A NAVAL CONTRIBUTION FROM THE COLONIES.
[To TILE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] . SIR,—In the Spectator of March 28th Admiral Bowden-Smith deprecates my views on the Australian naval subsidy question on two grounds,—one, because the Agents-General for New South Wales and Queensland do not agree with me ; and the other, because Mr. Arnold-Forster stated in the House of Commons that if we provided ourselves with the smallest Navy known, it would cost Australia annually 21,000,000. The confidential Report of the Premiers' Conference, 1902, proves that this is not the case, and Mr. Arnold-Forster's Department presumably supplied the figures. The Admiralty suggested to the Conference a fleet of three second-class cruisers (5,600 tons) in commission, and two second-class cruisers (5,600 tons) in reserve ; they estimated the intexest on construction and armament at 2125,000, and maintenance at 2242,000, a total annual oharge of 2367,000. This, then, is the maxinxum figure that should provide efficient local naval defence for Australia, though probably we should have to be content to start with less ; everything must have a beginning, and Sir Edmund Barton at present advocates a subsidy of 2200,000, which, with the present local naval vote, will go a long way towards providing what Mr. Copeland is stated to consider impossible for many years to come. It is difficult to see what good purpose is served by an exaggerated statement such as the one made by Mr. Arnold-Foster, with all the weight that attaches to his position as Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. As to the fact that Mr. Copeland and Sir Horace Tozer do not agree with my views, if the point that Admiral Bowden-Smith wishes to make is simply one of divergent personal opinions, I have nothing to say except that while I have the greatest respect for the two gentlemen in ques- tion, I fancy that I am more in touch with Australian public opinion for the moment as a Member of the Federal Senate than they are after several years' residence in London ; but if the weight of their opinions as Agents-General is the point to be made, I must explain that an Agent-General for an Australian State when he speaks in public on a public question is solely the mouthpiece for his Government ; that no Australian State Government has anything whatever to do with the question of Federal defence ; and that they are there- fore not in the least likely to have instructed their Agents to give expression to official views on the subject. I feel sure both gentlemen will confirm my view that their expression of opinion was entirely personal and unofficial.—I am, Sir, &c.,
City Liberal Club, Walbrook, B.C.
ALEC. P. MATHESON.
Previous page
