Review of Riviews, lIllllS 



THE DEFENCE ACT 11. 



By HENRY STEAD. 



To train the whole population for military purposes would create a greater force 

 than the country would require to defend it. ivould impose too heavy a financial 

 burden on the conntry, and would probably not lead to efficiency. — Official memoran- 

 dum explaining the South African Defence Bill. 



South Africa took care in framing 

 her defence scheme, to make it elastic 

 enough to allow of its being expanded 

 or contracted as need arose, or financial 

 stringency existed. Australia did not 

 do this but adopted a hard and fast 

 scheme — so far as land forces were con- 

 cerned — which is forcing her into an ex- 

 penditure far in excess of what she either 

 contemplated or is indeed justified in 

 incurrmg. In South Africa, when it is 

 found that the Moloch of militarism is 

 devouring more than the nation can af- 

 ford, the expenditure can be brought 

 down to reasonable proportions without 

 in any way altering the Act. In Aus- 

 tralia he must get what he demands — 

 at present. Always, in fact, if the Kit- 

 chener scheme is considered the absolute 

 minimum necessary to secure the safety 

 of Australia. 



My last article has been somewhat 

 violently attacked, but most of the criti- 

 cisms have been made by those whose 

 knowledge of the Act is obviously 

 slight, and who insist upon its being 

 swallowed whole by everyone. Reading- 

 these comments anyone would assume 

 that I was opposed to Australia prepar- only ;^4, 140,000 on defence this year 



the Act receive honest criticism. They 

 are anxious to make the scheme as work- 

 able as possible, they admit the hard 

 case of the true moral objector, and 

 would, I am sure, welcome any practical 

 solution of the difficulty. 



What, some critics ask, would you 

 and others thinking as you do, suggest 

 in place of the present scheme? 



To me it is clear that the fate of 

 Australia will be decided on the water, 

 and not on the land. If once the con- 

 trol of the sea is permanently lost, the 

 whole of Australian manhood in arms 

 would fail to keep this vast continent in- 

 violate. If this is admitted, is it not ob- 

 vious that all the army Australia needs 

 is a force sufficiently large and well 

 trained to account for a chance raider 

 who might have succeeded in eluding the 

 fleet, but who must inevitably be cut off 

 from his base the moment the ships of 

 war arrive on the scene ? 



THE NAVY THE CHIEF DEFENCE. 



According to the estimates made when 

 Parliament was induced to accept the 

 Defence Scheme, we should be spending 



ing to defend herself altogether. On 

 the contrary, I think it is the Common- 

 wealth's duty to shoulder her share of 

 the burden of Empire, nor would I have 

 her spend a penny less on defence than 

 she did this )^ear. I do not, though, 

 agfree with those who consider that a 

 man's loyalty and patriotism is only 

 to be measured by his willingness him- 



\Ve are actual h' spending i^ 5,747,000, 

 and spending it in the proportion of 

 ;^3, 290,000 on the army and only 

 i^2,45o,ooo on the navy. 



If this heavy burden must be borne, 

 at any rate, let the greater expenditure 

 be upon the arm which even the most 

 fanatical advocate of compulsory ser- 

 vice will admit is the first and most im- 



self to bear arms and to compel others poriant line of defence, instead of upon 

 to do so also. land forces, which can only be re'^arded 



My article did not criticise the De- . . -. 



ence Scheme in general, but only cer- 

 tain portions of the Act dealing with 

 the land forces. That is a very different 

 thing. I should like to bear tribute to 

 the way in which those charged to ad- 

 minister and carry out the provisions of 



as a subsidiary means of nrotection, 

 which may perhaps be of value should 

 the first line fail. 



THE PEOPLE DECEIVED. 

 \\'hen • the /\ct was introduced Aus- 

 t-alians were told that the scheme for 



