EMPIRE DEFENCE COST

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 February 1937, Page 7

EMPIRE DEFENCE COST

DOMINIONS’ SHARE NO SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION [BY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYBIGHT.] LONDON, February 17. During the defence debate in the Commons, Dr. H. Dalton (Labour) asked whether., the Dominions were going to contribute to the common cost of defence; also whether additional contributions were in sight from the colonies defended by Britain. The ’ Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Neville Chamberlain), intervening, said: “Britain has not a single power as an enemy, nor are we in alliance with other powers on whose aid we can count. We must consider a. whole series of hypothetical emergencies in which we may be opposed by this or that power. We will draw lip a defence programme to make us feel as safe as possible against this hypothetical set of emergencies. - “According to Sir Archibald Sinclair, all the troubles of the world were caused by Imperial preference,” said Mr. Chamberlain. “If he had Jiis way he would probably soon lose us- the Empire. . It is true that we are dependent largely on the Dominions of essential materials. In that sense, therefore, the dispersal of the Dominions throughout the world does lay a special duty on the Navy..- Blit there is no intention to call. on. the Dominions to contribute to the common fund. The Dominions have spent a great deal on perfecting and improving their own defences. That is their contribution to the common fund. No other form of contribution is being discussed at present.”

SERVICES CO-ORDINATION [BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS] RUGBY, February 18. In the Commons, the debate on defence was continued to-day. Mr. Alexander (Labour) argued first that the need for the re-armament programme was due to opportunities lost in past years by the Government, in the sphere of the foreign policy. Secondly, no evidence was forthcoming that the Government was obtaining proper value, for the expenditure on which they were asking Parliament to embark, and thirdly, that the method of raising the money by loans for such expenditure violated the canons of sound finance. Sir T. Inskip remarked on the fact that no speaker had questioned a single item of the programme of rearmament set out in the White Paper. He said the House itself would have a full opportunity of safeguarding economy when- the Estimates came before it. Sir Thomas gave examples of considered planning in which all three services co-operated, and which he hoped would serve to allay the anxieties on the score of lack of co-ordin-ation. The whole question of coast defence’ had been generally examined, bearing in mind the weight of naval or air attack, to which the different ports might be exposed. The actual defence required for each individual port under modern conditions, had been worked out in detail, down to a discussion with the authorities on the spot as to the allocation of different forms of armaments.

Another example given by the Minister was the accumulation of the munitions reserve and industrial potentialies. He doubted if the House realised the exhaustive review which had been made as to the factory capacity for different types-of armament and munitions. Ho instanced the discovery of a definite deficiency in the case of certain needs of the Army, and how immediate steps were being taken to remedy it by the Government acquiring an on the Tyne, which, would make the capacity equal to any demand which an emergency might make. Regarding the higher strategic considerations, the Minister spoke warmly of the experience, initiative and intelligence of the military, Naval and air experts, working on or under the Committee of Imperial Defence, and mentioned incidentally that consideration was being given to the lessons of the last year, arising from events in the eastern and western Mediterranean. An Opposition speaker, later in the debate, said that though the Labour Partv must vote against the loans proposal, all sides of the House were united in making the defences of the country adequate.

NATIONS’ CRUISERS. [BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.] RUGBY. February 17. The First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Samuel Hoare), in a reply in the House of Commons, said that the numbers of- cruisers armed with eight-inch guns completed or building by the powers were:—British Commonwealth 15, America IS, Japan 12, France and Italy each 7. Germany 3. Sir Samuel added that he was g[ad of the opportunity for saying that there was no warrant for the assertion recently made in the press that British ships in this category were outclassed. STOCK EXCHANGE EFFECTS. LONDON. February 17. Gilt-edged securities fell further on the Stock Exchange, following the issue of the White Paper on the prospective armament expenditure. Industrial companies are heavy s' llcrs in order to increase their holdings.

FRENCH ESTIMATE. (Recr. February 19. 1 p.m.) PARIS, February 18. Commenting on the House of Commons’ defence debate, “Le Figaro" says; Britain no longer shelters behind a hollow formula. The new British era may be summed us as “Our influence depends upon our strength." S. AFRICAN EXPENDITURE. (Recti. February 19. 1 p.m.) CAPE TOWN. February IS. The glener;|l opinion in defence circles is that while the British programme is mammoth, Britain must have good cause for embarking on it. Simultaneously with the publication of the White Paper, Mr Pirow was urging on Parliament the need for speedily strengthening South

Africa’s defences, for which £1,500,000 is provided: in the estimates,. - .JAPANESE OPINION. (Recd. February. 19, 1 p.m.) LONDON, February 18, “The Times’s? ,Tdkio correspondent says that officials . point out British Naval rearmament involves increased forces at Singapore and East Asia, which will affect Japan. Moreover, the United States will probably increase her navy, producing naval competition, from which Japan will be nitable to abstain. HONG KONG DEFENCES. HONG KONG, February 18. The military authorities announce a large programme for fortifying Stanley Peninsula, Hofig Kong. Details are not disclosed,. but it is understood that anti-aircraft defences will be erected. U.S.A. MAY FOLLOW. , WASHINGTON. February 18.. ? Admiral William Leahy, Chief'’of Naval Operations, gave a clear indication that the United States Navy Department would be matching Britain in her new battleship construction. At a press conference he stated that he knew of no change in United States policy. The United States Navy was second to none. He believed that this was. the sentiment of the couijtry. .;

i “If any other Power expands its navy appreciably we shall have to follow to maintain parity ” he said. He intimated, however, that since the neoBritish construction appeared to be for the replacement of over-age ships, there }vas probably no necessity for the United States to build new aircraft carriers and cruisers; because Britain has several old ships in these categories and America has none. \

The belief is expressed in some quarters hero that Britain does not intend to build all the ships listed in .the White Paper, but that her real aim is to frighten the naval Powers—chiefly Italy and Germany—which refused to participate in -the naval ,Armaments agreement:' - t f