BRITAIN'S NAVY.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19818, 4 January 1930, Page 13

BRITAIN'S NAVY.

ITS REQUIREMENTS IN CRUISERS. THE ADMIRALTY SILENT. (CXITED PRESS ASSOCIATION' —J3T ELECTRIC TELEGK.VPH—COPYRIGHT.) (Received January 3rd, 5.35 p.m.)LONDON, January The "Daily Telegraph's" Naval contributor points out that while the other countries have realised that information should be imparted concerning the coming conference, the British Admiralty preserves its traditional silence. Nevertheless, in fairness to the Board, the truth of the position should be known. In 1923-2-1, it surveyed the situation most carefully, and came to the conclusion that SO cruisers was the minimum, Mr Baldwin's Cabinet struck out a further eight, leaving 72, which Lord Beatty and others considered inadequate. Since then it has been discovered that Britain requires only 50. It is difficult to believe that the present Board consented to the reduction thereto without pressure from Cabinet. An editorial fears that, the Government is about to enter the conference in a mood for reckless sacrifice and Parliament will be faced with an agreement that ought never to have been made. JAPANESE DELEGATION AT WORK. AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW APPRECIATED. (BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.) RUGBY, January 2. The chief of the Japanese delegation to the Naval Conference, Mr Waka.tsuki, will in all probability have informal conversations in a few days with the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, Mr Ramsay MacDonald and Mr Arthur Henderson. He states that as a result of such talks in Washington he now thoroughly appreciates tlio American point of view, and has, he believes, enabled the American delegates to understand the Japanese standpoint. On neither side had there been any attempt to forestall the conference by actual negotiation. UNITING U.S.A. AND BRITAIN. SIGNIFICANT AMERICAN VIEW. (FROM OGli OWK CORRESPOXDE.VT.) SAN FRANCISCO, December C, An Anglo-American understanding, which will draw the two great branches of the English-speaking world closer together and remove the danger of a possible clash between them, wiU likely be the one big outcome of the London Naval Conference. At least such is the conviction of Representative Fred A. Britten, ot Illinois, chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee at Washington. *'T am inclined to doubt tne probability of a five-Power agreement between America, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy,'' he said, "because France and Italv an pear likely to take approximately the same stand in London as thev did in Washington in 1921. If they do a general agreement would seem to hie out of the question. "But," Chicago's indefatigable champion of adequate naval defence for America went on, "Great Britain, the United States, and Japan ought still to be able to come to some understanding which will make the conference worth while. As T view it, the most important thing is to achieve parity as between America and Britain. To mv mind the actual tonnage figures, upon which parity and limitation are based, are far less important than the fact of an Anglo-American agreement itself, for while no one looking for, or anticipating, any war between the two countries, it is far better that they remove every chance for friction they possibly can. I d° not think we should look upon the coming conference so much as an opportunity to save money as a chance to promote better relations between Britain and America. No Saving to U.S.A. "As a matter of fact,'' Representative Britten continued, "I do not believe the London conference will save much money for the United States. Certainly not immediately. Britain today has a fleet of cruisers totalling 39/,000 tons. She is building eignt more, aggregating 76,000 tons. Only five oi her present cruisers antedate the war. Seven date from 1915 and the rest since that time. Fifteen, built and building, have been laid down since the Washington Conference—despite Lord Baltour's promise that Britain's future naval programme would keep within the spirit of that conference which plainly was parity with the United States. "Thus Britain to-day is far superior to the United States in cruiser tonnage, and the lowest tentative limitation she has thus far suggested was 339,000 tons. Against that we have only 152,000 to*is of cruisers built, and 15 more 10,000-tonners authorised, totalling some 300,000 tons, or considerably below the minimum suggested to date by the British. "This does not look like reduction and limitation, so far as we are concerned, but rather increase and limitation. No money-saving there. "I repeat, however, that we ought not to look at it in that light. We should strive for limitation as low as Britain will be willing to go, but for limitation anyhow on a basis of equality. Otherwise we must consider a building programme calculated to give us pferity or superiority, no matter how many ships we may have to build to get it. "This, T think I can safely say, represents the view of the entire Naval Affairs Committee of the House, with possibly one or two exceptions. I believe it represents the views of a majority of the House itseif, and of the country at large." Representative Britten is of tne opinion that the question of naval bases will be reopened in London, and that Great Britain will offer to raze those maintained by her in Bermuda and in West Indian waters. "They are not strong enough to be of much service to the British Fleet, anyway." lie said, "and the moral effect of such a gesture would be of value. "Singapore, T believe, will not be affected. The Dominions are putting up most of the money for that base, as they feci it is primarily for their protection. tso the Prime Minister, Mr Mac Donald, will have difficulty if he attempts to discard it."