CRUISER CRISIS

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 24 July 1925, Page 5

CRUISER CRISIS

TROUBLE AVERTED

PROGRAMME AGREED UPON

NO RESIGNATIONS.

BY CABLE —PH ESS ASSOCIATION —COPYRIGHT

LONDON, July 22. Cabinet has reached an agreement under which the Admiralty accepts four cruisers this year and three next * e, Vhere had been recently half a dozen special Cabinet meetings and numerous conferences of Ministers endeavouring to compose the differences over the Admiralty's demand for the construction of new cruisers. It was expecte that to-day’s Cabinet meeting would .settle the question or end in a rupture between Mr \Y. C. Bridgeman thirst Ford of the Admiralty) and Mr A ilist on Churchill (Chancellor of the JlScnequen. but it was announced after a two hours’ sitting, that no decision had been reached. . It is understood Lord Balfour undextook to assist the Prime Minister (Mr Stan’ev Baldwin) in finding a. middle course* between the two parties m Cabinet. , , . ~ The Daily Express lobbyist says the cruiser crisis ended to-niglit, when Cabinet decided that four cruisers be laid down, two immediately and two at the end of the financial year, but that none of the bills f°. r them be presented til 1 - the next financial year. There will be no resignations. * lhe highest influences were brought to bear to prevent Admiralty ; resignations. , , The most reliable accounts of tnc* momentous two hours’ Cabinet meeting agree that the cruiser crisis has ended and resignations averted by the decision to lay down s even ships in two years. There was some divergence as to whether four should he laid down this year and three the next, or vice versa, but it is believed that the former proportion was adopted. The settlement i« unquestionably a sequel to a severe struggle between Mr Bridgeman, representing the full weight of Admiralty opinion, and Mr Churchill, representing his own Budget aims and economists generally. It is agreed that one of the factors of the settlement was the necessity of avoiding a Cabinet split in face of the coal crisis. ' The Daily Mail, in an editorial, says the Admiralty seemingly had its way and ha s overcome Mr Churchill’s resistance. Unfortunately experiences show that the promises of extravagant departments to economise cannot he trusted. The Daily Mail says the proj>er course would have been to insist on the Admiralty first reducing its expenditure, and then, when the cuts were duly made, to consider the request for a large new cruiser programme on its merits. The policy actuaJy adopted is spending more public money. The taxpayer has only too much reason to fear that he will oe in/ormed next year tnat no economies can be made, and taxes must therefore be heavily increased. The Parliamentary correspondent ot the Daily Teegrapn says the Admiralty’s contention nas been that if economies are- to be enforced they can be achieved with loss risk than the postponement of the replacement of essential ships. Deficiencies in other respects can bo met in times of emergency by improvising, but it is impossible* to improvise strips. The Daily News says the Admiralty won part y through the active aid and countenance extended them in sympathetic high quarters; partly owing to the fact that Mr Bridgeman was prepared to resign if the demands were refused, whereas Mr Churchill was not prepared to resign if they were granted ; and partly because the minority of the Cabinet who have been resisting Lue Admiralty are not really economists. The result is that the race in armaments, so far as the sea i s concerned, is now to begin again. The Daily Express says Mr Bridgeman. in the course of negotiations, actually resigned and refused to reconsider his resignation until he had carried his point, it is believed that the money required will be obtained by scrapping the dockyards at Pembroke, Chatham, and Gibraltar. The Daily Express 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 fifty-one British cruisers of war and pre-war design, only two have the necessary speed and sea-keepmg qualities to protect trade from attacks hv cruisers of' post-war design. The Westminster Gazette remarks that the Admiralty view means bluntly that every friend'y Power is to be treated henceforth as a. political 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 that the Admiralty is satisfied, and Mr Bridgeman remains on the bridge. Like Jutland, it has been a close shave.

The Post, in an editorial, proceeds to return to its attack on Mr Churchill. It says: “Mr Churchill, following a radical precedent, attempted—and failed —to exercise his scheme of econ .my on the Navy. He has done his best to create disunity in the Cabinet, to compe 1 the resignation of Mr Bndgernan, and even to embarrass the Prime Minister. For what purpose Mr. Churchill chose a course of action so extraordinary the public may decide. Had lie succeeded the .result must have been disastrous to the Government.” ft is understood that Cabinet divergences on the naval construction programme ended in a compromise where* l:v three or possiblv four cruisers will be begun not earlier than December and three in 1926. The Admiralty demanded three in 1926 and four in 1926. Mr Churchill, the Treasury and the mnjoritv of the Cabinet were unwi'linrr to agree beyond two in 1926 and three ;n 1926. The Treasury agreed to compromise conditionally on the Admiralty substantially reducing administrative expenses, notably the s'lgcested reorganisation of the dockyards.