London Naval Treaty Limits

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 73, 27 March 1936, Page 12

London Naval Treaty Limits

Outline of Provisions SIGNATURES APPENDED , (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, March 25. The London Naval Treaty, providing for advance notification of annual building programmes and for exchange of information defining categories of ships and their standard displacement and setting out agreed qualitative limits for each category, was signed at St. James ’ Palace this afternoon by Mr Norman Davis and Vice-Admiral Standley- for the United States, by the French Ambassador and Vice-Admiral Robert for France, and by Mr Anthony Eden and Lord Monsell for Great Britain. The Dominions’ representatives also signed. The . Italian Ambassador, Signor Grandi, who. did not sign, was present and recalled the Italian reservations. Limits Provided For The qualitative limits laid down in the treaty are for capital ships 35,000 tons and I-i-inch guns, provided all the signatories of tho Washington Treaty accept these limits, otherwise 16-inch guns; for aircraft carriers, 23,000 toils and 6.1-inch guns; and for submarines 2000 tons and 5.1-inch guns. Cruisers are divided into those mounting guns above 6.1 inches, of which none are to be built during the currency of • the treaty, and those for which limits are set at 8000 tons and 6.1-inch guns. ' Tho zone of non-con-struction, starting at 8000 tons, is carried up to 17,500 tons. The final section of the treaty provides for consultation with a view to relaxation of restrictions in the event of non-signa-tories not observing the limits or m certain other events. First Lord’s Hopes The First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Monsell, in a speech, said that the treaty, made no provision for direct quantitative limitation, and that in the British view was a matter for deep regret. He was optimistic, however, that quantitative naval competition would not arise in view of the elimination of competition in types and the elaborate system for advance notification and exchange of information. Ho also expressed the hope that tho accession of the Powers which wero signatories to the Washington Treaty and the London Treaty of 1930 and who were not at the moment prepared to sign the present treaty would not be long delayed.

Limiting - Naval Armaments THIRD TREATY BEFORE NAVAL CONFERENCE. LONDON, March 25. Lord Monspll, at the final meeting of the Naval Conference for the purpose of signing the treaty, alluded to early pessimism and successive shocks. He said at a time when there was a successful negotiation of international agreement of any kind, they appeared to ' meet almost insuperable obstacles. The third treaty for the limitation of naval armaments was a tribute to the British people’s devotion to peace and broad-minded attitude to all countries represented. It was a British belief that if the principal naval powers acceded to the treaty, competitive construction would be eliminated for another period of years. Prevention of rivalry in new types and sizes of ships and guns went a long way towards solving the problem of competitive building. Lord Monsell paid tribute to the co-operation of the Italian delegation and hoped that Italy’s accession would not ’be long delayed. He regretted that Japan had left the fold and hoped that it would be only temporarily. * ■ Mr. Norman Davis said : “I don’t believe there is a single provision in the treaty to which any naval power cannot agree.” Signor Grand! said : “Italy finds herself compelled to maintain naval freedom. Our people for the first time in history-feel that their life is imperilled in. the Mediterranean and their very existence- depends on the sea by which they receive their vital supplies.” Sir James Parr on ■ ‘New Zealand’s Hopes JAPANESE GOOD WILL. * LONDON, March 25. Speaking at the signing of the Naval Treaty, Sir James Parr said that from the beginning of the Conference New Zealand had been under no illusions. The international situation had been in the nature of a thundercloud, which any moment might' break. At the end of the deliberations the fact that no agreement had been reached on quantitative limitation was a sad blow, if only from the viewpoint that their Japanese friends felt unablo ' to continue the consultations. It was a matter of regret, particularly for New Zealand, situated as it is in the Pacific Ocean. New Zealand would hope Japan would bo animated by a spirit Of friendship and good will and that she would conform so far as she was able to the agreements, which could be regarded as a valuable contribution to a limitation of .naval armaments and elimination of competitive building. Sir James said they could only hope that the international situation would be improved by 1942 to such a degree that

a new treaty of wider scopo will be possible. Australia’s Defence Plans EMPIRE CO-ORDINATION PROPOSAL.

SYDNEY, March 26. Tko Canberra correspondent of the Sydcny Morning Herald says that Australian Ministers who it is expected will visit London next year for the Coronation will confer with the leading military, naval, and Air Force authorities from Great Britain and tko other Dominions on a co-ordinated plan, of defence for the whole of the Empire and of Imperial trade routes. The Daily Telegraph’s Canberra correspondent says that £7,000,000 is to be spent on Australia’s defence plans between now and the end of December. Details of the revised programme are disclosed in preliminary estimates now before Cabinet. Features of the new plan include the purchase of 33 reconnaissance aeroplanes at a cost of £1,067,000 and a secret programme of naval construction aimed at, defence against destroyer raids. Further gun emplacements are to bo constructed at Sydney Heads. Rottnest Island, Fremantle, is to be fortified and the proposed Australian aircraft factory is to be developed under private enterprise to a self-sufficient stage.