NAVAL PROGRAMMES

Evening Star, Issue 19786, 9 February 1928, Page 9

NAVAL PROGRAMMES

CONFERENCE BROKEN BY PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS ARBITRATION NEGOTIATIONS WITH U.S. Pres* Association -By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, February 8. (Received February 9, at 1 p.m'.) Speaking on the Debate in Reply, Sir Austen Chamberlain regretted that the programme which Lord Bridgemail' and Lord Cecil took to Geneva was never allowed a fair discussion at tho conference. Personally, he now thought it would havo been better if there had been confidential semi-official exchanges of' views between tho Governments before tho conference. If the failure of tho conference brought Mr MacDonald to recognise that the rush of public discussion is not always the best method of arriving at an agreement, then lie had learnt something.

There were other negotiations in progress with the United States in regard to the Arbitration Treaty. He could not speak Lilly, but the treaty that the United Stales submitted to us was tho same as submitted to Franco. Ho could also say that, like the old Root-Bryce Treaty, it was not an unlimited treaty of arbitration on every difference, it was confined to what are called justifiable disputes, and, like the old treaty, excepted certain questions.

Agreement was subject to alterations and reservations, and the Government would have to enter into the fullest correspondence and consultations with the dominion Governments before an answer could he given to the proposal which was made.

Sir Austen added that he could not agree that every dispute between nations should be referred to a judicial tribunal. He recalled that the Bryan-Spring-Rice Treaty provided that any dispute between two nations should be referred to a committee of conciliation, whose report should ho awaited before taking arms. He was not sure, in the present slate of Europe, whether the next advance might not he along the lines of that treaty, rather than along the strict lines of arbitral agreements.

On behalf of the Government lie could say that our naval building was non-competitive. Our programmes were framed with a view to the necessary protection of British interests alone. Failure of the conference had not lessened the desire of the Government that our naval programmes should be modified, as was shown by the Government lessening its advance programme for two years.