NAVAL WEAKNESS

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 143, 13 March 1931, Page 9

NAVAL WEAKNESS

Use of Foreign Fuel Oil DANGER TO BRITAIN Policy Alteration Urged EXPERIMENTS WITH COAL By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright (Rec. March 12, 7 pan.) London, March Ilin the House of Commons Com tuander J. M. Kenworthy (Labour) moved: “That the House expresses the opinion that it is desirable for strategic and economic reasons that energetic steps be taken to encourage the use of oil fuel made from coal for the Navy."

He pointed out that 90 per cent, of Britain’s oil fuel came from the United States and Mexico and the rest via the Mediterranean and the Cape of Good Hope. America by a simple action could stop suppliesWithout petrol, not a warship could put to sea, and not an aeroplane could fly, while the Army would be immobilised. ■ * Thirty per cent, of British merchantmen were oil burners.

. There were no scientific difficulties against obtaining all the oil fuel needed from coal. ® , Mr. G. H. Hall (Labour) eaid the Government was prepared to accept the motion. The Admiralty was well aware off he danger of dependence on imported oil fuel, and the fuel research de-, parement was devoting itself to the question. It was hoped in the near future that oil for the Navy would be obtainable from coal at a price that would give a fillip to the coal industry. The motion was adopted without a division. Arguments which would result, in the scrapping of the whole British Fleet are advanced forcibly in a- book entitled “Navies of To-day and To-morrow,” by Captain Bernard Ackworth, D. 5.0., the “Morning Post’s” naval contributor, who for four years was on the staff of the Admiralty. He says that the British Navy should stick to coal as fuel, for a navy dependent for its power more on foreigners is fantastic. The General Staff should be disbanded, leaving the Board of Admiralty again free to deal with policy. No ship should be bigger than 12,000 tons, and they should scrap battle-cruisers, freak cruisers, carriers and repair ships which litter the sea, or, more strictly, the docks, where they are perpetually under repair or re-design. DEFENCE OF FRANCE Needed Tonnage Retained EXTENT OF AGREEMENT (Rec| March .12, 10.30 p.m.) Paris, March 12. Comment on the Naval Agreement as revealed in the British House of Commons by Mr. A. Alexafider, is restrained, but favourable. The “Echo de Paris” says the agreement Is not a treaty proper, but is the nucleus for future treaties. There will have to be a remodelling of the situation under the Washington-London agreements to put them In harmony with the FrancoItalian pact. The “Petit Journal” welcomes the suspension of naval competition, and adds: “The agreement is the best possible forerunner of a disarmament conference.” “Le Petit Parisian” says that France retains the tonnage strictly necessary for her own protection. FEELING IN JAPAN Dissatisfaction With France Kobe, March 11. Cabinet has approved the draft of the naval reply to London.. The “Asahi” states that the reply signifies acceptance onl/ conditionally and does.not restrain Japan’s future, attitude. Sharp disapproval is expressed of France’s battleship programme and submarine allotment as inimical to the growing world desire for disarmament. “If the balance is thus upset, the result of the application of the escalator clause on future disarmament is ,’looiuy. Japan expects France at the next Disarmament Conference to consent to a reduction.”