longer
the uncertain statesman, whose inten
tions are lost in a kind of political twi
light, and .whose policy measures are
liable to be amended by Opposition and
Labour Party almost out of recognisable
shape. He becomes once more the
pioneer of Australian unity; the genius
of Australian federation, almost as much
as Mirabeau was the genius of the French
Revolution. From the full report, of
the speech, which appeared in this jour
nal yesterday, it seems that the speaker
exhausted his subject. He said all that
required to be said, almost everything
that it was possible to say, and.we know
now precisely what we are to get for bu
additional £94,000 a year. In place of
the old fleet of seven vessel6, there are
to be eleven. Instead of having shi¶1s
all of the third-class, and all more or less
out. of date, we are to have ships of first,
second, and third class, most of them of
the latest type. The new squadron will
consist of-Firstly. 'one first-class cruis
er of 12.000 tons. with a crew of 725
men, and a speed of twenty-one knots;
secondly, two second-class cruisers, of
5,800 tons each. 'with also a speed of
twenty-one knots: thirdly, four third
class cruisers, three of which are to be
taken from the present squadron and
used as drill ships; fourthly, four sloops.
The total cost of'this squadron that is
to be is estimated at £2,500,000, or
about three times that of the existing
,one. The annual expenditure on main
tenance is set down at £480,000. Aus
tralia will only be required to provide
five-twelfths of the maintenance, and
nothing at all of the original cost of
construction. Can this-the speaker.
inquired with emphasis-be in any pos
sible sense regarded as a bad bargain?
The advocates of. an Austraiian navy
are in an awkward position. It. is hard
to see what reply they can uake to the
batteries which the Prime Miniiter
trained on them. if, to coo,
than once, a huge allowance has to be
fought out on the pure.y financial issue,
there is scarcey. a shot left between the
defenders of a locally created squadron
and unconditional surrender. There
has been some talk of Australia bringing
a navy into existence at .a cost of
£300,000 a year. It is in'p:ssiblA to
believe, after the facts and figures with
which Sir Edmund bomlarded the Op
position on Tuesday, that any navy that
would not be a laughing-stock to the
world could be maintained at that figure.
It might, indeed, be possible for £300,0W0
to have a fleet of one second class and
two third-class ships. Bu" would this
stand comparison with the eleven vessels
promised under the terms of the Naval
Agreement ? As a matter of fact, it is
very unlikely that a susn such as that
mentioned would be anyths;g likc suffi
cient to maintain even a siaall Anustra
lian navy. Such a navy would have to
be paid Australian rates of wages. These
alone, according to the Prime oMiniater's
estimate, would amount to £4%2G.G0.
I: costs the Argentine Republic close
upon £1,000,000 annually to iaintain
its very modest and cuasaung fleet.
Moreover, as has been pointed out more
than once, a huge allowance has to he
made for depreciation. Changes in
maritime armament are frequent and ex
pensive. The local naspayer canaot
ignore these consideratimns, however st
tractive the idea of a navy cf our own
may be to his mind. O.e elcmen i of
the situation will, however, commend it
self even to those who dislike the pros
pect of the Naval Agrr.n:cent being car
ried into effect. There is to be pro
vision made for an Australian naval re
serve. Nearly 900 mell dawn fromn: the
people of this continent are to be em
ployed on drill ships. A nucleus will
thus be formed of a possible maritime
defence force in the future It is in
the highest degree desir.ble. if a spirit
of self-reliance is to tbe fostered. and if
the millions spent on Austra!,aa defence
are not to be absolutely thrown away,
that a force should be called into exist
ence capable of acting promptly and
manning ships of war if emergency re
quired. It is especially interesting to
notice that this naval reerve means no
further cost-everything is included in
the subsidy of £200,030. This is a
phase of the defence problem that will
appeal to everybody.
The question now at issue is not one of
hard cash merely. "'It is not a question of
money," said Sir Edmund Barton, 'brut
of whether we are going to hold the Em
pire together." This was a direct chal
,lenge to the separatists in the House
to come out into the open. The plea
that Australia can defend herself with
her own ships as cheaply and as effec
tilvel- as under the terms of the pro
posed agreement is too flimsy to hold
water. The real motive not* often
avowed, but usually in existence, is the
desire to see this country able to take
care of herself without 1ritisli protection
--to see her out of leading strings. It
may be reasonable and intelligible
enough that local politicians should look
to a tinge when tie dependencies of the
Empire are fighting their own battles.
But the.majority of people of Anglo
Saxon parentage dp not wish to antiti
pate that time. Sir -Edmund's speech
was broadly Imperialistic. ' He not only
threw down the gage to those who dis
liked his comepaot with Mr. Chamber
lain; he threw ft down to those who want
to share all the benefits; and none of the
burdens, of Empire. The home Govern
ment. he declared, spends £31,000,000 a
year on its navy. and gives us the pro
tection of the whole of it, It taxes its
people to the tune of 17s. per head for
nval defence purposes alone. Are we
to packet all this and do nothing? Are
we to raise an outcry when, in return
for our squadron of eleven ships, and our
ultimate reliance on a fleet that costs
£31,000,000 to keep up. we are asked to
subscribe anuther 4dd. per head per year ?
There can be no reply to the financial
argument. The Imperial question is.
the only one that is really at stake. And,
in regard to this. the temper of a major
ity. of 'the Federal Parliament is fairly
well known. If the whole of the regular
Opposition caied to throw its avowed
Imperialistic beliefs overboard and.join
with other extremists, the agreement
might be rejected even now. But such
a contingency is out of the question, and
-it may be takcn for granted that the pas
sage of the Bill is assured.
$