FRENCH DEMANDS.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 304, 22 December 1921, Page 5

FRENCH DEMANDS.

CRUISERS AND SUBMARINES. EQUALITY WITH BIG NAVIES. MAY ARRANGE COMPROMISE. (By Cable.—Press Association. --<X>pTrignt.) (Received 11.30 a.m.) WASHINGTON, December 21. M. Sarraut (leader of the French delegation) to-night declared that France demands a larger allowance of smaller craf'» than she was entitled to under the application of tiie strict capital ship proportion. A full committee meeting on Thursday will be devoted in part to detailed discussion of Britain's attitude to the abolition of submarines. The whole matter will be thrashed out behind closed doors, and then Britain will bo given the opportunity to state her case before the world at a plenary session next week. It may be that Mr. Hughes contemplates further representations en the French demands, though the American spokesman suggested that the French acceptance of the capital &hip ratio had not affected their subsequent requisitions on the subject of submarine tonnage. It is assumed that the French will make their whole position clear at a meeting of the full committee. A significant remark of the American spokesman was that auxiliary tonnage was not of as great importance as capital ship tonnage. This may indicate modification of Mr. Hughes' plan of proportionate reduction. This is not unlikely, seeing that Mr. Balfour at the second plenary session registered the opinion that nations like Britain, with long coast lines and a farflung Empire and need of defending their trade routes, should have cruiser protection. He suggested that such vessels of a light type had no value in the lighting line, but were invaluable for convoy, scouting Aid merchantship defence. Now, M. Briand make the similar pleas on behalf of France. It should be noticed that M. Briand's letter specially mentions light cruisers and torpedo boats before submarines. This, coupled with the reference "formal reserve," may foreshadow French retirement from the position demanding a full quota of submarines and equality with Britain and the United States, as the}' threatened to do. This may be a point on which a compromise could be arranged saving France's face and enabling M. Briand to convince the Chamber and the country that he had made as good a bargain as possible. Another aspect is raising the submarine question in relation to the coastline. On that ground Britain was entitled to many times more tonnage than France when all the Imperial coast trade routes were taken into consideration. Another point was the use of the word "defensive," which opens the way to the argument that submarines should be restricted in size and range st> as to act entirely on coastal defence.— (A. and N.Z. Cabig.) MILLION TON NAVIES. IF FRANCE DECLINES. AN APPEAL TO COMMONSENSE. WASHINGTON, December 21. After a meeting of the sub-committee on naval armaments to-day an official communique was issued with a copy of the correspondence that has passed between Mr. C. E. Hughes and M. Briand regarding France's claim to 10 capital ships. Mr. Hughes, in his letter, after reciting the agreement that had been arrived at between Britain, the United States, and Japan, pointed out that the sacrifices proposed by the United States Government had been substantially , made. The agreement, however, was dependent on an appropriate agreement with France and Italy. There was not the slightest difficulty with Italy, provided that a suitable understanding with France was reached. Thus the attitude of France would determine the success or failure of the efforts to reduce naval armaments. Mr. Hughes then proceeded: "In dealing with Britain and Japan facts were taken as they are, without academic discussion of national needs and aspirations which could not be realised. The ratio of capital ships taken was that existing. It is futile to secure a better one if nations with abundant resources build in competition. I "There is proposed a reduction of 40 per cent in the naval strength of the "three Powers. If the naval strength of France were reduced in the same proportion her tonnage of capital ships would be fixed at 102,000. This France is not asked to do. We are entirely willing that France should not scrap her Dreadnoughts. We have not the slightest objection to allowing her a total of 175,000 tons. If it be said that France desires greater relative strength, the obvious answer is that this is impossible of attainment. If the proposed agreement is not made Britain and the United States will shortly have 1,000,000-ton navies, more than six times greater than France, and France will not be in a position to better herself. "I have spoken thus frankly," concluded Mr. Hughes, "because of my deep appreciation of and friendship for France. I hone that, this matter, which perhaps, is the most critical that has yet reached the conference, may be satisfactorily adjusted." 11. Briand. in reply. wrote: "It is the will of the French "Government to do everything compatible with care for the vital interests of France in the question of limiting naval armaments. The preoccupation of Franco is not an offensive but a uniquely defensive point of view. With regard to the tonnage of capital ships, that is attacking ships, I have given instructions to the delegates of the French Government in the sense you desire, and I am certain I shall be sustained by my Parliament. But so far as defensive ships are concerned, light cruisers, .torpedo boats, and submarines, it will be impossible for the FrenA Government, without putting itself in contradiction to a vote of the Chambers, to accept reductions corresponding to those which we accept for capital ships, under this formal reserve which you will certainly understand. The idea dominating the conference is to restrict naval armaments which are offensive and costly. I do not believe it is in the programme to deny a nation like France, which has a large extent of coast*, and a number of distant colonic*. e*s*"iii"l men"c for dpfPT>din3 her onjnniiiniefl'ions and security. T am ! certain-you arjr.reriiite this effort at con- ! filiation which we are making. We j ardently wish a complete and striking 1 success for the conference."—(A, and iN.Z. Special Representative.)