BRITISH NAVY

Hokitika Guardian, 21 October 1933, Page 5

BRITISH NAVY

INCREASE DEMAND

LORD BEATTY’S URGENT PLEA

(United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.)

LONDON, October ■ 19. ■Lord Beatty, proposing the toast of “The Imperial Forces,” at the Navy League’s Nelson Day dinner, emphasised that the Navy was the handmaiden of their foreign policy, “but,” he s-iid, we have carried out disarmament to such Aai extent that our naval strength is (insufficient to make us an attractive ally or to play our part as a great Power, and thereby to help to promote a restoration of international confidence and to guarantee our ships’ s a."e passage pn the seas.” Lord Beatty continued: “We have kept down armaments in order to restore our credit, in which we have - succeeded, but at what sacrifice? Other. countries have restored their credit, but have maintained armaments.”

Ho added: “New that economic dafficultes are becoming less, ,acute defence difficulties are becoming more insistent. The time has surely come when we must meet the just rights and proper demands of those responsible for supplying and maintaining the defences cm which we'actually exist. iWe have no night to continue to run the terrible .risks of recent years. An overdue replacement of battleships was postponed by the London Treriy to 1936. - The replacement is certainly inevitable, as the whole Imperial se-

curity finally revolves on them. The British proposal at Geneva to reduce the size- of .battleships by one-third conflicts with 'the American proposal to reduce the numbers of all ships by one-third. We want moi'e ships, owing to greater responsibility at sea than any country, but if we can reasonably reduce the size of battleships, we can considerably reduce the expense j of naval armaments.

, Continuing, Lord Beatty ' stated : “We also' ,are tied by treaties and conventions regarding cruisers, in which. our 'requirements are greater and are entirely different .from those of other Powers. Consequently our acceptance of fifty cruisers at the London Conference was a deplorable blunder. There is another chapter to this unhappy story. The , Admiralty, in 1925,, proposed a ten years’ cruiser programme, giving seventy cruisers, which would have kept the shipbuild-

ing and the armament firms going, .providing work for thousands. ' and thereby, doing what America is doing, which, is the .most economical way of ensuring the safety of the Empire.

, Nevertheless, the Cabinet in 1927 reduced the programme to such an extent that, if we build three cruisers a year, we cannot exceed the fifty cruisers allotted by the London Treaty ny 1936. This position must be rectified by the Naval Conference's signatories to the Treaty, when we must not again bind ourselves to such &m unsafe limit.” Lord Beatty said: “Meanwhile, .we must endeavour to ensure a satis fae-! iory position as to our other ships, l particularly our aircraft carriers, and j defensive vessels against submarines. We require information as to whether j the stocks of reserve material are j being replaced, and whether the Singa. pore .Base, which is the key to the Empire in the east, and other naval bases are properly defended against the. attacks of modern aircraft, submarines and heavy ships. It is difficult to imagine that they could properly be safeguarded on the small pittance which the Navy has been allot-, ted. | Navy League messages were read • eulogising the League’s work .from the 1 Wellington and Hawkes Bay branches in (New Zealand. Loud ' Lloyd presided, SEA POWER IS ESSENTIAL

ARMAMENTS AND CREDIT

(Recieved this day at 11.20 a.m.)

LONDON, October 20

Lord Beaty concluded by saying that out of £53,000,000 expenditure on the navy, new construction necessitates the allocation of £10,000,000, and .it was impossible to imagine how adequately to provide for other necessities on the temoinder.' Moreover, while nobody .ooubts that the maintenance of our sealpower is essential, when the time comes to make provision for it we «ecm to forget it.

Lord Beatty said that Mr Baldwin had claimed that we kept down .armaments ‘in order to restore credit wherein we had succeeded, but at what a sacrifice. Other countries had not restored credit, but maintained armaments, etc.