NAVAL ARMAMENTS

Evening Star, Issue 19775, 27 January 1928, Page 4

NAVAL ARMAMENTS

mmm and Britain THE GENEVA FAILURE t BRITAIN’S ATTITUDE EXPLAINED Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright, MELBOURNE, January 27, (Received January 27, at 11.40 a.m.) Sir Robert Horne, referring to naval armaments at the Overseas Club, said that last year in the United States the idea was very prevalent, because Britain failed to come to an agreement with that nation on the question of the number of cruisers to bo built, that Britain had some ulterior design. That idea was still cherished, and it was desired also to have a navy larger than that of any other nation. The controversy between Britain and the United States was over the number of cruisers each should have. America wanted a certain number of 10,000-ton cruisers, and wished to limit the number of cruisers which Britain required. Britain could not accept their figure, and insisted that she required a much greater number of cruisers than had been stipulated. Britain had no aggressive intention at all. All she asked was that she should have the number of cruisers she required in accordance with the distance between the sections of the Empire. Sir Robert Horne added: “America is self-contained, and has only one or two near possessions, so she requires fewer 'ships than Britain, whoso possessions are scattered through the seas. Further, America requires a large cruiser because it has to steam a greater distance to refuel, whereas the Empire possesses a largo number of fueling stations throughout the world. Her cruisers could operate with a much smaller store of fuel, but we require far more of them than America does. We should have been failing in our duty to those portions of the Empire, here, and overseas, if we had failed to maintain the position that nothing less than our absolute necessities should be agreed to. Britain is bound to recognise her own necessities nnd_ the needs of the great communities which depend on the defence she affords, and we did nothing less than our duty in maintaining that position/’