VALUE OF THE FLEET

Hokitika Guardian, 14 November 1927, Page 4

VALUE OF THE FLEET

DEBATE IX HOUSE OF lords

(Australian & X.Z. Cable Association.)

LONDON, Xov. 10,

fn the House of Lords Lord Wester Wemyss drew attention to the breakdown’of the Geneva Naval Conference. He said: “Our forces are in no wise too great to secure our trade routes, and a reduction would be a risk that mi Government would accept. Ye are bound by the Declaration of Paris, to which neither the United States nor Japan are signatories. The command of the sens is essential to Lritain. If that was once lost our resistance to ail enemy would be broken down, and we would be cut oil from the world, incapable of maintaining ourselves. This does not apply in the ease of any other country, but so long as we adhere to the Declaration of Paris our geographical position is no asset to us. War. when once it has broken out.

must be prolonged.” Lord AYo.my.ss thought, however, that in certain circumstances naval armaments might be reduced without jeopardising our sea communications. Ho believed that ultimately there "would not be peace through disarmament, but disarmament through peace.

Lord Stanhope, replying, said that the British fleet was one of the greatest foundations of the peace of the world. It would be impossible to withdraw' from the Declaration of Paris without admitting the dangerous precedent that a parly could withdraw

from a treaty at any time. The only other way would be by the consent of tlie other .signatories, or bv inducing the Assembly of the League of Nations to advise the reconstruction of Hie treaty as inapplicable under Article Nineteen of the Covenant.

Lord Haldane thought that the Right Hon. AY. G. Bridgeman had spoken at Geneva too much as a seaman. Reduction should be discussed on a wider basis that mere naval efficiency. He wished that before the conference the Government had been aided by Ihe Committee of Imperial Defence, not by the Admiralty, and bad set out fully our plain necessities. It was a mistake t i go to Geneva without a preliminary agreement, but the position was not hopeless. We must continue <>t:-r efforts in the direction of disarmament, which was the only hope

of bringing large economies. Earl Balfour said that the abolition of the Declaration of Paris would not be to our interests. Aloronver. diplomatically, it was wholly and utterly impossible. It was a difficult, delicate subject, and a Parliamentary discussion might lend lo discord, not harmony. He did not believe that the naval Powers’ differences oi opinion wore irrocnnc iliable. but it would be difficult to bring about a reconciliation. AA’itliout the British Elect, France’s resistance 1.0 Germany in the Groat A\ar could not have lasted a year. The House was adjourned.