SINGAPORE BASE DROPPED

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 151, 20 March 1924, Page 7

SINGAPORE BASE DROPPED

GOVERNMENTS DECISION ANNOUNCED IN HOUSE OF COMMONS GIVING THE WORLD A LEAD IN REDUCTION OF ARMAMENTS I MR. AMERY EMPHASISES BRITAIN’S GREATLY DIMINISHED NAVAL POWER The announcement in the House of Commons that the Government has decided to drop the Singapore naval base scheme had a mixed reception. The Parliamentary Secre tary to the Admiralty said the Government s aim wiis to maintain the proper efficiency of the navy as the first of defence and at the same time give the world a lead regarding the reduction of armaments. Mr. Amery, fomer First Lord of the Admiralty, emphasised the tremendous reduction in Britain’s naval power since pre-war days. 1 House of Lords carried a motion regretting the abandonment of the base.

By Telegraph—Press Association. -Copyright.

London, Afarch 18. In tho House of Commons, Mr. C G. Ammon, Parliamentary S’-cretarv to the Admiralty, stated that. tho Government had dropped tho bniga pore naval base scheme. 1 Mr L C. S. Amery (C.),, fo/IPU First Lord of the Admiralty, said that the Conservatives, when they, camo into power, would not lose an ins “ an * in resuming the Singapore base scheme. The Liberals are moving to oppose the construction of new ciuisers ns being calculated to increase the competition in armaments.- Aus.-in z,. Cable Assn. (Rec. March 19, 9.40 p.m.) • London, March IS. In the House of Commons the. announcement of the Singapore decision was received with Labour-cheers **.. Opposition cries of u Shaipol Mr. Ammon retorted: ‘I have given up attempting to please . V ve ??™ 0 VThe Liberals find fault with the decision relating to the five cruisers. Ih Conservatives are disposed to gr-tic the Singapore decision. Ine Government, he added, had attempted to stem a course maintaining the proper cl “" ciency of the Navy as the first line ot defence, and at the same time give a earnest of its intention to give the world a lead regarding ■ reduction ot armaments. They would do nothing to occasion provocation to any toiei„n Power. REDUCTION IN NAVAL POWER. Mr. Amery, pointing out that the Estimates were much below what he would have proposed, emphasised the tremendous reduction in. our naval power since pre-war days. The present capital ships numbered 22. and would shortly be reduced to 20, compared with 62 in 1913. The cruisers numbered 48. compared with 115; and the personnel numbered 100,000, compareci with 150,000. The major matters affecting the security of Britain and the .Empire were the cruiser position and the regrettable and wholly unexplained Singapore decision. The latter was entirely inconsistent with the Government’s general naval line. A Singapore base would no more be a menace to Japan than one at Plymouth would be a menace to the United States. They talked of the danger of wounding the susceptibilities of a foreign Power. Was not there a real danger of mortally wounding the susceptibilities of fellowcitizens m the Dominions ? Mt. G. Lambert (Lib.) supporter! absolutely the Goveflnment’s Singapore policy. To build two battleship docks at Singapore was one of the costliest follies ever proposed in the House of Commoins. There was a limit to what the British taxpayer could stand. GOVERNMENTS' VIEWS TO BE PUBLISHED. Mr. MacDonald, the Prime Minister, said the Government was publishing a document setting out its naval views. The Dominions’ views would also bo fully published when consent to the publication was received. Australian representations urged that the abandonment of Singapore would jeopardise the policy of conciliation, because reduction of the mobility of the licet would reduce the Empires influence in the councils of the nations. Now Zealand represented that the Empire’s interests in the Pacific would be endangered if capital ships were unable to operate there. The time had not arrived to rely solely on tho League of Nations’ influence for peace. AUSTRALIAN SUGGESTION CRITICISED. Air. MacDonald said he could not accept the Australian suggestion that it would be better to continue extending Singapore for the purpose of scrapping it later if an international agreement were reached than to hold it. up now in the hope that this would help towards an agreement from tho viewpoint of bargaining. He believed that Britain was in a stronger position to uphold it now, but would let the world know that wo would extend Singapore if driven thereto. So far ns moral sincerity was concerned, the latter policy would bo ten million times stronger than the former. Therefore he thought tho Australian Primo Minister’s observations were unsound. SCHEME NOT A VIOLATION OF WASHINGTON TREATY. Mr. MacDonald repudiated tho suggestion that; tho Government’s action was in any way putting off co-epera-tion with the Dominions, or making it impossible 'o carry on co-operation under the different circumstances and perhaps different plans. He stated,, incidentally, that the Singapore scheme would in no way violate the Washington agreement if we were driven to create a new fleet in the Pacific, but after careful consideration the Government had decided that the scheme would detrimentally affect tnii foreign policy aiming at the creation of an international confidence i.icilitatuig a comprehensive agreement on the limitation of arinnuinrts. VIEWS OF DOMINIONS.

He stated that the Commonwealth cordially sympathised with the Government’s international policy, and desired an advance towards a reduction of armaments, but considered the action of His Majesty's Government would jeopardise, instead of assisting, that policy. The Singapore scheme purposes. General Smuts described was for defensive, not offensive, purposes. General Smuts described the Imperial policy as a bold move towards an endumig peace. He wholeheartedly agreed with it. General

Smuts felt that the great of peace and conciliation would be seriously undermine! by the construction of the base. Mr. MacDonald concluded bv stating that Australia had expressed its willingness to contribute a substantial sum towards the development of the base, an.! New Zealand already had offered a first contribution of £lOO,OOO. , -» The debate concluded after Air. Baldwin had stated that the vatives reserved the right to speak fully and demand a decision o. the House on the report stage. Air Hugh Deely (Libeial) thereupon'moved that the construction of five cruisers was not necessary, the motion being defeated by 304 votes to 114. ■ i*' The House | adjourned.—Reuter. DOMINION REPLIES London, Alarch 18. In the House of Lords, A iscount Chelmsford, First Lord of the Admiralty, -summarised the Dominion replies in regard to Singapore to the effect that Canada and Ireland preferred not to advise, while Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundlnd urged the construction of the base. General Smutn (South lAfiica) approved an Imperial policy that would be conducive to peace.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. MOTION OF REGRET CARRIED BY HOUSE OF LORDS (Rec. Alarch 19, 9.40 p.m.) London, Alarch 18. The House of Lords carried by 56 votes to 19 Lord Curzon’s motion regretting the Government’s ection in abandoning tho Singapore scheme, believing the development of a. naval base at Singapore, as approved by the Imperial Conference, was urgently required for the protection ot commerce, the security of the Dominions, and the future maintenance of peace.—Reuter. (Rec. Alaroh 19, 5.5 p.m.) London, Alarch 19. In the House of Lords Lord Curzon said he was glad that Viscount Chelmsford had discarded the argument that the decision of tho late Government to proceed with Singapore could be regarded as a breach of faith owing to the Washington agreement. To say that the base would be a menace to Japan was an argument that could be used only with great caution, or we might be told that we could not have a fleet in the Channel because it was shaking the fist in the face of France, or in the Atlantic because the United States would not like it. “I wonder what will happen if China breaks out in chaos or confusion,” he continued. “Alay it not become vital for the fleet to have a means of repair at Singapore? When this matter was discussed at the Imperial Conference it was borne strongly on m/ mind that the Dominions believed profoundly that they were unsafe.” Viscount Grey said: “This is not a question of letting tho Navy down, but a question of giving contracts which commit us irrevocably to giving tho Navy a range of potentiality it has not had before. If there wag not another powerful fleet in the Pacific this expenditure would not be advocated.”

Viscount Haldane (Lord Chancellor) said no doubt a naval base at Singapore would add considerably to the strength of the Navy, but it would bo a gesture to the world indicating that we were vastly extending our armaments, making a weapon which might be used for aggression. There was reason to believe that the Dominions shared the views of the Government with regard to foreign policy; therefore the Government strongly opposed Lord Curzon’s amendment disagreeing with the abandonment of the Singapore scheme. —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. OPINION IN AUSTRALIA NAVAL BASE IN PACIFIC ESSENTIAL DECISION WILL SEAL DOOM OF LABOUR MINISTRY (Rec. March 19. 9.30 p.m.) Melbourne, March 19. ’Die Federal Cabinet at a meeting in the afternoon discussed the situation arising out of the Imperial Government’s abandonment of the Singapore scheme. Mr. Bowden, Minister of Defence, in an interview said he hoped it did not mean the permanent scrapping of the scheme. Cabinet was awaiting further information on the matter. From Australia’s point of view it was absolutely essential that there should be some nawil base in the Pacific. It would be impossible for the Grand

Fleet to operate in war time with no base nearer than Alalta. Nationalist members expressed disappointment at tho British Government’s decision. Some quarters declared that it would seal tho doom of the Labour Government and was contrary to popular British opinion. Labour members took the contrary view. The opinion is expressed in political circles that tho Federal Cabinet must now consider what action Australia must take for its own defence. —Press Assn. MR. BRUCE’S REPLY HOPES DECISION WILL BE RECONSIDERED (Rec. Alarch 20, 1.30 a.m.) Melbourne, Alarch 19. Air. Bruce has forwarded a reply to the British Government regarding the Singapore base. It is understood be expresses the opinion that the abandonment will be considered a blow to the prestige of the Empire and the Dominions will be endangered by the non-establisliment of the base, lie expressed the hope that the decision may be reconsidered. —Press Assn.

“POSSESS OUR SOULS” MR. MASSEY’S ADVICE NEW GOVERNMENT’S TASK When the cable announcing that tho British Labour Government had diopped the Singapore base scheme was submitted to Air. Alassey he said: I regret exceedingly that the British Government has seen fit to drop the proposals with regard to fortifying Singapore. It will be a great disappointment to all British citizens of the Pacific, particularly because we know perfectly well that a fleet of battleships or battle-cruis-ers cannot operate successfully unless it has got a satisfactory base to worfk upon. I am optimistic enough to believe that this niatter will bo taken up later on, and perhaps in the not far distant future by a Government which will succeed the one now in charge of the Treasury Benches. In tho meantime there is nothing to do but to possess our souls in patience, and be ready to . urge a resumption of operations as soon as the proper opportunity offers. “REPUDIATION OF BRITAIN’S OBLIGATIONS” “MORNING POST’S” COMMENTS (Rec. Alarch 19. 7.55 p.m.) London, March 18. The “Aforning Post” characterises the Singapore decision as shameful and equivalent to a repudiation of Britain’s obligations and responsibilities in the Pacific. Moreover, the abandonment of the base is a deliberate breach of agreement with the Governments of tho Dominions. —Aus.N.Z. Cable Assn. REDUCTION IN NAVAL ESTIMATES NEED OF NEW CRUISERS DESIRE TO REDUCE ARMAMENTS (Rec. Alarch 19, 9.5 p.m.) London, Alarch 18. In the House of Common, in introducing tho Naval Estimates Air. Ammon emphasised that the reduction of £2,200,000 testified to the observance of the Washington agreement and the desire to reduce armaments. The personnel had been increased a thousand only. Fourteen hundred men would be recruited to man the two new battleships and other ships now being constructed, instead of the 3200 normally required. Tho remainder would be obtained from other ships. The progress on the battleships Nelson and Rodney had been seriously affected by the boilermakers’ lock-out -flast year. It was very doubtful whether the time lost would be regained. It was anticipated that three light cruisers would be completed next financial year, and the fourth in July, 1925. Arrangements had been made to maintain an adequate oil reserve for tho needs of the Fleet. The cruisers available f< r the protection of trade were below requirements. The replacement construction of five new cruisers could no longer be delayed in view cf the large number of light cruisers which during the next few years would reach an age at which they would no longer be efficient. Out of the 48 light cruisers in the British Empire, 10 would be over the efficient age this year. Practically all the remainder were built during war-time for the North Sea, and 18 of them were unsuitable to operate on long '-cean trade routes. By the time the pro posed five ciuisers were completed 11 of the 16 now commissioned would have been scrapped or placed < n reserve. The Government had cltsely and earnestly considered tho otestion of the Singapore base, as it involved questions of much wider implication than naval strategy. After fully considering all relevant facts and consulting the Dominions, the Government had decided not to proceed with the scheme. (Loud Alinisterinl cheers.) —Reuter. STRENGTH OF NAVIES A COMPARISON London, Alarch IS. Tho Admiralty has issued an important return, comparing the fleets of the British Empire with the principal foreign countries on February 1. Omitting all obsolete vessels Hie figures are as follow — Britain. Battleships and battle. cruisers 22 Cruisers and light cruisers 50 Destroyers Submarines SI United Slates. Battleships . ... 18 Light cruisers 25 Destroyers 309 Submarines 115 Japan. ' Battleships —-c.re-«w>i W

Cruisers U Destroyers . ‘ ° Submarines 44 France. Battleships 9 Cruisers H Destroyers 43 Submarines Italy. Battleships 7 Cruisers 13 Destroyers 'll Submarines 43 Russia. Battleships d Cruisers 3 Destroyers ... 20 —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.