CRUISER TONNAGE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22211, 14 March 1934, Page 7

CRUISER TONNAGE

BRITAIN’S PROGRAMME

POLICY OF REPLACEMENT f • NAVAL ESTIMATES PRESENTED (British Official Wireless.) (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) RUGBY, March 12. An important decision that has been taken by the Admiralty in regard to the problem of saving life from sunken submarines was announced by Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell in presenting the Naval Estimates to the House of Commons. He stated that after the fullest consideration the conclusion • had been reached in regard. to the question of raising a sunken submarine in time to save life that the most certain—and indeed the only practical—method they knew of was by the Davis submerged escape apparatus, which , was fitted to all submarines and op which it was proposed to rely in future. This conclusion had been reached only after the most careful investigation into all submarine disasters in British and foreign navies, and in the light, of . the experience gained by the United States Navy in comprehensive trials. If it were thought by men imprisoned in sunken submarines that attempts were going to be made to raise the submarine there would be grave danger that in spite of their training in the use of the escape apparatus they might be tempted to await the result of the salvage operations instead of saving themselves by means of the apparatus. Orders were therefore being issued to the effect that the salvage organisation for the sole purpose of salving submarines was not to be retained. A signal was being introduced which would tell .the crew of a sunken submarine that surface vessels were present to rescue them when they came up by the Davis escape gear.

“The Admiralty has had to face the facts,” said the First Lord, “There is no hope of saving life by salvage, and we have come to our decision because it is in the best interests of the submarine personnel.” Referring to the building programme, the First Lord said that the total cruiser tonnage to be laid down this year was 32,000. This represented a portion of the 86,350 tons available under the London Naval Treaty for three years to 1936 inclusive, and was in accordance with a carefully considered Admiralty policy of replacement—to pursue a steady annual programme of construction. ’ Britain had made great reductions in her defence in the hope of bringing about a general limitation of armaments. It could be argued whether this had been rightly or wrongly done, but they were still trying to bring about such -limitation, and it would be impossible for them on the eve of .the 1935 Naval Conference largely to increase the building programme on the assumption that the conference was going to be a failure. Moreover, Britain had already put forward proposals for qualitative limitations. LABOUR CRITICISM. LONDON, March 12.

Mr G. H. Hall said that Labour viewed the increased Estimates with alarm. Despite the financial stringency, Britain had spent immense sums oh armaments since the war of which half had gone'.to the' navy. Admiral Sir Roger Keyes, in his maiden speech in a crowded chamber, said he did not believe that any other nation but Britain was going to surrender anything affecting its interests and security. He had joined the Board of Admiralty on the eve of the Washington negotiations, and it was no exaggeration to say that the co-operation of Lord Beatty and the Board of Admiralty alone made it possible to translate •America’s gesture into a working treaty at Washington. Then iihder, the first Labour Government a substantial building programme enabled Britain to replace the worn-out ships with cruisers fit to meet those of America, Japan, France, and' Italy. Sir • Roger Keyes said the vital link in the Imperial chain of defence was a battleship base at Singapore, without which it would be impossible to go to the help of Australia and New Zealand or operate in Eastern waters. He hoped the Government would resolutely build all the ships allowed under the London Treaty and relieve the navy from its present position at the earliest date. NAVY Alb AIR FORCE. BOTH VITALLY NECESSARY. LONDON, March 13. (Received March 13, at 9 p.m.) • In, his speech in the House, Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell said that the London Treaty permitted us to lay down 86,350 tons of cruisers in 1934-1935-1936. It was proposed this year to lay down 32,000 tons, one 5200-tonner and three 9000-tonners. When the treaty expired at the end of 1936 we should have the full tonnage permitted under the treaty in every category. He regretted the mischievous controversy regarding the merits of the navy and the air force for protection of the Empire, as both were vitally necessary. Mr L. S. Amery said that Britain was Just as dependent as ever on foodstuffs and raw materials carried over 80,000 miles of sea routes, of which only 10,000 could be directly attacked or defended by aircraft. It would be no consolation to preserve London from bombs if our arteries were severed. No scheme of defence was worth considering if it did not provide the power to reinforce the different parts of the Empire if attacked. For 10 years we had failed to live up to our naval responsibility and the time had come to stop gambling with our security.

Mr G. Lambert said that the focus of all trade routes was the English Channel. France, since the Armistice, had built 80 submarines, which could gravely menace trade in the Channel. It should be asked what this enormous force was required for. Lord Stanley, in replying, said that hints had frequently been given on the subject of France’s heavy submarine programme, but unfortunately France was not a party to the London Treaty. A motion to go to committee was carried by 254 votes to 85, and the various votes were approved.