NAVAL AGREEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 22066, 27 June 1935, Page 9

NAVAL AGREEMENT

BRITAIN AND GERMANY LORD BEATTY'S SUPPORT (British Official Wireless.) Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright RUGBY, Juno 26. (Received June 27, at noon.) During a brief debate in the House of Lords Earl Beatty welcomed the Anglo-German agreement. A gesture of the kind that Germany had made, he said, did away with all possibility of competition in armaments and rivalry on tho sea between the two countries. An agreement for 35 per cent, of Britain’s strength established a permanent relationship and ensured that with at least one country in the world there would bo no competitive building, which was something to be thankful for. Another effect of the agreement was that there would be no repetition of ruthless submarine warfare in future. Lord Ponaonby confined his criticism to the method adopted in concluding the agreement, and declared that in essence it was not a disarmament but a rearmament agreement.

Lord Londonderry (Lord Privy Seal*, replying, said the restoration of confidence and the prospects of peace amongst nations would bo most effectively promoted by a general settlement freely negotiated between Germany and .the other Powers. The Government would adhere to that view, which, in effect, it had reaffirmed at 'Stresa, hut as practical people they had to face tho facts of tho situation. Germany was already increasing her naval strength beyond the limits imposed by Versailles, and the Government believed the best method of promoting that general settlement to which the London communique referred was not io enter a further . period of competitive building, but to endeavour by agreement with Germany to circumscribe the effects of the decision announced by Germany. It was in those circumstances that Germany undertook to limit the future size of Her navy to 35 per cent, of tho British Fleet, provided the British Government accepted that limitation. To have missed that opportunity of limitation in tho sphere' of naval defences would have been, he said, to miss a chance of eliminating, they might hope, for all time, that fatal competition, of naval armaments between Germany and this country which did so much to poison the atmosphere a quarter of a century ago. It was a great mistake to assume that in accepting the agreement with Germany, tho Government had done anything to prejudice the situation of tlie other naval Powers. The Government believed that by setting a fixed point of departure for future discussions, both as regards British and German armaments, it had done a service to the other Powers. If those other Powers could succeed in coming to agreement with Germany in regard to lapd' or air armaments, in such a way as not to commit this country to any particular strength, the Government would believe it had done the Empire and the rest of tho world a service. Before the agreement was concluded the French Government, in common wi'th other Powers signatory to the Washington Treaty, was informed on Juno 7 of the outline of tho agreement, and invited to communicate any observations it might desire to offer. The French view was received before the agreement was made, but its criticisms did not appear to be .of such a character as Tvould justify the British Government withholding its consent to an agreement which held such promise of the peace of the world. Taking France’s present naval strength at about 50 per cent, of the British naval strength, the agreement afforded to France at present levels permanent superiority of about 43 per cent, over the German Navy, compared with an inferiority of some 30 per cent, before tho war. The Government believed, when the French Government was ablq to review the situation as a whole through the expert representatives whom it was hoped it would appoint for this purpose, it would admit that this step had been in the ultimate interest of France. IN THE COMMONS Several questions on the Anglo-Ger-man agreement were answered in the House of Commons by Sir Bolton EyresMonsell. He said, on tho tonnages allowed by the Washington and London Treaties, on December 31, 1936, 35 per cent, of the British total of capital ship, cruiser, and destroyer tonnages would ■ bo 166,163 tons, 118,650 tons, and 52,500 tons respectively. On the same basis of 4b per cent, of the British submarine tonnage was 23,715 tons. Thirty-five per cent, of the aggregate British tonnage, allowed by these treaties on the same date would be 403,008 tons. After that date tho tonnage allowed Germany would be based on a relevant paragraph of the agreement. Answering a further question, tho First Lord ot the Admiralty said the Deutschland and her sister ship were under the treaty definitions in the capital ship class, and would remain in that category under tho definition proposed for a future treaty in the British Draft Disarmament Convention.

In reply to a question Sir Samuel Hoare (Foreign Minister) said the conclusion of a general armaments agreement to replace, so far as Germany was concerned, part of the Versailles Treaty, remained tbe object of the Government’s policy. The Government believed an Anglo-German agreement would facilitate the conclusion of a general agreement on the subject of naval armaments.