NAVY ESTIMATES

Hokitika Guardian, 15 March 1929, Page 5

NAVY ESTIMATES

MINISTER'S SPEECH

WHAT BRITAIN HAS DONE

A FOR Cl RLE STATEMENT

(British Official Wireless.)

f Received tlii* day at 11 a.m., RUGBY, .March 14

Introducing the Navy Estimates in the House of Commons, lion. \V. iMidgoimiii said they showed a reduction of CITJo.OOtI over last year’s estimates. II one compared them with those of 15)1-1 there was apparently an excess of £4,303,000. but that was more, than wiped out by jL‘o.ot!(),lMi(> in non-effective charges, and also by the fleet air arm. Therefore the estimates this year were L'2,o')(l,000 less than in 15)1-1. When one took int: account the difference in the value of money u> were spending less by £27.0(11), 00.) than in 1014. He fore the war. the navy cost 21. b per cent of the total budget, and now it cost <5.0 per cent. The Government had carried out a steady programme ol replacement. In round figures this had cost do.(M!0.00!) during the five years lie bad been responsible.

The. air arm bad risen from 100 aircraft in 15)24 to 130 in 192 S and by tb» end of 1920 the number should he I 3. It was a very modest ilurce hut great progress bad l.een made owing to Hi.' zeal and oflieieticv of its members.

In the coining year, continued Mr Mridgeman. three new cruisers would be* laid down. The design of one bad not yet been settled Concerning t'.c other two it had been decided they should lie smaller cruisers with six-inch guns, in order to replace some of the smaller cruisers which were becoming obsolete, and because for strategic reasons we should want some hew cruisers of that size to replace those which had been scrapped in the lutiire. I lie Government building programme was sometimes spoken «<l as il it were a great addition instead of a replacement programme. That was absurd. Relore the war we had 111 cruisers and now n2, and if we went on replacing at the rate (if three cruisers a year, we should only have oO under 20 years of age in 15)10. If we were to do less now we should lie faced with a vers heavy programme in later years. It suited the purpose of certain people, proceeded .Mr Rridgeman, to make out. that this country was ton doing its lair share in naval disarmament. That was not true. We were always willing to do our share in that direction. As far as naval disarmament- went, we had done far more that: any other country in the world.

Some people talked as il the first act of disarmament was the Washington Conference in 1921. At that confer eme the United States made a handsome proposal to scrap :1 'lumber 01. capital ships built or building and did scrap nearly half a million tons. Wo agreed to scrap 400,000 tons of completed capital ships.

We had, since the Armistice, scrapped over 2,1(50,000 tons. No less than I ,(ifi)0,000 tons were scrapped before the Washington Conference. Actually before the conference we had scrapped more ships than we had left now. How anyone could say we had not played our pari in naval disarmament belore and after the conference he was unable to say, hut that was not all. We were invited to a conference at Geneva in 1927 and we went there. We put before that conference a plan which would have resulted in an enormous reduction of armaments. The plan was approved by every mom her of this House. Unfortunately, that conferencebroke down.

Although Doth sides were aiming at equality in strength we could not find a formula which would emulate ships mounting eight inch guns with ships mounting six-inch guns. The Americans wanted large ones with eight-inch irons and wo. wanted a larger number of ships with six-inch guns. Besides that we had made other attempts in the machinery ot the Disarmament Conference at Geneva and finally by proposals generally known as AngloFrench proposals, which we submitted l<> other Powers, a plan to which tin* French had agreed, which would have met the American situation. In this wav there would have been no limit to tin* number of 10.000 ton ships the Americans could have provided. Ttiev did put a limit on number mounting eight inch guns. That was advance on the Geneva proposals but iiidortunately it was not acceptable to them. The Prime Minister lias already said, continued Mr Bridgana, that we are not going to engage in any building competition with America. We have shown our intentions both at Washington Conference and in our proposals at Geneva. We have done more than any other country in actual reduction of armaments.

We have shown our views, and are willing to consider every proposal that has been made, and when I say that we are the only country in the world that depends for its existence upon the free passage o! loud and raw materials across the sea from the dominions and other countries, then I say that have every reason to be saii.-died that we have done our best.

Mr Rridgeiuan continued: “I think there is a good deal ot very unwise talk- about this idea of building /<»"- |H‘tition with the United States, and it i„ „o way borne out by any policy which 1 have had the honour to carry out Since I have been at the Admiralty. At Geneva Conference, we oflered t > mark time on ten-thousand ton cruisers .until the United States Imd. caught us up and then to slop altogether. In 1927-28 we dropped three cruisers in cuse"they might still wish to consider the proposals which we hud made and the fact that this year we are de-

aiding on the replacement of six inch gun cruisers goes with other points which 1 have mentioned to show perfectly plain that we are not and have not been going to go one better than America.

.Mr Rridgcma,n said lie could endorse the words uttered by President Hoover in bis inaugural address, that the de sire of other countries for peace was as ndeep and sincere, as that of the United States.

The two powers, continued Mr Rridgeman. are both lovers of peace, both bv interest and tradition. They have both renounced recourse to war as an instrument of national policy. Therefore it is unite unreasonable to suppose that either one or the other will be engaged in a war of aggression against any other power, and still less reasonable to imagine there is nnv danger of their lighting each other. Whatever shipbuilding either country is doing, is done for the purposes of defence and for insurance against risk, -and I venture to say (lie peace ol the world is not endangered by the fact, that one or two or more peac>loving nations have strong navies, so long as those powers are not animated by- an ambition lor territory or lust- oi conquest. Nobody can say that either ol us are. On the other hand there is a certain want ot logic amongst those who hold that if you make a proportional reduction of armaments all round von necessarily have taken a step in the direction of peace. If everybody's forces are proportionately reduced, their chances ot successes against any othoi power are just- the same as they were before, and therefore the incentive to war rests where it is, but the real tost is that substantial fleets in the hands of peaceful powers are not a danger to peace where no war spirit exists, and the mere proportional reduction oi armaments is no guarantee against war. where the spirit of peace does n t exist, but after that lias been said, reduction still is a most desirable tiling. It is desirable, in the interests of economy and still more desirable in the interests cf humanity.

If it- were possible to abolish the use submarines or the use ol poison gas or attaesk liv air on non-combatants it would be an immense, stop forward in the avoidance of the incalculable suHering of war. If the people who perpetually talked about the dangers of war would, instead express generous cnn.fidonoivin the desire of all great nations ''or peace, if would make peace fai more certain, and a reduction ot armaments much more likely, than insisipure oil the very elaborate mathematics,! tallies to meet the requirements of countries whoso conditions wore totally different and whose needs were in no way comparable. Mr Rridgeman added that this conn try was prepared, as in the past, to listen To any proposal that could he made, while- claiming for itself the '•iglit to. protect its insular position uud imperil responsibility as every other country would claim for itself.