NAVY BUILDING

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 77, 13 March 1934, Page 5

NAVY BUILDING

REPLACEMENT POLICY Great Britain’s Programme NEW CRL’ISER TONNAGE (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, March 12. Referring in the House of Commoiis to the naval building programme, Sir Eyres Monsell, First Lord of the Admiralty, said that the total cruiser tonnage to be laid down this year was 32,000 tons. This represented the portion of the 86,350 tons available under the London Naval Treaty for three years to 1936 f'iclusive and was in accordance with the carefully considered Admiralty policy of replacement—to pursue a steady annual programme of construction. Britain had made great reductions in her defences in the hope of bringing about a general limitation of armaments. It could be argued whether this had been rightly or wrongly done, but they were still trying to bring •bout such a limitation, and it would be impossible for them on the eve of the 1935 Naval Conference largely to increase the building programme on the assumption that the conference is going to be a failure. Moreover, Britain had •Iready put forward proposals for qualitative limitations. Mr G. H. Hall said that Labour viewed the increased estimates with alarm. Despite the financial stringency, Britain had spent £lO,OOO million on armaments since the war, of which half had gone to the Navy. Sir Roger Keyes, in his maiden speech in a crowded chamber, said he did not believe any other nation but Britain was going to surrender anything affecting its interests and security. He joined the Board of Admiralty on the eve of the Washington negotiations. It was no exaggeration to say that the co-operation of Lord Beatty and the Board of the Admiralty •lone made it possible to translate America’s gesture into a working treaty at Washington. Then, under the first Labour Government, a substantial building programme enabled us to replace worn-out ships with cruisers fit to meet those America, Japan, France, end Italy had built. A minimum of 70 was required to carry out our worldwide duties. Sir Roger Keyes said that a vital link i> the Imperial chain of defence was the battleship base at Singapore, without which it would be impossible to go to the help of Australia and New Zea land or operate in Eastern waters. Since 1929 a dangerous change of polUy led to the London Treaty reductions. He hoped the Governmentbwould resolutely build all the ships allowed under the London Treaty and relieve the Navy from its toils at the earliest date.

FRENCH DISARMAMENT NOTE

This Week’s Debates (British Official Wireless.) (Received 13, 12.30 p.m.) RUGBY, March 12. The attitude of the French Government on the British memorandum on disarmament, in the light of Mr. Anthony Eden’s conversations in Berlin and Rome, is to be discussed in a Note which, it is expected, will reach London this week. It is, however, unlikely that the Note will be received before the debate commences in the House of Commons on Wednesday. Both Sir John Simon and Mr. Eden will take part in the discussion. Disarmament will also be debated in the House of Lords, and the subject will doubtless bo referred to again in the House of Commons debate on the Navy Estimates and Army Estimates on Thursday, although notice has been given that other matters connected with these services will be raised.