CO885-(6-7) — Page 506

512

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

NAVAL CONTRIBUTION.

142

Mr. Reid.] And I do strongly regard that agreement as an additional tie. I also regard it as-though a very feable one-some small acknowledgment of the duty which the Colonies owe to the Empire. I would not like to push our financial contributions further at present, because, as you know, we have in the Colonies a great deal of work to do, which makes it difficult for them to add to their obligations at present for self-defence; but I have listened to the statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty with the greatest possible satisfaction.

Sir George Turner.] I may say, sir, for the Colony of Victoria, that we willingly contribute the amount that falls to our lot, and I have no doubt will be prepared to continue to contribute that amount; but by some means or other a rumour, which appeared to us to have foundation, had reached us that it was the desire of the Admiralty to have full control of the squadron in time of war; and as we were paying, to us, a considerable sum for the purpose of having that squadron there to assist in the defence of our inter- colonial trade if war did break out, we felt that if that was put altogether in the power of the Admiralty to take ships away from us and send them tens of thousands of miles away to attack the commerce of an enemy at the time when we wanted the ships there to defend us, it would be very hard indeed for us to induce our people to contribute the money. I am pleased indeed to have had the opportunity of meeting the First Lord of the Admiralty, who has disabused our mind of that unfortunate rumour; and, as far as my Colony is concerned, I have no doubt we will willingly continue to contribute the amount, and perhaps in a few years time, as things get better in the Australasian Colonies, we might be able to add to the amount which we have already voted, and give a contribution which will be a greater assistance to the British Government than the small amount which we now contribute.

Mr. Goschen.] Let me say another word on the suggestion of which mention has been made, that it was the desire of the Admiralty to have full control of the Australian squadron in time of war, even so far as to send the ships paid for by the Australian Colonies thousands of miles away to attack the commerce of an enemy.

This rumour has probably originated from our claiming freedom in the sense in which I have claimed it.

If it has been said that we want to have the full and free disposal of our ships, this certainly, as far as my own policy and that of the present Board is concerned, does not mean that we claim to withdraw the ships built under our agreement with the Australian Colonies, and to send them to the Cape or to China, but that we desire freedom so to manage the ships as best to protect that zone and that sphere to which they belong, if we heard that an enemy In such a case were planning an expedition towards the coasts of Australia. we might possibly gather the whole of our ships together, and taking such other precautions as might be necessary, use them regardless-regardless is, perhaps, too strong a word-but use them as we should see best for the protection of the general interests of that part of the Queen's dominions.

I know that an erroneous impression has existed that, not only in the Colonies, but at home, we should station ships to defend particular ports. Take Liverpool, for instance, We, the Navy, are under no guarantee to defend Liverpool. The defences of Liverpool are in the hands of the Army, who practically manage the torpedoes and the mines, the shore defences in fact. It is the army ashore which is responsible, with such co-operation as might be necessary, if a comparatively large expedition were to threaten the place. This is the freedom which we claim.

Admiral Sir Frederick Richards.] That is provided for in the agreement.

Sir George Turner.] We know it is provided for in the agreement, but as we understood it, that was the alteration the Admiralty were now seeking to get, that the agreement should be modified so as to give full power to the Admiral to move about wherever he liked. As far as concentrating the forces to defend a particular spot of Australasia we could not for a moment raise any objection to that course. While you would be concentrating your force we would be concentrating our forces on the same spot.

Admiral Sir Frederick Richards.] Within the limits of his station, the defence of Melbourne might best be provided for, say, at Thursday Island,

143

New Caledonia, or any other place rather than locally. It would depend on the position of the enemy.

Sir George Turner.] We realise that, but our fear was that when it was necessary to protect our inter-colonial trade the Admiral at his own will might take away the ships and send them to the Cape for other purposes altogether.

Mr. Seddon.] It is not rumour upon which that was based at all; it was a speech by the Duke of Devonshire in which he clearly laid down the alteration of the agreement that the Admiralty contemplated. That has been further amplified by what Mr. Chamberlain has said here in reference to attacking an opposing naval force without qualifying it with the statement that this attacking would be kept in Australian waters; and then, further than this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech which he delivered, left it almost as open as the speech of the Duke of Devonshire, but the explanation we have had to-day has put entirely another face upon it.

Mr. Goschen.] The misunderstanding has arisen, I have been told, from the interpretation of a speech of the Duke of Devonshire. I know that speech well. It did not for one moment, to my mind, justify the fear that we should, in breach of our agreement with Australia, claim to withdraw the ships from thence which had been paid for by Colonial contributions. The principal point in that speech was a protest against the idea of what I call hugging the shore- against the idea that protection by the Navy superseded the necessity for sbore defences. It laid down the principle that our policy must be aggressive, seeking out the enemy, a policy which, as regards Australia, might aim at attacking the possessions of other powers at war with us in the Australian zone, or at seeking out their ships within the Australian station wherever they might be. Hence our claim for freedom for the Navy. Hence the duty of the Colonies as well as the mother country to look after their shore defences. I do not say that we should not prefer contributions without any tie whatever, but I do not make such a demand, and, so far as the policy of the present Board of Admiralty is concerned, I am prepared to stand by the existing agreement.

Mr. Seddon.] Then, of course, before the Duke of Devonshire spoke at all, the Admirals on the station, not one, but the Admirals on the station, have talked about the feeding grounds of commerce and the attacking of the commerce at the Capes, and altogether I think you will clearly understand how the anxiety has arisen in the Colonies. Of course you say that we are to protect ourselves against raiders: there is not a single Colony of us that has got anything to protect herself with on the ocean. All we can do is to protect ourselves so far as our defences on land will do so our artillery and naval volunteer forces and harbour defences would prevent vessels entering our ports. There is another point I should like to bring under the notice of the Admiralty, that is, whether or not under the altered circumstances they would take into consideration the strengthening of the Australian

Ringdove squadron by a better class of vessels than the "

and the Karrakatta." These boats might be right enough for attacking native villages and punishing offenders. It is a matter that might be considered by the Admiralty. We will not press it as a claim, but merely direct

attention to it.

Mr. Goschen.] I think Sir Frederick Richards will be able to tell you that we have been replacing these ships as their commission is ended by more powerful and more efficient ships. Is that not so Sir Frederick?

Admiral Sir Frederick Richards.] Quite so, but on the Australian station the five cruizers and two torpedo gunboats, specially provided under the agreement remain and are recommissioned periodically.

Mr. Goschen.] You mean in the particular agreement.

"

Admiral Sir Frederick Richards.] The Australian agreement, those built under the Imperial Defence Act, such as the "Mildura or the "Karrakatta. The financial part of the agreement is based on complements; it may be a complement of 200 men or of 90 mẹn. Of course, if you take a larger ship, a S 4

NAVAI CONTRIBUTION,