BRITISH NAVAL ACTIVITY

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 120, 6 February 1923, Page 8

BRITISH NAVAL ACTIVITY

A RECENT QUESTION IN THE , COMMONS WELL-KNOWN WRITER’S OPINION Rephing recently in the House of Commons to a question whether in view ol the fact that the f.ups must be laid down under the Washington Treaty bv December 31. and in order to maintain the one-Power standard, he could state whether the orders for two battleships had been given, Mr. Boimr Law, Prime Minister, replied in the affirmative. Mr. Archibald Hurd, the well-known naval writer, refers to tho Primo .Minister’s reply as “a pledge of good faith.” The Government (he says in the “Daily Telegraph”' had really no honourable choice but to lay down the two battleships—and lay them down at once. ' Judging by questions which have recently been put in .the House of Commons, the position is still not understood by -i good many M.P. s. So an explanation may not be out of place. And for the sake of lucidity the stages of the. developments whicn confronted the Government with the problem—to build or not to build these two ships—may perhaps be set out in duo order. 1. With tho assent of the Sea Lords, the late Government, while Mr. (now Viscount) Long was First Lord. d« cided that tho two-Power standard, which we had maintained for many years, should be abandoned ; wq would be satisfied in future with equality in capital ships with tho. next greatest Power, which was the United States. 2. Evon that sacrifice involved the building without delay of four capital ships, each of which was to have displaced 47.000 tons; in view the activity in American and Japane.-e dockyards, additional vessels . would unquestionably have been built m subsequent years. It. was not a question as to whether we were ever likely to fight either America or Japan Me had to select a standard, and, having adopted it, to abide by it. 'I he minimum was equality with the next strongest fleet, and that meant laying down these four new ships or abandoning the standard. Mould this country have been satisfied with a lower olio? That, was the first quesii >n which had to be answered. Hie late Government Vnny.wercd it in tli« possible way, and the demand of the Admiralty for the four ships followed as a matter of course. 3. That decision was approved by the House of Commons; tho necescarv funds for beginning these new ships was voted ; in due course tenders wm" invited by the Admiralty, and the keels were laid down. •1 The work was proceeding when President Hardirg issued invitations to the conference on the limitation o armaments. Tno British Government, having bv its policy in abandoning tne two-Power standard shown in a. ver* practical way its sympathy With tne President’s ideal, responded cordially. The British delegation, headed by the Ear] of Balfour and Viscount Lee ot Fareham, then First Lord went out prepared to do all. in their power to forward the cause which the American Administration desired to promote.. When Mr Hughes announced dramatically that the United States would scrap not on v a number of old vessels but all the thirteen capital ships winch were then building, our representatives responded by throwing into the scales tho four ships which we had just begun to build in this country, as well as a good many units which had been in the Gt and Fleet during the war. A Measure of Economy.

5. Eventually, as a result of a compromise urged by Japan, it was agreed that that country should retain her newest and jfnV'ist .battleship. tho Mutsu, just completing for sea. at Yokosuka Dockyard, instead of scrapping her; the United States should, m virtue of that- change in relative strength, retain two of the slvp’ of the West Virginia class, on tho stocks ; and “the British Empire”—to nuote from the schedule adopted—should, in place of tho four vessels aggregating 188,000 torn'-, lav down in 1922 two ships of onlv 35.000 tons—or 70,000 tons altogether. The arrangement represented an economy welcome to the taxpayers, without any loss of power at so'a. It was regarded as a good bargain, “and no one at that time, not even the most perfervid passivist, suggested that we should not lay down these ships and thgs honour the adtageous terms accepted at Washington, and thus assist in bringing about an obvious limitation m armaments, since we also agreed that we would build no further capital ships until 1931. 6. In due course the Government laid tho ma‘‘er brtoro Hie House of Commons. The arrangement was accepted with alacrity; it meant- a saving of many millions of pounds. It was agreed that the four vessels of 47.000 tons should be scrapped, and the necessary funds were voted for laying down the keels of two ships of 35,000 in the present- financial year, so that we might fulfil our undertaking to com’' , etc them by 1925. That- is the sequence of events. Me arc merely keeping faith with the other Bowers —excham* i ’' , g two snwl! sb.ips for four large ships; and when the two new ships, are completed we shall scrap four older vessels —a further economy and a large one.