^J ^ ..o.,ii, .% IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V z:.^ ^^ /. C/a M Wd ^ 1.0 I.I 1.25 •^ 1^ 12.2 J^ 1^ lis " lis \im u II 1.8 U 11.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 (716) 872-4503 Thus it will be seen that Colonial commerce forms ONE- SEVENTH of the total trade of the Empire. ;{; 1 8,200,000 ;^ 1 8,000,000 ;^ 200,000 For the Naval protection of the trade of the Empire there is paid an annual sum of Of the above total the United Kingdom pays ... Self-governing Colonies in North America, Australasia, and South Africa, pay Thus it will be seen that the Colonies, which possess ONE- SEVENTH of the trade, contribute ONE-NINETIETH only of he cost of protecting the trade. ElGHTV-NINE NINETIETHS are contributed by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. The following table shows the revenue and population of the United Kingdom and the self-governing Colonies respectively :— revenue. population. United Kingdom ;^9i.ooo,ooo ... 38.000,000 Self-governing Colonies ^-43.000,000 ... 11,000,000 It will thus be seen that though the Colonizes contribute only ONE-NINETIETH f .rt of the cost of the Naval Defence of L Empire, their population is more than A QUARTER of that of the United Kingdom, and that their revenue is NEARLY HALF that of the United Kingdom. 000,000. i.OOO.OOO 5,000,000 Drms ONE- Ire. 8,200,000 8,000,000 ;^200,000 ossess ONE- ;th only of NINETIETHS ingdom. . population ng Colonies POPULATION. 38,000,000 11,000,000 ;s contribute aval Defence QUARTER of • revenue is [ 5 J Having reached this important point, and having obtained an admission from its opponents that the premisses of its case are correct, the Committee now invites readers of the present pamphlet to ask themselves whether, granted that those premisses are correct, the conclusions to be drawn from them are not apparent and indeed obvious. The more closely the letters of Sir Frederick Young and Mr. de Labilliere are examined, the more clearly does it appear that the idea of regarding the questions raised by the Defence Committee as matters which in the slightest degree concern the United Kingdom has never entered their minds. From first to last, the gentlemen referred to regard this enormously important question as one which must be examined and dealt with solely from the Colonial standpoint. It may be said, in passing, that the Committee has the best possible reasons for believing that the extraordinarily selfish and childish views which are so readily imputed to the Colonies are not, in fact, entertained by any section of Colonists. There is not the slightest reason to believe that men of common-sense in Canada or Australia are so sensitive that they cannot bear to hear plain facts stated, or to see figures transferred from a Blue Book to a pamphlet. Nor is there the slightest reason to believe that if asked to take a proper share in the burdens of the Empire, which by common admission are now borne almost exclusively by the United Kingdom, the Colonies would refuse to do so. The Committee, indeed, has assumed throughout that a perfect willing- ness does exist on the part of the Colonies to take a reasonable view of the situation, and it is one of the principal points of its programme to give the Colonies an early opportunity of declaring their views. But be this as it may, it is necessary to bear in mind that, whatever may be said by such self-constituted representatives of the "pay-nothing," "do-nothing" school which is supposed to exist in the Colonies, the matters raised by the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee are of most vital importance to that not inconsiderable section of the inhabitants of the Empire who happen to live within the United Kingdom. If it be true that the taxpayers of the United Kingdom are at this moment paying I I I [ (> ] the cost of eighty-nine-ninetieths of the Naval defence of the Empire, that is a matter which the taxpayers of the United Kingdom have a perfect right to discuss and, if they can, to alter. It is fair to say that Sir Frederick Young and Mr. de I^illiere may be taken as the best and most thoroughly qualified repre- sentatives of the school whose opinions they represent. It is but justice to those two gentlemen to say that if there be anything weak or unsatisfactory in the case which they have propounded, ' it must be due to the inherent weakness of that case, and not to any want of ability, goodwill, and industry on the part of those who set it forth. It may be fairly assumed that all that could be said by the opponents of the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee has been said, and is to be found in the interesting letters contained in these pages. In view of these facts it is a matter of great satisfaction to the Committee to note that the whole sum and substance of the case against it is— not that the facts are untrue, not that its facts are un- important, not that th'^ matters to which it desires to draw public attention are not of vital interest to the Empire, not that the pro- posals it makes are unreasonable or unjust, but that, in the opinion of Mr. de Labilliere, the " iteration of the facts is painful," and that Sir Frederick Young, though he does " not object to any of these things per se," does " energetically protest against the mode in which they are put forward." This may seem a strong and even an extreme way of sum- marising the correspondence, but we confidently appeal to our readers to examine the correspondence for themselves, and, having done so, to say whether such a summary is not absolutely justified Ly the correspondence itself. The Committee claims that its case, having been exposed to the full brunt of hostile criticism, has not only stood the trial, but has come out absolutely unscathed, and it is with the greatest confidence that it submits the whole of the hostile criticisms which have been made against it to the judgment of the public. J nee of the :d Kingdom No. .?, le I^illiere lified repre- t. It is but be anything )ropounded, ' and not to irt of those lat could be 1 (Defence) : interesting iction to the ; of the case facts are un- draw public that the pro- that, in the s is painful," bject to any against the ivay of sum- ipeal to our , and, having tely justified 1 exposed to the trial, but the greatest lie criticisms the public. UNDER FIRE. In a letter which appeared in T/it Times, 9th August, 1894, Lord Wemyss pointed out that in his opinion the question of Imperial Defence was one of the greatest importance, and that the forma- tion of some body charged with the work of promoting it was exceedingly desirable. In reply to this letter, the honorary secretary of the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee wrote as follows : — No. 1. To THE Editor oi" T/ic Times. vjiR^—The letter of Lord Wemyss in The Times of Thursday shows how strongly the need for some effective combination of the resources of this rapidly-growing Empire for the purpose of common defence is making itself felt by all who have given thought to the subject. A system which concentrates upon the inhabitants of only one out of the four great self-governing countries of the Empire the burden of the cost, and, consequently, the entire control and disposition of the means of defence upon which the whole Empire relies, cannot, it is evident to such men, be perpetuated without the gravest danger— first, to the actual safety of the Empire, and, secondly, to the preservation of its unity. Either means must be found for including the great self-goveinmg '^colonies—containing eleven millions of our^oaiLXace— in the system by which the Navy is provided and admmistered, or they must be fairly warned that this cannot be done and that they must see to their own safety. The present position is consonant neither with their dignity nor with their security ; and the responsibility for the lives, the interests, and the possessions of eleven millions of self-governing people is one which the United Kingdom cannot be expected to bear for an indefinite period. Such a responsibility is entirely contrary to Tiritish instincts, [ » ] and opposed to that system of representative government which is found to be necessary to the English race all over the world. I am glad to be able to inform Lord Wemyss that there is in existence a body which has for its object the combmation of the s^lf- governing countries of the Empire for the purposes of defence. The Imperial Federation (Defence) <:ommittee is concentratmg its effoits at present upon the task of uniting the resources of these countries for the provision and maintenance of a common navy. ( In order to effect this it will be necessary to induce these colonies Jto contribute to the cost of naval defence, and the people of the United / Kingdom to admit the colonies to a share in the ownership and the f administration of the Navy. , , -j j That this course is obviously advantageous to both sides does not, unfortunately, secure its immediate adoption. It is evident that there will have to be overcome, on the one hand, a natural reluctance on the part of the people of the colonies to begin to pay for that which has hitherto been provided without their assistance ; on the other ban') the people of this country will be disposed to think more than twice' before they part with that absolute control which they have hitherto enjoyed over their first line of defence. . /ta r \ Tb je are the difficulties which the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee has to surmount, ?.nd they will not be increased by lookmg them fairly in the face. . , • • ^ ^u The committee has issued several publications bringing out tht main facts which bear upon the question. Any of these I shall be glad to forward to your readers upon application. I am, sir, yours obediently. ARTHUR H. LORING, //on. Secretary of the /mperial Federation (Defence) Committee. 30, Charles- Street, Berkeley-square, W. Ml ') Stimmary of Letter No. i. {a) There is a body already in existence, viz. : the Imperial 1< ederation (Defence) Committee, actively engaged in endeavour- ing to promote the object which Lord Wemyss has at heart, viz. : the common defence of the Empire. {b) The whole cost and responsibility of defending the Empire fails upon a portion of its inhabitants. {c) It ought to fall upon all its inhabitants. [d) It cannot be expected that the present unequal incidence of burden and responsibility will be indefinitely borne without protest. ■■%,, ent which is •Id. t there is in in of the self- efence. The ng its effoits countries for hese colonies of the United ship and the des does not, ent that there reluctance on jr that which on the other ik more than :h they have ion (Defence) ed by looking iging out thfc se I shall be ORING, ncej Committee. the Imperial n endeavour- las at heart, ig the Empire [ual incidence Dome without ^', f&^ ^ L 9 ] On the 24th August a letter appeared in TAe Times signed by Mr. V. P. do Labilliere, which is printed below : — No. ^.. To THE Editor of TAe Times. Sir, — I am always most unwilling to say a word against the mod«*s of action of anyone seeking to promote the good cause of Imperial federation or defence, and I specially regret to have to take exception to the course pursued by one who has rendered such valuable service as Mr. Loring ; but I ^ear he is now on a path which may lead to his undoing much of the good he has done. In justice to many of the members of the late Imperial Federation League, as well as to the cause '';self, I hope you will allow me to reply to his letter which you inserted on Wednesday, Aug. 15. Mr. Loring writes, as hon. secretary of the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee, from the old address of the late league, calling attention to the objects of the new organisation, whose publications he offers to forward to your readers. Now, its programme, issued thrde or four months ago, had on its cover the exact device used by the Imperial Federation League ; and, no doubt, many people have made the mistake of identifying the supporters of that body with those of the new society, although numbers of federalists may, like myself, decidedly object to the methods of the new society. In the pro- gramme to which I refer — produced almost word for word in an article in the National Review for July, but in ordinary print — the shortcomings of the colonies in not supporting the British Navy are glaringly set forth with italics, capital-letter type, and heavy under- lines. No doubt the colonies have not yet risen to a full sense of their Imperial responsibilities, nor does the mother country yet fully realise the vital importance of naval supremacy, and all friends of the unity of the Empire — all who are at all anxious about its very life— must desire to arouse the old and new countries to a conviction of the necessity of speedily making its defences absolutely 7. oof against hostile attack. But there are right and wrong ways of putting every question, and I submit that nothing could be more indiscreet than to have a society in London with the special object of finding fault with the colonies, and circulating literature In this country expos- ing their backwardness in matters of defence. The Defence Committee has already done harm. Sir William Harcourt was only too glad to quote its manifesto in the House of Commons, in answer to its objec- tions to his proposed death duties on property in the colonies, before he abandoned that part of his policy ; and the publication I refer to has already called forth some unpleasant comments in the Colonial Press, The colonies have done much already in performing what was in the first place required from them — the establishment of defences in their own territories— and there is every reason to believe they wiii if fl t * s L lo 1 not be backward in performing their Imperial ng period of as yet, hardly ahans, if they le Australian 'hich Canada heavy deficit was allowed jxtra millions but too well, home to the committee be colonies may leristic of his Kingdom to a colonics) and I other words, •f [ 15 ] to contribute to the cost of the Navy. Both as an Englishman and as a member of the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee, I repudiate the suggestion that bagmen's tactics should be introduced in the treatment of this question. The offer which the committee desires to sec made by the United Kingdom to the colonies — that of partner- ship on equitable terms in the means of maritime defence — is not one which should be accompanied by honeyed words designed to warp the judgment of the colonies as to their best interests. I can conceive of nothing more certain to insure failure and disaster than that the colonies should be induced by any kind of bagman's cajolery to enter into so momentous an arrangement without being satisfied that it was to their advantage to do so. The proposition should, in my opinion, be set before the colonies in the plainest and most naked manner possible. No responsibility or liability which it involves should upon any consideration be concealed from them, and ample time — two years at least — should be given them for its full discussion in all its bearings before coming to a decision. The responsibility of the decision must be absolutely theirs, or future disagreement and recrimination will be the inevitable result. 1 apologise for the great length of this letter, which is due to the number of points roon which I have been called upon to defend the action of my committee. Will you allow me to make my acknowledg- ment of the very kind way in which Mr, de Labilliere has referred to my previous connection with this subject, and to remind him that it is not uncommon to find many roads leading to the same point ? At such a point I shall hope some day to meet him. 1 am, Sir, yours obediently. ARTHUR H. LORING, Hon, Secretary Imperial Federation {Defence) Committee. 30, Charics Street, Berkeley Square, W., Sept. 2. Summary oj Letter No. 3. {a) The suggestion that the Defence Committee is " passing itself off" as the Imperial Federation League is altogether without foundation. {h) It being an undoubted face that the Colonies make no practical contribution to the defence of the Empire, it cannot be either unreasonable or unwise to state that fact. The con- tribution by eleven millions of British subjects amounting to one- ninetieth part only of the cost of the naval defence of the Empire is inappreciable. (t) The facts contained in the previous publications of the Imperial r'ederation (Defence) Comn.-.ittee may be set forth glaringly with italics and in capital letters, but whether that be so or not, they are absolutely and indisputably true. [ l^' J {d) It is not the object of the Defence Committee to find fault with the Colonies, and it is an absolute error to state that the Committee has found fault with the Colonies. On the contrary, it has been specially stated in the Committee's publica- tions which are now attacked, that the present unsatisfactory condition of affairs is " NOT THE FAULT OF THE COLONIES." " This inequitable state of affairs is not primarily the fault of the Colonies referred to, etc." ('-er-7^.ly the question which the committee desires to see directed, [ 2 t ] Will you allow mc to state, for the information of your readers wlio may wish to judge for themselves of the committee's publications, that they can be obtained from Messrs. P. S. King and Co., King street, Westminster ? . I am, Sir, yours obediently, ARTHUR H. LORING, Hon. Secretary Imperial Federation (De/tHce) Committee. JO, Charles Street, Berkeley Square, W. Summary of Letter No. 6 . (a) Vague charges of " giving offence " without any particulars are impossible to meet. No charges supported by particulars or facts have yet been made. (d) The Committee entirely agrees with Sir Frederick Young in believing that before we decide how the Colonies are to contribute to the defence of the Empire and to share in its control, it is necessary to decide whether the defence of the Empire is to be undertaken by the Empire, and the government and control of the Empire be shared by all parts of it On the same day as the last letter appeared, Sir John Colomb contributed to T/te Times letter No. 7. f this letter lesires to see f» at nresent No. 7. To THE Editor of The Times. Sir,— Sir F. Young and Mr. F. Begg— whose letters appear in your issue of nth inst.— need not be so dreadfully frightened. Let them read Mr. Loring's letter again and carefully read the publications of the committee of which he is the able honorary secretary, and they will find they are "frighted with false fire" of their own imaginations. All Mr. Loring said and all the defence committee have done is to publish — 1. Statements of facts regarding the maintenance of the fleet. 2. The declaration of an opinion that in view of such facts the Governments of the self-governing colonies should have their attention officially called to these facts by the Imperial Government, and be invited to consider, at a conference, what arrangements can be made by which they can take an equitable share in the responsibility and maintenance of the imperial fleet, which we at home now pay for, and which protects them, though they do not pay for it. [ 22 ] ' 1 would ask Sir F. Young and Mr. F Begg to come out of the fog of generalities and state clearly-- r . . -^ colonics to facts ? „^f:„„ nf n rnnference to consider a 3. Why they object to the suggestion of a ^onterence Committee is strictly confined to questions leiaung ^^^ and the figures and facts relied "P°"/' ^' '^^d X "^d as an annual Parliamentary paper which 1 moved ,*or,;^"^„° ^h jnst ? return, an extract from which you published on 7th mst. . I am, Sir, your obedient servant,^ ^ ^ ^^^^^^ Dromquinna, Kenmar.^ Sept. 12. Siuimnarv of Letter No. 7 - This letter is so brief and concentrated that it scarcely needs to be summarised. Sir John Colomb asks the following "^'llrAre^'the facts published by the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee true or untrue ? (/.) If they be untrue, why do not Mr. de Lab.Uiere and Sir F. Young point out the error or errors? u) If they are true, are they important? id) If the facts stated by the I.F.D.C. be both true and important, what possible advantage can be gained by concealing them ? _ On the 15th September Mr. F. P. de Labilliere sent a further letter (No. 8) to The Times ;— No. S. To THE I-DITOR OF The Times. SIR -As Mr Loring's letter, published in The Times of the 7th inst in i/py to mine'in.erted'on August 24 calls for a reJOlndel^ "uvnnV-indlv admit this to your columns? Mr. Lonng apoh gizes f ^Ttt ' usuch em th • but I know how clear and concise he can bJ.;^;^^?^ glSd cLse. The position of the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee, however, needs much defending. I 23 ] I neither suggested that that body " was passing itself off as the Imperial Federation League," nor did I charge it with otherwise in- tending to mislead. Mr. Loring would never be a party to anything of the kind. But, with the want of caution and discretion which have marked its proceedings, the committee has not been careful enough to avoid the use of names and imprints which may lead to the supposition that it is practically the old league. But " the party in error," says Mr, Loring, " need not feel aggrieved, as the committee has adopted m their entirely and without alteration the resolutions upon which the late league was founded." But I wrote about its members, who, heartily endorsing the principles of the resolutions, may well " feel aggrieved," if supposed to be approvers of the methods of the Defence Committee. , , • • i • »» To my objection to the indiscretion of the course it is taking Mr. Loring replies, " I see no reason why the committee should not find fault with the colonies if it thinks fit. This is a free country, and the year is 1894." I am no more disposed to dispute the two first than the last of these statements. In matters of indiscretion I would never interfere with the liberty of the subject, in any case short of dangerous lunacy. Mr. Loring says that I "liken the United Kingdom to a commer- cial traveller calling upon a possible buyer (the colonies) and begging him as a favour to purchase goods of him, or, in other words, to con- tribute to the cost of the navy." Mr. Loring tries to turn the point of the story away from his committee, of which I was speaking, and not of the United Kingdom, into which I never dreamed of the Imperial Federation r Defence) Committee being expanded ; and I am sure that no Ministry, of any party representing the people of the Mother Isles of Britain, will ever put any question to the colonies with such disregard as is exhibited by the committee of, 1 will not say diplomacy —for that is a word only to be used in dealing with foreigners—but of the right ways of putting things to the nearest of kin. . . . , The Imperial Federation League— founded with the broad object of dealing with the whole question of the unity ..I the Empire m all its bearings— has been killed because latterly its executive had not eyes for measuring the due proportions of things-some looking only at trade relations, others at the question of defence-the latter, the most important, I admit, naval supremacy being the very life of the Empire ; but still other Imperial considerations must be weighed with these and all be treated by our statesmen as a whole. And now we have got, in the place ot the bague, a body trying to stru-gle into l.te out ot its ash^), not even mainly to devote itself to the Keneral question of de- fences—a small society for bhowm;^ uptheshortcomi. g'. of the color, les on the subject. I lejoire to think that ti.e cause h.is struck such deep root ihrouiihout the Empire liiat it can n..w dispense with an organiza- tion but it is to be regretted that the one it had was not p.eserved. Every federalist holds that there must he equitable contribution to the Navy and to all Imperial purposes from all parts of the Lmpirc. I have always contended for this cardinal principle, but it can be best advocated in the colonies by men like Mr. D'Esterre Taylor, whom I quote in " Federal Britain " as giving strongest expression to it. He a born Australian, was a very able member in Victoria of the Imperial [ 24 ] Federation League. Bettej- far .o ^^^:^!St^t:i '■'Tri=1o;r4%X"of'at.'Lt:'orarSir^^^^^^^ deficits of%e colonies in their ™"'„t°d°o"te repeated w^th sich fTrl'wth 'pro:inciarflnanc°es' "^Grln. e^quitablc 'hare in cc,„,r„l of ^^-^X^s^^nrrooS|S/iSi£ n Parliament and Execut ve ike those of Canada, the Unitea siaies, Ld Germany being the most highly-developed forms, a conference like that of ^887 o? the one just held in Ottawa, meetmg annually being the most elementary. The great question must be regarded as "" ""ThS is also practically the view of my friend Sir Frederick Young to Ihom Fam^ indebted for the valuable support, in my present contention, of his letter, which you insert to-day. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Harrow, Sept. i ith. F. P. DE LABILLIERE. Summary of Letter No, 8 . (a) Mr. de Labilliere considers that finding fault with the political action, or inaction, of the Colonies is an indiscretion which he is not prepared to interfere with, as it falls short of " dangerous lunacy." {b) Mr. de Labilliere admits that "Naval supremacy is the very life of the Empire." (<:) Mr. de Labilliere is of opinion that the object of the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee is to show up the shortcomings of the Colonies. {(i) Mr. de Labilliere granting, for the sake of argument, that the figures of the Committee are established to demonstration, [ 25 .1 does not consider it right that a body should permanently exist to keep such statistics up to date. He considers that the iteration of the fact that the United Kingdom pays Sg-Qoths of the cost of the naval defence of the Empire is painful. On the 19th September, Sir Frederick Young made a further contribution (No. 9) to the correspondence. Sir Frederick refers to a letter by Admiral Colomb in which the Admiral had dwelt upon questions of much interest in connection with Imperial Defence, but not strictly speaking connected with the main arguments of the present correspondence. No. 9. To THE Editor of The Times. Sir,— The vigour of the discussion which, by your permission, is taking place in your columns on the question of Imperial defence sufficiently illustrates its national importance. I should like to make one or two brief comments on the letters of your correspondents which appear in The Times of Saturday. ^ ,. • • . I regard it as a decided advantage to the solution of the intricate problem involved in Imperial defence, that a paragraph in my letter of the nth inst. has evoked from an expert like Admiral Colomb the very interesting and important criticism on the strategy to be adopted for the protection of the British Empire in case of war. But, while 1 entirely agree with him in his contention that the main object ot an Empire like our own is to keep the British sea frontier inviolate, by means, of course, of an overwhelmingly powerful Navy, 1 do not think he can consider that, for the purposes cf Imperial defence, no fortihca- tions on land are necessary in order to supplement arid support the action of the Navy itself. Admiral Colomb, quite unintentionally, I feel sure, misrepresents my meaning in mentioning the vast sums already expended by Australasia, South Africa, and Canada in local defence, as being, in my judgment, a substantial contribution to Imperial defence. I alluded to it merely for the purpose of showing that the expenditure of all this money did practically constitute a contribution to Imperial defence as forming part of the recognised military aid to the Empire as a whole, for every nation adopts the necessity of having land fortifications as well as naval forces, to protect it This wa« in reply to Mr. Loring's Imperial Defence Committee, who deny that the colonies contribute anything to Imperial defence. The point, after all, which I contend for must be kept distinctly in mind It is this— that, whether it be much, or little, or nothing which the colonies contribute at present to Imperial defence, before they are asked by the mother country to do so they should be guaranteed a fair and equitable participation in the control and foreign policy ot the Empire itself. When this has first been granted to them in a proper [ 20 ] constitutional manner, then they would be as ready as the people of Great Britain to contribute their just quota to its defence. Ihis is emphatically my idea of " Imperial Federation. ^f„,„pr»ii Sir John Colomb calls on me " to come out of the fog of generali- ties." My friend, I hope, will excuse me for saying he is in the fog himself, not I. Round me the air is perfectly clear. have given distinctly my reasons for objecting to the policy of the Impe"al Defence Committee. I think there can be no question of ambiguity about them. Sir John asks me " to state clearly why I object to the publication of facts," to calling the attention " of the self-governing colonies to facts, and to the suggestion of a conference to consider a practical mode of adjusting the burdens and responsibilities between the several self-governing portions of the Empire, of mamtaming tnat world-wide sea supremacy upon which each and all depend. I reply categorically that I do not object to any of these things />fr se. What I do most distinctly object to is the use which is made ot them and the arguments based upon them, by which an erroneous and misleading impression is created in the minds of those to whom the appeal by their publication is made. It is the mode ot putting them forward that, to my thinking, is most injurious to the great cause of Imperial Federation, and therefore I energetically protest against it. One word with regard to an important " if," which Mr. Lonng refers to as occurring in my own previous letter. In answer to hini 1 say at once that I certainly do think that the defence of the Lmpire is to be undertaken by the Empire ; and so far the if in my dictum" I trust may be regarded as removed. But then U must be, in my judgment, on certain conditions. It is in their attempts at carrying out these conditions that the Imperial Defence Committee and myself are apparently entirely at variance. I am. Sir, your obedient servant, FREDERICK YOUNG. St. Andrews, N.B., Sept. 17. Summary of Letter No. 9. (rt) Sir Frederick Young admits that questions raised in the correspondence refer to a matter of " national importance." (b) Sir Frederick Young disagrees with Admiral Colomb as to the value of fortifications as a protection to the ocean highways. {c) Sir Frederick Young does not regard the sum expended by Australasia, South Africa, and Canada, in local defence as being •' a substantial contribution to Imperial Defence." {d) Sir Frederick Young repeats his opinion that the Colonies should be given a control over the defence and foreign policy of the Empire before they have signified their willingness to bear [ 37 1 their share of the cost of the one and their share of the responsi- bility of the other. {e) Sir Frederick Young does not object to any of the things proposed by the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee, but he " energetically protests against the mode in which they are put forward." The corresponden( 'as for the present been closed by a letter (No. lo) from the honorary secretary of the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee, which appeared in The Times on September 2 I St. No. IP. To THE Editor of The Times. Sir, — Sir Frederick Young's announcement that he " certainly does think that the defence of the Empire is to be undertaken by the Empire" does not actually settle the question whether the ii million people of the colonies are willing to undertake their share of the cost of maintaining the Navy which defends us all alike. He will, I am sure, pardcA the committee for feeling that it is desirable to ascertain this fact even more authoritatively before it advocates the dislocation of existing machinery in order to introduce the system of representa- tion which, it is admitted, must accompany their contribution. Though it may be reasonable for the purposes of argument to assume the willingness of the colonies to share with us in the cost of maritime defence, it will not do lo take action upon such an assumption. If Sir Frederick will read No. i of the committee's publications he will there find set out under the heading " Pros and Cons," nine different reasons which have been advanced in order to show that the colonies should not contribute towards the maintenance of the Navy. It is true that these reasons are rnswered on the same pages ; but the answers may not be convincing to Canadians and Australians, though they are sufficient to establish a prima facie case for asking them the question as to their willingness to contribute. To obtain an authoritative answer to this question is the object which the committee has set before itself, and this is as far as the committee deems it prudent to go at present. If an answer in the affirmative is obtained, as we are led by Sir Frederick Young to expect, it will then be possililc to proceed to consider the conditions under which the colonial willingness to contribute may be made use of. If Sir Frederick Young wishes the colonies, in addition, to relieve the heavily-burdened British taxpayer of some of the cost of the Foreign Office and Diplomatic and Consular Services, it is, of course, perfectly open to him to advocate this considerable extension of the committee's programme, and to endeavour to attain these objects before the com- mittee attain theirs, but it scarcely consUtutes ground for an "energetic protest" against the committee's own more modest operations. [ 28 1 Qir TTrpderick Youne has twice stated in your columns that I have said "the colonies co^^^^^ nothing to national defence" or " Impenal defence^ This has never been said either by me or by the committee ; every s^atemem upon this subject has been definitely limited to mari- ^'"'Thf S?e is becoming a very narrow one when Sir Frederick Young statis tlS he does not object to the publicatic, of the facts brought .1 lut rnmmittee and when Mr. de Labilliere admits that "every ?e"ie'L?tVo ri^^h^Je m^^^^ be equitable contribution to the Navy nnd to all Imperial purposes from all parts of the Lmpire." If Sir ¥iederick Sg allows the committee to publish the facts I have htUe d"ubt that^we shall soon attain to Mr. de LabiUiere's federalist ^^®^^' I am, Sir, yours obediently, ARTHUR H. LORING, Hon. Secretary Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee. 30, Charles Street, London, W. Summary of Letter No. 10. (a) The fact that Sir Frederick Young "thinks that the defence of the Empire is to be undertaken by the Empire " does not settle the question of whether the Colonies are in fact prepared to take their share. This is a matter which can only be ascertamed by asking the question. It is time the question was asked. ib) It is possible that the Colonies are willing to take their share, but they have not yet said so. The Committee desires to give them an opportunity of expressing the opinions which Sir Frederick Young is confident they hold. U) Sir Frederick Young is in error in attributing to the Committee the statement that " the Colonies contribute nothing to National defence" or "Imperial defence." The Committee has never gone beyond the statement that the Colonial contribu- tion to the "Maritime" defence of the Empire is inappreciable. U) The honorary secretary notes that Mr. de Labilliere admits that " every federalist holds that there must be equitable contribu tion to the Navy, and to all Imperial purposes, from all parts ot the Empire." It is the desire of the Committee to give effect to Mr. de LabiUiere's wish. PUBLICATIONS OF THE Imperial Federation (Defence) Gomniittee. No. i. Price 2d. THE COLONIES and MARITIME DEFENCE. **Pros and Cons." No. 2. Price 2d. THE CONFERENCE AT OTTAWA. "The Colonies and the Death Duties." •'The Colonial Side of the Question." No. 3. Price 6d. UNDER FIRE. Correspondence Published in the ' Times.' " Copies of these pamphlets may be obtained for distribution at the rate of ^s. per hundred^ by application to the Hon. Sicretary, who will also be glad to supply further information upon this subject and to receive promises of support on behalf of the Committee. Address— 2S, Old Queen Street^ Westminster. Expressions of Opinion. "I confess, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, nothing would be pleasanter to me than to see the taxpayers of this country relieved of some of those gigantic sums for naval defence which they almost alone contribute at the present time. I am bound to say that the amounts contributed by the Colonies towards Naval Defence in its broadest sense are extremely insignificant. The cost of defence has increased enormously; every gun, every article of war, has increased in expense to an alarming extent, and this country bears almost the whole of that increase, while we do protect our Colonies, and they know that they can rely on our Navy securing the highways of commerce, and that access to all parts of the world to which our fellow subjects in the Colonies believe them- selves entitled. Therefore I should be only too glad that Colonial statesmen should approach the idea that there should be a wider area over which our Imperial Defence should be spread, and nothing would give me greater pleasure personally than if representative men connected with the finances of the various Colonies con- ferred together as to what changes, if any, might be made on both sides."- The Right Hon. G. J. GOSCHEN, M.P., in Parliament, February 17, 1891. "From one end of the Empire to the other there is no subject who does not recognise to the fullest extent that it is his duty to contribute to the defence of this great Empire. . . " There is no Colony so eager as Canada to do its part in defending the Empire."~8ir CHARLES TUPPER, Bart, G.C.M.G., High Commissioner for Canada, April 23. 1894. I'.