PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
ווי
Reference :-
C.O-885
17 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
24682.
32
No. 10.
The GOVERNOR OF NEW ZEALAND to the SECRETARY
(No. 27.)
MY LORD,
OF STATE.
(Received July 9, 1906.)
Government House,
Wellington, New Zealand,
May 17, 1906. I HAVE the honour to inform you that I have been requested by my Government to bring to the notice of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty certain facts and recommendations with reference to the employ- ment of Colonials in the Royal Navy.
2. So far as this Colony is concerned, it is believed to be in the best interests of the men, and of the Naval Service, that the extra payments to the men on the drill ships should be made as follows:-One-third whilst serving; two-thirds on completion of the term of service.
3. My Ministers gather that the results up to the present time have not been satisfactory, and a return that has been made shows that the men are spending the larger portion of their pay as soon as received, and it is feared that the objects for which the money is expended is injurious to the health of the men.
4. It is also considered most desirable that the men should be transferred from the drill ships to one or other of the ships of the Home Squadron. They would then get a full and efficient training, which my Government learn on reliable authority is not the case at present. Under these circumstances, they desire to urge and recommend a change in the conditions of service.
5. My Ministers state that the chief point to be considered is whether or not men would offer for service under the proposed altered conditions. They are inclined to think that on the whole it would not make much difference in this respect, but that the fact of knowing that at the end of the term there would be a fairly large sum of money to their credit would prove attractive to the men.
31940.
No. 11.
I have, &c.,
PLUNKET,
Governor.
ADMIRALTY to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received August 28, 1906.)
Admiralty, August 25, 1906.
SIR,
I HAVE laid before my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty your letter of the 19th June (19785/1906) transmitting copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Australia, and of a letter from the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth enclosed therein, relative to the manner in which the terms of the Australian Naval Agreement have been carried out by His Majesty's Government, and in reply I am commanded by their Lordships to request that
will lay before the Earl of Elgin the following observations you on Mr. Deakin's letter.
2. My Lords desire to express their unreserved regret if anything they have done, or left undone, should have created the impression that they are indifferent either to the efficiency of the Australian Squadron or to the observance of their engagements with the Commonwealth and New Zealand.
The success of the Naval Agreement is so dependent on the existence of good feeling on both sides that a suspicion of bad faith is likely seriously to prejudice its future. They quite appreciate, however, the moderate tone of Mr. Deakin's letter and his desire to avoid anything in the nature of acrimonious controversy; and they believe that it will be found that their
* No. 9.
33
replies to the points he raises are at any rate such as to exonerate them from the suspicion alluded to.
3. The points raised by Mr. Deakin may be briefly summarised as follows:-
(a) The Admiralty have been unduly exacting in their claims for payment
by the Commonwealth of the Naval contribution;
(b) The Admiralty have been dilatory in bringing up the Australian Squadron to the strength laid down in the Agreement both as originally stipulated and as subsequently modified;
(c) Some of the ships which have recently joined the Australian Squadron
are of doubtful efficiency;
(d) The "Cambrian" has been improperly detached from the Australian
Station.
4. As regards (a), the inquiries made by the Admiralty before the Act was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament were made solely with a view to preparing the then forthcoming Navy Estimates, and not at all with the intention of exerting pressure. After the Act was passed there was some doubt whether the Commonwealth payments should begin immediately from the date it passed, or only from the subsequent date on which it passed the New Zealand Legislature. The Admiralty at first took the former view, which was based on a literal interpretation of Clause XI, of the Agreement, but were subsequently advised that in view of the provisions of Clause X. (which are not wholly consistent with Clause XI.) the latter view was more correct. Considering the undoubted difficulty in construing the two clauses in harmony, the original Admiralty claim can scarcely be considered unreasonable.
It may be added in this connection, as indicating the spirit in which my Lords have attempted to deal with this question, that the Agreement as originally passed provided for the payment of the contributions in London. At the request of the Commonwealth Government, however, the Admiralty waived this stipulation and consented to payment being made in Sydney, an arrangement which has involved some expense and inconvenience to the Imperial Government.
5. To examine the allegation (b) in detail would involve a mass of com- plicated dates and figures which would confuse rather than elucidate the subject. But the general reply on the part of the Admiralty is clear. In siguing the original Agreement, and in proposing a modification of the numbers and types of ships in January 1905, my Lords did not contemplate as possible, or suppose that the Commonwealth Government contemplated, the immediate replacement of the existing squadron by a squadron of the type proposed. Even in Home waters, where facilities for equipment and manning are close at hand, changes in the constitution of a squadron have to be gradual, and this necessity is accentuated in the case of a distant station. Taking into account these difficulties of administration, my Lords do not think that undue delay can be alleged.
They had undoubtedly hoped at one time that the changes in the Australian Squadron would have terminated before the end of 1905, but were disappointed by a delay in the completion of the "Encounter," which it had not been possible to foresee.
My Lords scarcely think that it will be suggested that the Colonial con- tributions ought not to have been claimed till the change in the squadron was absolutely complete. They will therefore merely point out the share of the expense falling on Imperial funds in respect of the Australian Squadron during the whole of the period under discussion has not only equalled, but has undoubtedly exceeded, 240,000l. per annum.
6. The statement (c) is admittedly vague in character, and appears to have been partly based on misleading newspaper reports which have also come to my Lords' notice through other channels. A specific charge is, however, made that the "Encounter" does not appear to be fitted for a voyage of any length, and to this my Lords would reply, firstly, that no such report has reached them from Sir W. Fawkes, who would be bound to bring the fact (if it were a fact) to their notice; and, secondly, that the report appears to them intrinsically improbable after the ship has steamed over 12,000 miles without incident on the voyage out.
E 45018,
C