THE NAVAL TREATY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21022, 10 May 1930, Page 13

THE NAVAL TREATY

HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE, BRITAIN'S CRUISER QUOTA. A GREAT SACRIFICE MADE. (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY. May 8. Viscount Bridgeman opened the debate in the House of Lords upon the naval treaty resulting from the London Naval Conference. He said so far as the smaller portion of the treaty, which was signed by all the five Powers, was concerned the important thing was the prolongation of the life of capital ships. He did not quarrel with this, though it was true Britain was giving up stronger and newer battleship# than America was doing. With regard to the reservation ill the three-Power agreement empowering Britain to increase her naval strength if any Power not a signatory of the treaty was building to 1 an extent which was threatening Britain, that seemed to him to place Britain in a very invidious position. Britain had to consider not only the Atlantic and the Pacific, but also the Mediterranean and her position In Europe, whfereas neither of the other two signatories was concerned in that way. Viscount Bridgeman submitted that the Government had - made a great sacrifice in giving up 20 cruisers when 70 had been agreed to be Britain’s requirements and essential for the protection of her Imperial trade. It was said that this treaty was a step towards disarmament. What country besides Britain had made a step towards disarmament? Some had more ships than before, some had ibont the same. Britain alone had a great diminution of naval strength, and had already since, the war done more than any other nation to reduce her ships. Where was this great step towards disarmament, except by Britain? Lord Carson (Conservative), speaking as one who was First Lord, of the Admiralty during a critical period of the war, said that mastery of the seas had always hitherto been regarded as essential to Britain’s existence and to the safety of her country. He reminded that House of the grave difficulties they had during the war in feeding their people. He wanted the assurance of the Government that in approving of this treaty they had behind them the support of the naval experts at the Admiralty. Lord Reading (Liberal) said the essential question was whether sufficient care had been taken to protect Britain against invasion. He thought Lord Carson seemed to take no account whatever of all tnat had happened since 1914. Britain was committed to disarmament. She must how envisage the case of the navy from the aspect of a nation desirous of peace, of trying to prevent war between other countries, and of doing Its utmost to make certain that the treaties It had entered into should be duly observed and performed. He thought the Government had every reason to congratulate itself upon the agreement with America and Japan, and he built the strongest hopes upon a future agreement between France and Italy. Earl Jellicoe said he thought that, in view of what was being done in the navies of other countries, the reduction now proposed went beyond the limits of safety. Naval conferences since the war had resulted in reductions in our navy, but mno other navies. Instead they had actually increased them. A very greift dea* of the destruction of our merchant vessels in the early days of the war was done by only two German’ cruisers, the JUmden and the Karlsruhe. If 114 British cruisers were unable to prevent two cruisers doing that damage, hdw could we expect 50 cruisers to prevent damage to Britain s trade and food supplies and secure her sea communications? Lord Parmoor, replying for the Government, said that Britain could no longer depend upon forep alone to secure her safety. Replying to the specific points raised during the debate ha said that th& Admiralty was prepared to agree to 50 Cruisers as he minimum requirements of ioq(^ m T ir t-fi UP J O tbe next conffe rence in 1936. Justification for the reduction from 70 to 50 was the change in the general peace outlook in the world. The Pact tL n l3 bad “ ade 8 difference: The Government had consciously and conscientiously acted upon the adrice of Its experts, and was satisfied that the security of the Empire was amply safeguarded. As regards Britain’s future construction, he could not state definitely the policy of the Government. g 0 long as the present Government was in power it wouJd work out the programme _o that repheement might be / substantially provided for within the time contemplated in.the^ agreement. With reference to the reduction of the size of capital ships, the Government had been unable to Achieve it, and it was suggested that it ought to have broken off negotiations because St could not obtain consent to that He contended that by the treaty the danger of submarines had been limited.. The Government believed it had achieved two great results—the security f the country am splendid friendliness between Britain I?™™ 00 ’ and T , J ? pan —while, as regarded not closed, y ’ tbe ncSotiations DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE. MEETING FIXED FOR NOVEMBER, t GENEVA, May 8. The League Secretariat announces that Jonkhccr Louden, after consideration of i rc ? ort MacDonald on the Lon doi Naval Conference, thinks that a summer meeting would jeopardise the’ work of the Disarmament Commission, therefore the meeting has been fixed for November 3.