BRITAIN PROPOSES NUMERICAL LIMIT

Manawatu Times, Volume LII, Issue 3577, 7 April 1927, Page 7

BRITAIN PROPOSES NUMERICAL LIMIT

Bat France Objects, Favours Gross-Tonnage

ARMAMENT DIFFICULTIES REVEALED [By Electric Cable-Copyright.] [Aust. and N.Z. Cable Association.] (Received Wednesday, 10. p.m.) GENEVA, April 6. The complexity and difficulty of the disarmament problem was revealed when the Preparatory Commission began discussion on naval armaments. Lord Cecil opening the debate contested the French viewpoint as expressed in their draft plan that if armies are numerically limited so must naval personnel, be limited. He said the British Government’s view was that the proper way to limit the strength of a fleet was to limit the number, size, and power of ships. This Britain was preferred to do drastically and very completely. But he saw no necessity for limiting effectives which would occur automatically with a decrease of tonnage. The French proposal would complicate a Conllkely. vention and render ratification less He added that navies could not be made more formidable by increasing, the man-power beyond actual needs. Lord Cecil Springs Surprise. Lord Cecil finally sprang a, surprise by saying he was not prepared to discuss the point further as he had telegraphed to his Government for fresh Instruction. M. Boncour rather sarcastically remarked that this was the second time the discussion had been suspended owing to Lord Cecil’s necessity for getting instructions. He proceeded to argue that naval, military and aerial strength, coast defence and expeditionary forces were Inevitably bound up and if a single category was Ignored wholesale deception would be possible by camouflaging the nature of certain forces. He recalled the part played in war time by sailors who were not merely employed as crews but as i landing parties. The American and Japanese delegates supported Lord Cecil’s viewpoint. The German and Swedish delegates approved of M. Boncour's. Vital Question to Empire. Pending the receipt of instructions regarding effectives Lord Cecil proceeded to discuss limitation of material, Ho emphasised that the whole existence of the British Empire depended on security of communications. The cessation of seaborne commerce would mean Britain’s starvation. Therefore the question was of vital importance to the British whoso programme envisaged an agreement which would: (1 Forestall naval competition. (2) Secure the fullest publicity so that every nation would bo aware of the naval strength of its neighbour; (3) Strengthen the psychology of security by eliminating "the surprise element.” i Lord Cecil contended that the limitation of the number of ships was more important than the limitation of tonnage, numbers being the essential element in the strength of the fleet. (The French proposal ia the limitation of the total gross tonnage). - Lord Cecil added that Britain was convinced that the only effective measure was the fixing of tho number of ships in each category. Unless such was known Competition was Inevitable and surprises possible. The Japanese View. Viscount Sato (Japan) favoured limitation by categories and he opposed fixing the size of ships in each category. M. Boncour said that France favoured limitation by gross tonnage because she wishes to retain the right of disposal of smaller classes of ships according to her special needs. The Swedish representative suggested, firstly limitation of total tonnage by all nations, secondly categorical limitation of tonnage by the great powers, and thirdly advance publication of all naval programmes. This appeared to evoke the spirit of compromise and the Commission adjourned on M. Boncour’s promise to submit a new proposal.