PERILOUS LIMIT

Northern Advocate, 20 December 1929, Page 7

PERILOUS LIMIT

CRUISER CURTAILMENT ADMIRALTY APPREHENSION. SEA SECURITY AT STAKE. (United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) (Received 9 a.m.) LONDON, December 19. Earl Stanhope, in the House of Lords, pre-empted an interesting naval statement by asking whether, as a. consequence of the reduction announced in the number of cruisers to be maintained, the Board of Amiralty would «n any wise be relieved of the responsibilities of defence, also whether the reductions would be from battle fleets or from those on trade routes. The country was entitled to be told what had been the change of policy and in what programme the 50 cruisers were included.

Admiral Earl Beatty said that this was in no sense a political party question. It was the responsibility of the Government, also to provide strength adequate to carry out the policy of the Government, also to provide sufficient strength to protect sea communications and trade routes to the dominions and colonics from, attack. The country sought an assurance that nothing would be done at the coming Naval Conference which would in any way weaken the hands of the Admiralty. On an average day of the year 9,500,000 tons of British shipping was to be found on sea routes extending 80,000 miles. To maintain the number of cruisers at 50 within coming years it would be necessary to lay down 26, yet the 1928 programme was suspended, while nothing had been done in regard to 1929. Britain was entering the conference with an extremely low limit of cruiser tonnage; thus it was natural that there should be apprehension among those who bad given thoughtful consideration to the vital question and who could not understand how parity of cruisers could be obtained unless it had regard to the commitments and obligations of each nation.

Lord Thomson, replying, said that the policy was to provide absolute security for the Empire, and this jbad not altered a single poiht. The Government was in constant consultation with the Admiralty. Obviously the object of the conference was reduction. The British ,delegation were not naval experts, but would bo accompanied by such. This was a change for the better. If the; conference took a course which every believer in world peace hoped, the Government was confident that the Admiralty would be able to continue to adequately discharge its responsibilities. It was impossible at present to deal with the facts and figures mentioned by, Earl Beatty, ;but it was believed , that two . Australian cruisers would be included in the 50. He had no further information to, give.

Earl Stanhdpe asked how far the Singapore base affected the scheme. Lord Thomson replied that the Government did not intend to go to the conference and use the Singapore base as a bargaining counter. They would go with absolutely clean hands, and if they achieved the results hoped for, not using the Singapore base in any sense, they would quite obviously be able to apply some of the results of the conference to modification of the Singapore scheme.