SIGNING OF TREATY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 26 March 1936, Page 7

SIGNING OF TREATY

FINAL MEETING OF NAVAL CONFERENCE TRIBUTE TO COUNTRIES REPRESENTED SPEECH BY LORD EYRKS-MONSELI. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyrieht) (Received 26th March, 10.35 a.m.l LONDON, 25th March. The Naval Treaty has been signed. Lord Eyres-Monsell. hirst Lord ol the Admiralty, 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 successful negotiation of international agreements of any kind appeared to meet almost insuperable obstacles the third treaty for the limitation of naval armaments was a tribute to (lie British people’s devotion to peace and the broad minded attitude of all countries represented. It was (lie British belief that if the principal naval powers acceded to the treaty competilive construction would he iliminated for another period of years. The prevention of rivalry in new types and sizes of ships and guns went a long way (o solve the problem of competitive building. , Lord Eyrps-Monsell paid a tribute to the co-operation of the Italian delegation. and hoped that Italy's accession would not he long delayed. He regretted that Japan had left the fojfl and hoped that it would he only temporarily. Mr Norman Davis (U.S.A.) said : “I don’t believe there is a single provision in the treaty to which any naval power cannot agree.”

Signor Grnndi (Italy), said: “Italy finds herself compelled to maintain our naval freedom. Our people for the first time in history feel their life imperilled in the Mediterranean. Their very existence depends on the sea by which they receive vital supplies.” REMARKS BY SIR JAMES PARR

Sir James Parr (New Zealand) said • “From the beginning of the conference New Zealand ' had ben under no illusions. The international situation has been the nature of a thunder cloud which at. any moment, might break and end the deliberations. The fact, that there is no agreement on quantitative limitations is a sad blow it only from the viewpoint that our Japanese friends felt unable to continue consultations. It is a matter for regret, particularly for New Zealand, situated as it is m the Pacific Ocean. New Zealand will hope that Japan, animated by a spirit of friendship and goodwill, will conform in so far as it.'is able to the agreements, which can be regarded as a. valuable contribution to the limitation of naval armaments and the elimination of competitive building. I can only hope that the international situation will be improved in 1942 to such a degree that a new treaty wider in scope will be possible.”

QUALITATIVE LIMITS

DETAILS SET OUT (Received 2Gtli March, 11.35 a.m.) RUGBY, 25tli March. The London Naval Treaty, providing for advance notification of annual building programmes and for exchange of information defining categories of ships and standard displacement, and setting out agreed qualitative limitsfor cacli category, was signed this afternoon. Qualitative limits laid down in the Treaty are: For capital ships : 35,000 tons and 14-inch guns provided all signatories of the Washington Treaty accept these limits, otherwise IG-inch guns. For aircraft carriers: 23,000 tons and G.l-inch guns. For submarines: 2000 tons and 5.1inch guns. Cruisers are divided into those mounting guns above 6-1 inches, of which none are to he built during the currency of the treaty, and those for which limits are set at 8000 tons and 0.1-inch guns. The zone of non-construction startill"- at SOOO is carried up to 17,500 tons. The filial section of the Treaty provides for consultation with a view to relaxation of the restrictions in the event of non-signatories not observing the limits or in certain other events.

MATTER FOR DEEP REGRET

The First Lord of the TTuirurajly in his speech, said the Treaty made no provision for direct quantitative limitation, and that in theTßritish view was

a matter for deep regret. He was optimistic, however, that quantitative naval competition would not arise in view of the elimination of competi* tion in types and the elaborate system for advance notification and exchange of information.

Sir Thomas Inskip answered questions ii) the House of Commons for the first time to-day as Minister for Coordination of Defence. Ho informed' the House that the Prime Minister proposed to appoint a sub-committee' of the Committee of Imperial Defence to consider experiments that had taken place or were proposed in connection with defence against aircraft and vulnerability from the air of capital ships.