NAVAL ARMAMENTS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 124, 19 February 1929, Page 11

NAVAL ARMAMENTS

SIR E HOWARD’S STATEMENT “ONLY PERSONAL VIEW EXPRESSED” (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Australian press Assn.—United Service.) Washington, February 16. The British Ambassador, Sir Esme I Howard, said on Saturday that he had expressed only a personal view in saying that it was the intention of the British Government to initiate efforts to bring about a further naval limitation. He said that the declaration could not be construed as official in any respect. ■ “MERELY A PERSONAL " ■ . OPINION” ' '

(Australian Press Association.) Washington, February 16. ■ When the statement from the British Foreign'Office that'“it is unlikely that His Majesty’s Government will lie in a position to make any further communication on the subject of naval limitation for some time” was brought tb the attention of Sir ESme Howard by the “New York Tribune” correspondent, the Ambassador said that his statement "contained nothing to show that I was speaking on behalf of my Government. I was indeed merely giving a personal opinion asked, for, which ' was that the present situation warranted the assumption that some efforts in ’ this direction will be made before ’ long, namely, before the next Washington Conference, at any rate.” ‘• /..The correspondent ' adds that Sir t Esme Howard was in perfect' agreement with the cabled, dispatches from London to-night that there had been nt) change in the. situation since Sir Attsten Chamberlain’s statement in the House of Commons on February 6 that the Government was examining the question of. Anglo-American, relations based on naval conditions in both countries, but that nothing was expected to follow for some time. There was a tendency in Washington yesterday to attribute the Ambassador’s statement to- domestic British . politics.' ■ ,'r ■ “UNFELICITOUS WORDING 7 ' i ■ ■ ■ ... '.. (Australian Press Association.) . (Rec. February 18, 11.55 p.m.) London, February 18. The “Daily Telegraph” states that owing to the extremely unfelicitbus Wording of the Foreign Office’s communique, Sir Esme Howard’s personal statement bears, the appearance of being a contraction of the policy of the , British Government, but really riocon- ' tradiction, the Ambassador clearly ; having stated, that any official move by Britain for a renewal of the Angio- : - American naval conversations was ex;tremely unlikely before the general •elections. ? > ‘ Sir Esme Howard evidently realised ’the acute disappointment at Washing‘ton over Britain’s inability to reply ‘■promptly and favourably to' Washington's note of September 28, hence the iAmbassador’s tactful explanation of ■the circumstances which account for Britain’s delay in answering Mr. Kellogg’s note of five months ago. and Sir , lEsme Howard’s emphasis upon the (earnestness and sympathy with which the problem is being studied in Loni Son and the various Dominion capitals. It was unfortunate that the Foreign Office communique should lack a note of sympathy, and be characterised by dryness and acidity suggesting a reprdof which Sir Austen Chamberlain assuredly never intended. r ' ' ■