LONDON NAVAL TREATY.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20021, 1 September 1930, Page 5

LONDON NAVAL TREATY.

PRESENTATION OF A BILL. FRANCE AND I ITALY. ClSOlt OXfX OWS COEMSfOSTDEST.) LONDON, July 25. In tho House of Commons on Monday, Mr Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty, presented a Bill "to enable effect to be given to a Treaty signed at London on behalf of his Majesty and certain other Powers, and to repeal Section 4 of the Treaties of Washington Act, 1922." Mr Henderson, replying to Lieut.Commander Kenworthy (Hull Central, Lab.), said: As I informed my hon. and gallant friend on June 18th, the Italian Government offered to suspend, while the negotiations for which the Naval Conference was adjourned were proceeding, the laying down of any units of their 1930 naval programme, provided similar action was taken by the French Government. I am now able to add that the French Government have informed the Italian Government that, in accordance with arrangements already made, no sHip of the French programme will be laid down before December. Mr Mac Donald, in reply to. Liout.Commander Kenworthy, said: His Majesty's Government have learned with I pleasure of the arrangements being I made by the Governments of France and Italy with a view to facilitating a resumption of discussions on the nnval question. His Majesty's Government hope (hat these negotiations will complete the work of the London Naval Conference, and apply the principles of naval limitation of Part 111. of the London Naval Treaty to all parties to the Conference. It is not necessary that his Majesty's Government should take any action in this connexion with regard to the naval programme for 1930 announced for this country since this programme is purely for necessary replacements within the reduced tonnage limits imposed by Part 111 of the Treaty. That this programme would be put in haad was well understood by all the Powers represented at the London Conference. Lieut.-Commmander Kenworthy: Is my right hon. friend aware that the French ships which,.are not to be laid down until the end of the year are also described ns for replacement purposes, and would it not help matters if we •postponed also? Mr Mac Donald: As a matter of fact, the French Government have never said that the ships they aro going to lay down, the ships in their naval programme, were for replacement purposes; but, on the other hand, it was perfectly clenrly understood bv the French and the Italian Governments, and by the United States and. Japanese Governments, that the programme which is now before this House was included in Part HI. and is in 110 sense a competitive programme.