BRITISH NAVY

Evening Star, Issue 19001, 24 July 1925, Page 5

BRITISH NAVY

BUILDING PROGRAM AH AGREEMENT REACHED CABINET CRISIS AVERTED Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, July 22. The Cabinet has reached an agreement under which the Admiralty will accept four cruisers this year and three next year.—A. and N.Z. Cable. FOUR CRUISERS THIS YEAR'. LONDON, July 22. The lobbyist of the ‘ Daily Express ’ says; “'The cruiser crisis ended tonight when Cabinet decided that four cruisers should be laid down—two immediately and two at the end of the financial year—but that nono of the bills for them should be presented till next financial year. There will bo no resignations. The highest influences were brought to bear to prevent Admiralty resignations.—A. and N.Z. Cable. COMPROMISE EFFECTED. LONDON, July 2.L A parliamentary lobbyist understands that the Cabinet divergencies on the naval construction programme occurred over the question as to whether or not throe or possibly four cruisers should be begun not earlier than December and throe in 1926. The Admiralty demanded three in 1925 and four in 1926. Mr Churchill, representing the Treasury, and a majority of the Cabinet were unwilling to agree beyond two in 1925 and three in 192(5. The Treasury agreed to a compromise, conditionally on the Admiralty substantially reducing the administrative expenses, notably in the direction of a reorganisation of the dockyards.— Reuter.

WIN FOR ADMIRALTY. NEWSPAPEITcOMMEXT. LONJ)ON, July 23. Tin' most reliable accounts of tho momentous two-hour Cabinet meeting agree that the cruiser crisis has ended, and that resignations have been averted by the decision to lay down seven ships in two years. 'There was some divergence whether the programme should bo four this year and three next year, or vice versa, hut it is believed that the former proportion was adopted. The settlement was uncpiestior.ahly the sequel to a severe .struggle hoi ween i\lr Bridgeman, representing the full weight of Admiralty opinion, and Mr Churchill, representing his own Budget aims and the economists, it is generally agreed that one of the factors in the settlement was the necessity of avoiding a Gabinet split in tho face of the coal crisis. 'The ‘ Daily Mail,’ in an editorial, says; “The Admiralty seemingly had its way and overcame Mr Churchill s rosistaiiee. i 7 n fortunately experience shows that the promises of extravagant departments to economise cannot be trusted. The proper course would have been to insist on the Admiralty first reducing its expenditure and then when the cuts had been duly made to consider the request for a largo new cruiser programme on its merits. 'The policy actually adopted means spending more public money. The taxpayer lias only too ranch reason to fear that ho will "be informed next year that no economies can be made, and that taxes must therefore be heavily increased.” The ‘ Daily Telegraph’s ’ parliamentary correspondent says that tho Admiralty’s contention has been that if economics are to bo enforced they can bo achieved with loss risk than by the postponement of tho ’replacement of essential ships. Deficiencies in other respects can bo mot in times of emergency by improvising, but it is impossible to improvise ships. The ‘Daily News’ says: “The Admiralty won partly through the active aid and countenance extended to it in sympathetic high quarters; partly owing to the fact that Mr Bridgeman was prepared to resign if his demands were refused, whereas Mr Churchill was not prepared to resign if they were granted; and partly because tho minority of tho Cabinet who bad been resisting the Admiralty arc not really economists. The result is that the race in armaments, so far as tho sea is concerned, is now to begin again.” The ‘Daily Express’ says; “ Mr Bridgeman in the course of the negotiations actually resigned and refused to reconsider Ins resignation unt.il lie carried his point. It is believed that the money required will be obtained by scrapping the dockyards at Pembroke, Chatham, and Gibraltar.” The ‘ Express ’ further says: “The Admiralty pointed out that of the vessels built to steam thirty knots and over Britain has six, the United States ten, and Japan sixteen. Moreover, of tho fifty-one British cruisers of war and pre-war design only two have the necessary speed and sea-keeping qualities to protect trade front attacks by cruisers of post-war design.” The 'Westminster Gazette’ remarks ; “ The Admiralty view moans bluntly that every friendly Power is to bo treated henceforth as a potential enemy. This applies at all events to cruiser competition, which is said to stand outside the one-Power standard supposed to have been accepted for other ships.” The ‘ Morning Post ’ observes : “ The Adjaintßy is satisfied and Mr Bridge-

man remains on the bridge. Like Jutland, it has-been a close shave.” The ‘ Post ’ proceeds to return to its attack on Mr Churchill, and says; “ Mr Churchill, following Radical precedent, attempted—and failed —to exercise his scheme of economy on the Navy. He has done his best to create disunion in the Cabinet, to compel the resignation of Mr Bridgeman and even to embarrass the Prime Minister. For what purpose Mr Churchill chose a course oi action so extraordinary the public may decide. Llad ho succeeded the result must have been disastrous to the Government.” —A. and N.Z. Cable. AN EARLIER MESSAGE. LONDON, July 22. There have been recently half a dozen special Cabinet meetings and numerous conferences of Ministers endeavoring io compose the differences over the Admiralty’s demand for the construct ion of new cruisers. > It was expected that to-day’s Cabinet meeting would settle the question or cud in a rupture between Mr Bridgeman and Mr Churchill, but it was announced alter two hours’ sitting that no decision bad been readied. The situation remains critical. It is understood that Lord Balfour has undertaken to assist Mr Baldwin in finding a middle course between the two parties in the Cabinet. —Reuter.