cHAP. X] MILITARY AND NAVAL DEFENCE 1281 
some joint system to be arranged. Moreover, there are 
obvious difficulties in the case of an Imperial and a Colonial 
fleet being together in time of peace, though in time of war 
the placing of the navy under the control of the Admiralty 
would ensure the disappearance of such difficulties. 
More important, of course, was, and is, the question of 
international law—how far it was possible compatibly with 
the maintenance of the unity of the Empire to have a fleet 
separate from the Imperial fleet. It was true that the same 
problem had been raised with regard to military forces, but, 
with the exception of Canada, Colonial military forces had not 
been in a geographical position to commit acts of aggression 
on foreign soil, and in the case of Canada there was no proba- 
bility, if, for no other reason than the formidable power of 
the United States, that any act of aggression would take 
place! On the other hand, ships of war moved freely, 
and possibilities of difficulty were present especially in con- 
nexion with the Western Pacific, unless the control of the 
Imperial Navy could in some manner be ensured. No final 
arrangement was come to while Mr. Deakin’s Government 
was in office ; the Admiralty made proposals for the constitu- 
tion of a quasi-independent Australian Navy, leaving for 
further discussion the arrangements to secure uniformity in 
training and command in the two forces, and the full control 
»f the Imperial power in international matters both in war 
and in peace. 
During the Colonial Conference of 1907, Mr. Deakin dis- 
cussed with Lord Tweedmouth and the heads of the Admiralty 
the question of Australian naval defence. On October 16, 
1907, he addressed to the Governor-General a dispatch 
explaining the views of the Commonwealth Government in 
this matter. In that dispatch the suggestion was pressed 
that, instead of a contribution of money, the share cf the 
duty of the naval defence undertaken by Australia should 
take the form of a contribution of Australian seamen. - 
+ Macleod’s case indeed seems to contradict this rule, but that was before 
full responsible government, and in fairness the act was merely one of self- 
defence against foreign invaders ; see Hall, International Law,® pp. 314, 315.