BRITISH NAVAL STRENGTH

Taranaki Daily News, 10 May 1930, Page 9

BRITISH NAVAL STRENGTH

HOUSE OF LORDS PLAINT

RESULT OF THE CONFERENCE “ONLY NATION REDUCING” British Wireless. Rugby, May 8. Lord Bridgeman opened a debate in the House of Lords to-day upon the naval treaty resulting from the London Naval Conference. He said that so far as the smaller portion of the treaty, which was signed by all five Powers, was concerned the important thing was the prolongation of the life of capital ships. He .did noit quarrel with this, though it was true Britain was giving up stronger and newer battleships than America was doing. With regard to the reservation in the three Power agreement empowering Britain to increase naval strength if any Power, not a signatory to the treaty, was building to an extent which was threatening to Britain, that seemed to him to place Britain in a very insidious position. Britain had to consider not only the Atlantic and Pacific but also the Mediterranean and its position in Europe, whereas neither of the other two signatories was concerned in that way. Lord Bridgeman submitted that the Government had made a great sacrifice in giving up 20 cruisers, when 70 bad been agreed to be Britain’s requirements and essential for the protection of British Imperial trade. It was said this treaty was a step towards disarmament. What country besjdes Britain had made a step towards disarmament? Some had .more ships than before; some had about the same; Britain alone had a great diminution of naval strength, and had already since the war done more than any nation to reduce ships. Where was this great step towards disarmament, except by the British?? MASTERY OF SEAS ESSENTIAL. Lord Carson (Conservative), speaking as one who was First Lord of the Admiralty at a critical period of the war, said the mastery of the seas had always hitherto been regarded as essential to Britain’s existence and to the safety of the country. He reminded the House o-f the grave difficulties Britain had during the war in, feeding the people. He wanted the assurance of the Government that, in approving this treaty, they had behind them the support of 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 that had happened since 1914. Britain was committed to disarmament; the House must now envisage the, ease 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 thait the treaties 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. Lord Jellicoe 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 reduction in Britain’s navy, but in no other navies; instead other nations had actually increased their navies. A very great deal of destruction of British merchant vessels in the early days of the war was done by only two ("Urman cruisers, the Emden and Karlsruhe. If 114 British cruisers were unable to prevent two cruisers doing that damage, how could Britain expect 50 cruisers to prevent damage to trade and food supplies and to secure sea communications. “CANNOT- RELY ON FORCE.” Lord Parmoor, replying for the. Government, said Britain could no longer depend upon force r alone to secure its safety. Replying to the specific points raised : during 'the debate, he said the Admiralty was prepared to agree to 50 cruisers as the minimum requirements of the Empire up to the next conference in 1936. The justification for the reduction from 70 to 50 was the change in the general peace outlook in the world. The Pact of Paris had made a great difference. The Government had consciously and conscientiously acted upon the advice of its experts and was satisfied that the security of the Empire was amply safeguarded. With regard to Britain’s future construction he could not state definitely the policy of the Government. So long as the present Government was in power it would, work but a programme so that replacement might be substantially provided for within the time contemplated in the agreement. The Government had been unable to achieve reduction of the size of capital ships. Was it suggested the Government should have broken off the negotiations because it could not obtain consent to that? He contended that by itho treaty the danger of submarines had been limited. The Government believed it had achieved two great results, the security of the country and the splendid friendliness between Britain, America and Japan, while the negotiations between France and Italy were not closed.