NAVAL TREATY

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 May 1930, Page 7

NAVAL TREATY

DEBATE IN LORDS

NEW OUTLOOK NEEDED

[BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.]

RUGBY, May S

Viscount Bridgeman. opened a de- * bate in the Lords, upon the Naval Treaty, resulting from the London Naval Conference. He said that so far as the smaller portion of the treaty which was signed by the all Five Powers was concerned, the important thing was the prolonging of the life of capital ships. He did not quarrel with this, though it was true we were giving up a stronger and newer battleship than America was doing. With regard to the reservation in the Three Power agreement, empowering us to increase our naval strength, if any Power not a signatory of the treaty was building to the extent which was threatening to us, that seemed to him, to place us in a very invidious position. We had to consider not | only the Atlantic and Pacific, but also the Mediterranean and our position in Europe, whereas neither of the other two signatories were concerned in that way. He submitted 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 protection of our imperial trade. It was said that this treaty was a step towards disarmament. What country besides our own had made any step towards disarmament? Some had more ships than before. Some had about the same.. We alone had a great diminution of naval strength, and we had already since the war done more than any nation to reduce our ships. Where was this grteat step towards disarmament except by ourselves?

Lord Carson (Conservative) speaking as one who was First Lord of the Admiralty during a critical period of the war, said the- mastery of the seas had always hitherto been regarded as essential to our existence, and to the safety of our country. He reminded the House of the grave difficulties that we had during the war feeding our people. He wanted the assurance of the Government that in approving this treaty they had behind them the support of naval experts at the Admiralty.

Lord Reading (Liberal) said the essential question was whether sufficient care had been taken to protect this country against invasion. He thought that 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 the 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 the Government had every reason to congratulate themselves upon the agreement with America and Japan, and he built the strongest hopes up a future agreement between France and Italy.

Earl Jellicoe thought that in view of what was being done in the navies of other countries the reduction now proposed went beyond 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 the destruction of our merchant vessels in the • early days of the war was done by only two German cruisers, the Emden and the Karlsruhe. If one hundred and fourteen British cruisers were unable to prevent two cruisers doing the damage, how could we expect fifty cruisers to prevent damage to our trade and food supplies and secure our sea communications ?

Lord Parmoor, replying for the Government, said that we could no longer depend upon force alone to secure our safety.

Replying to the specific points raised during the debate, he said that the Admiralty -were prepared .to agree to fifty cruisers as the 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 were satisfied the security of the Empire was amply safeguarded. As regarded our future construction, he could not state definitely the policy of the Government. So long as the present Government were in power, they would work out the programme so that replacement might be substantially provided for within the time contemplated in the agreement. With reference to the reduction of the size of capital ships, the Government had been unable to achieve it. Was it suggested_ they ought to have broken off negotiations because they could not obtain consent to that? He contended that by the treaty the danger of submarines had been limited. The Government believed they had achieved two great results; security of the country and splendid friendliness between ourselves. America, and Japan, while as regarded France and Italy, the negotiations were not closed.

DI S ARM AMENT COM MISSION.

(Received May 9, L p.m.) GENEVA, May 8

The League Secretariat announced that after consideration of the report by Mr Ale Donald on the London Naval Conference, it thinks the summer meeting would jeopardise tho work of the bisarmament Commission, therefore the next meeting is fixed for November 3.