BRITISH NAVY

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 108, 9 May 1930, Page 9

BRITISH NAVY

FRUIT OF CONFERENCE

BELOW SAFETY LIMIT?

HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE

. Brltkti Official Wireless. (Received 9th May, 11.30 a.m.)

EUGBY, Bth May

Viscount Bridgeman, First Lord of the- Admiralty in the late Conservative Government, opened a debate in the House of Lordfe upon tho Naval Treaty resulting from the London Naval Conference. He said that so far as tho smaller, portion of the treaty, which was signed by all tho live Powers, was concerned, tho important thing was the prolongation of the life of capital ships. Ho did not quarrel with this, though it was true that we were giving up stronger and newer battleships than America was doling. With regard ±o the reservation in tho Three-Power Agreement empowering us to increase our naval strength if any Power not signatory of tho treaty was building to an extent which was threatening to us, that seemed to him to place us in a. very invidious position. Wo had to consider not only the Atlantic and Pacific, but also the Mediterranean and our position in Europe, | whereas neither a£ tho other two signatories was coiwerned in that way. j BRITAIN AHONE DISAEMS. Lord Br' Igemnn submitted t that the ! Government had made a great sacrifice in giving up, twenty cruisers, when seventy # had been agreed to be our requirements, and essential for the I protection of our Imperial traded It was said that this Treaty was a step towards disarmament. What country besides our own liad made a step towards disarmament" §oine had more ships than before, gome had about the same. Wo alone had a great diminution of naval strength, and we had already since the wax done more than any nation to reduce our ships. Where was this great stop towards disarmament except by ourselves { •Lord Carson (Conservative), speakii'g as oue who was: First Lord of the Admiralty in the critical period of tho war, said that the mastery of the seas had always hitherto been regarded as essential to our existence and to tho safety of our country. He reminded, the House of the grave difficulties we had during the war in feeding our people. He -wanted tho assurance of the Government that in approving this treaty it had behind it"the support of naval exports at tho Admiralty. . PRAISE TOR GOVERNMENT. The Marquis of Beading • (Liberal) said that the essential question was whether sufficient care had been, taken to protect this country against invasion. Ho thought Lord Carson seemed to take no account whatever of all that had happened since 1914. We were committed to disarmament. We must now envisage the case of the Navy from, the aspect of a nation desirous of peace, of trying to prevent war between other countries, and of doing its utmost to make certain that the treaties we had entered into should be duly observed and performed. He thought that the Government had every reason to congratulato itself upon the agreement with America and Japan, and ho built, tho strongest hopes upon a future agreement between France and Italy. LORD JELLICOE'S £EARS. - Admiral of the Fleet Earl Jellicoe thought that in view of what was being done in the navies of other countries the reduction now proposed .went oeyond the limits of safety. Naval Conferences since the war had resulted in reductions in our Navy, but in no other navies. Instead, they had actually increased them. A very great deal of destruction of our merchant vesaals in. the early days of the war was done by only two German cruisers, the Emden and the Kavlsruhe. It one hundred and fourteen British cruisers were unable to prevent two cruisers doing that damage how coitld we expect fifty cruisers to prevent damage to our trade and food supflUes, and secure our sea communications? NOT ON FORCE ALOSE. Lord Parmoor, replying for the Government, said that we could no longer depend upon force alone to secure our safety. Keplying to the specific points raised during the debate, he said that the Admiralty was prepared to agree '. i fifty cruisers as minimum requirements of the Empire up to the next Conference in 1936. Justification for the reduction from seventy to fifty was the change in the general peace outlook in the world. The Pact of Paris had made a great difference. The government had consciously and conscientiously acted upon the advice of its experts, and was satisfied that the security of the Empire was amply ' safeguarded. FUTURE POLICY. As regarded our future construction, he could not state definitely the policy of the Government. Bo long asi the present Government was in power it would work out a programme so that replacement might be substantially provided for within the time contemplated in tho agreement. With reference to the reduction of the size of capital ships the Government had been unable to achieve it. Was it suggested that they ought to have broken off negotiations becauso they could not obtain consent to that? He contended that by the treaty the danger of submarines had been limited. The Government believed that it had achieved two great results—the security of tho country and a splendid friendliness between ourselves, America, and Japan, while, as regarded Prance and Italy, the negotiations were not closed.