NAVAL AGREEMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22609, 28 June 1935, Page 9

NAVAL AGREEMENT

NO COMPETITIVE BUILDING RESTORATION OF CONFIDENCE REFERENCES IN PARLIAMENT {British Official Wireless.) (United Press Association.) (By Electric Teleßranh—Copyright.) RUGBY, June 26. During a brief debate in the House of Lords Earl Beatty welcomed the Anglo-German agreement. A gesture of the kind that Germany had made, he said, did away with all possibility of competition in armaments and rivalry on the sea between the two countries. An agreement for 35 per cent, of Britain's strength established a permanent relationship, and ensured that with at least one. .country in the world there would be no competitive building, which was something to be thankful for. Another effect of the agreement was that there would be no repetition of ruthless submarine warfare in future. Lord Ponsonby confined his criticism to the method adopted in concluding 'he agreement, and declared that in essence it was not a disarmament but a rearmament agreement. Lord Londonderry (Lord Privy Seal), replying, said the restoration of confidence and the prospects of peace amongst nations would be most effectively promoted by a general settlement freely negotiated between Germany and the other Powers. The Government would adhere to that view, which, in effect, it had reaffirmed at Stresa, but as practical people they had to face the facts of the situation. Germany was already increasing her naval strength beyond the limits imposed by Versailles, and the Government believed the best method of promoting that general settlement to which the London communique referred was not to enter a further period of competitive building, but to endeavour by agreement with Germany to circumscribe the effects of the decision announced by Germany. It was in those circumstances that Germany undertook to limit the future size of her navy to 35 per cent, of the British Fleet, provided the British Government accepted that limitation. To have missed that opportunity of limitation in the sphere of naval defences would have been, he said, to miss a chance of eliminating, they might hope, for all time, that fatal competition of naval armaments between Germany and this country which did so much to poison the atmosphere a quarter of a century ago. It was a great mistake to assume that in accepting the agreement with Germany the Government had done anything to prejudice the situation of the other naval Powers.The Government believed that by setting a fixed point of departure for future discussions, both as regards British and German armaments, it had done a service to the other Powers. If those other Powers could succeed in coming to agreement with Germany in regard to land or air armaments, in such a way as not to commit this country to any particular strength, the Government would believe it had done the Empire and the rest of the world a service. Before the agreement was concluded the French Government, in common with other Powers signatory to the Washington Treaty, was informed on June 7 of the outline of the agreement, and invited to -communicate any observations it might desire to offer. The French view was received before the agreement was made, but its criticisms did not appear to be of such a character as would justify the British Government withholding its consent to an agreement which ti'ild such promise of the peace of the world. Taking France's present naval strength at about 50 per cent, of the British naval strength, the agree:i:ent afforded to France at present levels permanent superiority of about 43 per cent, over the German Navy, compared with an inferiority of some 30 per cent, before the war. The Government believed, when the French Government was able to review the situation as a whole through the expert representatives whom it was hoped it would appoint for this purpose, it would admit that this step had been in the ultimate interest of France. . . ;: ■ Lord Lloyd said he regretted the fact that the Government had entered into an agrement without consulting France and Italy. He said Britain's cruisers and destroyers were in such a condition that some were unable to return from the Mediterranean. " The position is much graver than I dare tell the House. It would be bad for us if as much was known as ought to be told." Lord Beatty 'said he was distressed and disturbed at the present situation. Our navy was not strong enough to guarantee the safety of our sea-borne trade, because we were shackled by the London Treaty. Several questions on the Anglo-German agreement were answered in the House of Commons by Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell. He said, on the tonnages allowed by the Washington and London Treaties, on December 31, 1936, 35 per cent, of the British total of capital ship, cruiser and destroyer tonnages would be 166,103 tons. 118,650 tons and 52,500 tons respectivelv. On the same basis of 45 per cent, of "the British submarine tonnage was 23.715 tons, 35 per cent, of the aggregate British tonnage allowed by these'treaties on the same date would be 403,008 tons. After that date the tonnage allowed Germany would be •based on a relevant paragraph of the agreement. Answering a further question, the First Lord of the Admiralty Laid the Deutschland and her sister ship were, under the treaty definitions, in the capita! ship class, and would remain in that category undei the definition proposed for a future treaty in the British Draft Disarmament Convention In reply to a question, Sir Samuel Hoare (Foreign Minister) said the conclusion of a general armaments agreement to replace, so far as Germany was concerned, part of the Versailles Treaty remained the object of the Government s policy. The Government believed an Wlo-Gprman agreement would facilitate the conclusion of a general agreement on the subject of i.aval armaments. CAPTAIN EDEN IN PARIS LONDON, Ju ie 27. (Received June 27, at 10.55 p.m.) Captain Eden will arrive in Pans today to resume discussions with M. Laval. FRENCH PRESS PESSIMISTIC PARIS. June 27. (Received June 28, at 1 a.m.) The newspapers are pessimistic about the results of the talks between Captain Eden and Signor Mussolini, nor do they expect much from the discussions between Captain Eden and M. Laval. . .Lp Journal says: " The clearest thing emerging from Signor Mussolini's communique is that Italy holds the same views as France, namely, the necessity of returning to the methods of the London declaration in February."