The Press Wednesday, March 4, 1931. Naval Limitation.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20177, 4 March 1931, Page 8

The Press Wednesday, March 4, 1931. Naval Limitation.

Although the newß about the FrancoItalian naval agreement describes it only ill general terms, there can be no doubt about its importance and little about its origin and nature. In an interview reported by cable to-day, Mr Henderson says that the agreement "prevents a renewal of the competi"tion in naval armaments, which was "very imminent"; and reference to the terms of the Pact concluded in London early last year explains this. The success of the London Conference was not only limited by failure to join France and Italy with Great Britain, the United States, and Japan in the agreement to fix the maximum strength of their fleets by categories (cruisers, destroyers, submarines) as in 1936; it was also rendered insecure by a " safeguarding " clause. The tonnage and gun-power figures were to be revised, if "the requirements of " national security " should be " materi- " ally affected by new construction" undertaken by any Power outside the agreement in Part 111. of the Treaty; In other words, if France began to build cruisers, destroyers, or submarines in a race against Italy, as she might do without infringing the Treaty, Great Britain would be free to notify the United States and Japan of her intention fo builfl cruisera and destroyers beyond the agreed limits. The United States would be free to follow suit, Japan also; and the Treaty would break down where its strength ia most to ,be desired. But although this safeguarding elause was essential, it was inserted In the hope of its remaining inoperative. The ground for that hope wis the announcement by the chief delegates at the close of the Conference that the British, French, and Italian Governments would continue to negotiate. if, JJripd praised the Threepower Agreement and said that France and Italy would, be actuated by " a very "keen denize" to extend which, like pxany on such occasions, might have been thought empty, but for the fact that France and Italy have extended it. At least, if that is not the meaning of their agreement it is very difficult to see any other. The reference to 70,000 tons of capital ships is t slighter importance. • Under Part I, of the Treaty all five Powers gave up their Washington Treaty righto to replace capital ships between 1030 and i J.JJ3O. Great Britain and the United 1 States gave up ten 35,000-ton' ships flflnfr, Japan six, and France and Italy Capital ships to ft?tpjmage 0f'105,000 each- . The holiday saved PfriwpS *385,000,000. : mt France mi It4y; each to hm TOjOOQ tons of c*sHs ships, postponed from 1927-29. eithwde4ded t? bdild «pofljMt-totfleships w of the jiew German type, a new competi,Uvfl[ f would have been introduced. The Bome correspondent of The Timet tjjjs tonnage"; froo*, the agreement, but saggests that it will "not be «found neiseasary" to construct the ships, If that is so, two Powers with the help c$ a ttiirdwill haw jet themselves a rejnarlcableaxapple pf

Tl c * ■ ' - - j r

»£ *1 f %-'* f-^vl 'W, brorais are c&i^ulto that tfrtncage Wro tp iftjto bis economist. l 80~ depressing z that ! Canter))fury f , to all the it '£&& find )p the fact psfe trnMpWt of % of thirteen thmftaad bales, jM tie V™™ rpse to 2d more fyr and 3d wore 4or fine than the ?tfjM clips were worth \ <MKP flio fnrtber fact tfas enough wool Mtt wmauw> be Md tjbroughaut to make 2 difference to the,flnan<nal

tbe fcvtf. w' if \t v doe«jiiotj( 33 1$ per ««&,, iwp*q®«Wt on e*W*P«r howevertempor4ay it may bei sad tfeeytdts of jibe ]sp W*** Impoßsibfe fetfffifimhow xa* these <P*wes tyVftjj** 'ttife feood reasons for that the January level will not return even if the dePUoe ftlij#e f ;, The oHef yesterday wj&a'the demand !pt iwm, jP*Mt imppasililQ. even to gmess J)qw long that will laat and in wfeifr directions it 1 has already been MtMcd/ J Bat Bradford' was active as Well, as Jap^a—to a level well beypnd. jits Janu^ry^unit —and the fact, that it Japan yester-. saleTsili ttpt be a very big ot s/wy i»~portent one j hut the anwipt pf 'woor still to hei sold' is great enough tb'keep buyers interested; 'and in the 'meantime growers have received at least £40,000 of wool

P&JEmS* - V

,It has appafentlynot surprised Franco •tbaij the British Bugby officiate (as ani» our cables to-day) have Jpl# to expel teams from champiojieiypg aser the prpsent season. The decision, created a sensation—all the moat bemuse Teagon lias been so can--4j4ly;jtate4 fir The, 'authorities Wwotroltke game, aid .Britain refuses to tolerate their ; '«? v tfc<J' 'French; pub% pod Kreneh Preps are "pre:V;paring for an outburst," preswably ; jtHe British' Eugby Union, * be better ifihe wrath 1 : were dirtied against her 4j«» fQQljb*U antfioritiißS. Ragby is not I\ '.jVi •/f;'Vt i,>t 't. *, , "-'im * -

[ a gentle game but nowhere ! out of France do they so consistently ' " play the man." Last season the list of serious casualties was so formidable that the prevalent}® of rough play was madf a political question. The Government was to introduce measures to suppress brutality, but as an English writer then observed, " Rugby, as played in France, is a «gyn« which might well, scare any " Government." It has scared the Italian Government. A year ago, when the Fascist authorities decreed the abolition of the scrum in orde- to reduce the risk of death, Signor Grandi, the Italian Foreign Minister, solemnly assured the delegates to the Naval Conference that it had been necessary to order the dissolution of the Italian Rugby Federation. Another Italian delegate was more candid still: " Rugby," he said, " will never do for " Southern blood. If we do not stop, "We shall kill each other." France is not far away from that position. It is a dull game that is played to a finish with twenty out of the thirty players able to walk off. The authorities have made attempts to effect a change, but not even the imposition of fines on clubs for every reported case of " brutality" has convinced a thrifty j people that Rugby is a game and not a | battle. It looks as if New Zealand will have to forgo the pleasure, to which many of its players have long looked forward, of showing how to enjoy the rigours of Rugby without imperilling the Entente Cordiale. {