BRITAIN'S NAVY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18348, 14 March 1923, Page 9

BRITAIN'S NAVY.

RETRENCHMENT POLICY

BOLD ACT OF FAITH.

ONE-POWER . STANDARD.

IRREDUCIBLE MINIMUM.

LABOUR DISSATISFIED.

I By Telegraph—Press Association— Copyright. (Received 10.10 p.m.) I A. and N.Z. LONDON. March 12. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. I L. CM. S. Amery, submitting the Naval ! Estimates to tho House of Commons in : Committee of Supply, said that the last year's estimates were based on the ne(W I policy of limited armaments prescribed by j the Washington Treaty. It was only in the present estimates that the full effect of the Admiralty's policy would be seen. Tn order to effect drastic retrenchment ! the personnel had been reduced by 23,000 I officers and men, and the dockyards perJ sonnel by 10,000 men. Britain had also rendered impotent for fighting purposes 17 splendid capital ships. This action need not have been taken until every signatory Power ratified tho Washington Treaty. In doing so Britain ran no small risk, but this act of faith had secured for the taxpayer immediate and great economies. The estimates represented the irreducible minimum for security. Development of Singapore Base. Comparing the United States and British Navies, Mr. Amery said that Britain had interpreted the one-Power standard with a latitude that could only be justified by a desire to avoid competition j/i armaments and a conception of relations of goodwill between Britain and the , United States. Britain could not drop ! into second or third place. A great Navy 1 once let down could not bo improvised. i The Government was not prepared to i run the risk of a gamble of that kind. i He would not be doing his duty if he J suggested further reductions. The estimates were framed to meet an j exceptional financial situation, and the I economies were achieved in part by postponement of necessary expenditure which would have to be met v*hen more normal conditions returned. A beginning was being made on a very small scale with a naval base at Singapore, capable of dealing with a fleet of modern battleships. This would cost something like £11,000,000, spread over a great number of years. Mr. George Lambert (Liberal) deprecated a comparison of Britain's naval strength with the United States. He hoped that Britain would never build against the United States. With her present lack of aircraft he doubted whether Britain could support a half-Power standard.

Communist's Frank Avowal. Mr. Philip Snowden (Labour) proposed a motion expressing regret that the sum the Government proposed to spend on naval services was inconsistent with their pledges of retrenchment, and calling on the Government to summon an international conference to consider further limitation of naval armaments. Mr. H. B. Lee Smith (Labour), seconding the motion, complained that the Admiralty had treated the recommendations of the Geddes Committee with contempt. Mr. J. T. Newbold (Communist) declared : " I am going to vote against the Navy. Army, and Air Force Estimates every time, in accordance with the policy of our founder, Liebknecht, but directly the country is Communist we shall not hesitate to defend it with a Red Navy and a Bed Army." Viscount Curzon (Conservative) urged that the Navy was essentially an Imperial concern, and an Imperial Conference should be held to decide the respective contributions by the Empire partners. Mr. Snowden's motion was defeated by 240 votes to 153, and the vote was agreed to.

THE GREATEST THREE NAVIES.

WASHINGTON TREATY'S EFFECT.

The Navy Estimates total £61,000,000, compared with £69,000,000 for 1922-23, and £92,000,000 for 1921-22, a reduction of 33 per cent, spread over two years. An explanatory statement made by the First Lord, * Mr. L. C. M. S. Amery, says that to, a very great extent administrative economies have been effected by reduction of reserves and postponement of all but most indispensable new requirements. Economies are only made possible by the general easing off of naval competition, which, it is hoped, will result from the Washington Agreement. Britain does not propose to lay down any new ships in 1923-24, but a small sum is taken for preparatory work on submarines for construction in 1924-25. In reply to a question in the House of Commons, Mr. Amery recently gave the following totals of capital ships which would be possessed by Britain, the United I States, and Japan in the case of ratifica'tion of the Washington Treaty, and in the case of non-ratification :— Not Ratified. Ratified. U.S. A 20* 44t Japan . . . . 10 23 § Britain . . . . 22 23 'Including two battleships building. ■(•Including nine battleships and four battle-cruisers building and two battlecruisers now being 1 converted into aircraft carriers. jjlneluding two battleships and two battle-crui-crs building and two battleships and two battle-cruisers projected.