NAVY LEAGUE POLICY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18508, 20 March 1922, Page 9

NAVY LEAGUE POLICY

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OPPOSED. SINGLE-POWER STANDARD. (Fbom Ottb Own Correspondent.) LONDON, January 20. At a special meeting of the Grand Council of the Navy League a resoultiou adverse to the policy which had been adopted by the executive committee of the league was carried by 31 votes to 21. Co-ordina-tion and co-operation provided the keynote of the rejected policy. That now adopted calls upon the league to support with its whole organisation the Single-Power standard. The Duke of Somerset presided. The opposition amendment, as moved by Mr P. J. Hannon, M.P., read: “This meeting of the Grand Council of the Navy League desires to place upon record its regret that, as the governing bsdy of the league, it has not been convened and consulted on tho recent change of policy which has been promulgated at the instance of the Executive Committee, and hereby declares: “1. That no change in the policy of the league as affecting the maintenance of British sea power shall in future take place until such change ha« been definitely approved by Grand Council; “2. That the Navy League shall support with its whole organisation the Single-Power standard, which, in the view of the Admiralty, is the minimum consistent with national safety, and which has been approved as such by Parliament; “3. That the propagandist and educational activities of the league shall be devoted to the cultivation of public opinion on questions relating to the efficiency and sufficiency of the fleet, and to the history and traditions of the British sea services; and “4. That the Navy League shall cease forthwith all association, direct or indirect, with the League of Nations Union or any similar organisation or body. “Grand Council further decides that it shall be an instruction to the Executive Committee to give immediate effect to the provisions embodied in tho foregoing paragraphs of this resolution.” They all desired, said Mr Hannon,, cooperation and coordination in the maintenance of permanent peace on earth, but no member of the league desired to achieve that end by the sacrifice of the efficiency and sufficiency of the fleet to protect us in the first instance. He maintained that it was not tho duty of the Navy League to dabble in high faintin’ theories of international friendship.—(Hear, hear.) If, as they had been told, there had been no change of policy, why in tho name of all that was essential to common sense was a stupid manifesto, extending to two columns, published in The Times a couple of months ago, in which the public was told that the age-long first line of defence was to % relegated to obscurity? There had been a change of policy. There had been a steady weakening of me old policy of the league. In his belief, the Navy League had neglected its plain duty of pointing out to the people of the country that while we had oorne through the Great War because of our sea power, and only because of that—(hear, hear) —we could not lay down that arm at the instance of any foreign country or international group of plenipotentiaries until wo were satisfied that our fleet was in a position such as would enable it adequately to defend us and all our interest at Home and abroad. He was convinced that it was more important to teach tho th of this country that they must depend upon themselves for the future than to fill them'with the crude spirit of idealism which might or might not have productive results.

It is understood that no resignations are likely to be tendered until after a further meeting of the Executive Committee.