AUSTRALIAN NAVAL DEFENCE. [To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Having long preached consolidation of the resources of the Empire for its defence, I beg space to say a few words. The proposal Mr. Sadler so strenuously supports is this : the United Kingdom is to supply the ships, Australia is to find the men. I cannot understand, therefore, how you read into such a proposal a scheme for a "local" Australian Navy. Mr. Sadler explicitly states the object is "the raising of a force of 3,000 efficiently trained seamen in time of need." "Such a force," he says, "to make up for waste after an engagement.' Now the war between China and Japan and that between America and Spain show that an engagement sends the vanquished ships to the bottom, and that the victor's ships are not likely to be in need of any great reserve of men unless there be a great reserve of ships. In view of this fact, and being most anxious any Colonial
proposals to discharge naval obligations should receive the fullest and most attentive consideration, I ask Mr. Sadler to tell us— (1) Is the number of ships provided by the United Kingdom to be determined by the accommodation necessary to train in suc,ession three thousand men; or are we at 1,n,ue to furnish Australia with the number of effective wet ye ,sels necessary to place simultaneously this large reserve in effective up-to-date fighting ships in Australian waters on the outbreak of war ?
(2) In any case, are both ships and men to be available for service in any part of the world ?
As our objective in war must be the enemy's fleet, squadrons, or ships, wherever they may be, the answer to this last question involves a true or false conception of the funda- mental principle of assertion of supremacy by our brave, loyal, and patriotic Australian fellow-subjects.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
