BRITAIN'S SEA POWER.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19970, 3 July 1930, Page 9

BRITAIN'S SEA POWER.

POSITION UNDER NAVAL TREATY. LORD BEATTY'S CRITICISM. (BRITISH OFFICIAL WIBXllSl.) RUGBY, July 1. In the House of Lords Lord Beatty raised the matter of the proposed Naval Treaty resulting from the recent Naval Conference. He said that this country, which was the only nation to whom sea power meant its existence, was the only Power to make any disarmament or any reduction, and to this extent the Naval Treaty had rendered us impotent and incapable of maintaining effective control over the connecting links of our far-flung Empire. As a result of the Treaty, the United States was increasing hor cruiser tonnage by 233,000 tons; Japan wus increasing her cruiser tonnage by 10 per cent., or 40,000 tons; France aitd Italy were not in any way restricted. France had tho intontion of having twelve 10,000-ton cruisers, and Italy was not long to be behind hor. The reduction of our cruiser programme from 70 to 50 was one of the most inexplicable things of our time. Lord Beatty criticised the arrangement whereby our new ships wore to have a life of twenty years, whereas foreign ships would havo a life of sixteen years. Referring to tho Singapore Baso, he said that it was not yet finished, but without it we should be unable to protect our Empire and trade in the Far East and India. By 1933 Franco would possess 24 submarines and a flotilla of 2200 to ,2500 tons, with 5.5 in guns, whereas we should havo only 16 of 1050 tons, with 4.7 in guns. In destroyers we should havo practical equality. What possible chance should we have of maintaining our food supplies and vital comihodities" against such strength possessed by a Mediterranean Power! Lord Jellicoo exprosscd the fullest possible agreement with Lord Beatty. Lord Parmoor, replying for the Government, said, they had just as great care and anxioty for the security of the country as any other Government. Tho changed world conditions were sufficient to explain why 60 cruisers would give us, in 1930, tho security for which 70 cruisers wore desirable in 1927. He believed tho great mass of the people of this country desired this treaty and a policy of tho fullest understanding with tho United States, and they were prepared to feel secure so long as they knew no step was taken except nnder the advice of tho expert advisers for tho time boing on tho Board of Admiralty. NAVAL STRENGTH AND SECURITY. BRITAIN'S DEPENDENCE POINTED OUT. (Received July 2nd. 9.26 p.m.) LONDON, July 2. In tho discussion on tho Naval Treaty in tho House of Lords, Lord Jellicoo said that Lord Parmoor had cited tho Powers' signature of the Pact of Paris, but treaties had not always given safety and security to the Empire. If we had not possessed 114 cruisers in the war our losses would have been so great that we should have been starved into submission. Even at the present time we could not keep up the strength to 60 without including vessels many years old. Great Britain could not use the sixteen year limit for warships and was the only nation absolutely dependent on naval strength for security. The present position should cause the nation the greatest anxiety. Lord Jellicoe revealed that New Zealand asked him to represent her at the Conference, but Lord Passfield suggested that it would be embarrassing if tho Empire delegation had two sets of expert advice, and New Zealand thereupon asked Lord Jellicoe to put its: views in writing before the Admiralty, which ho did.