NAVAL TREATY

Southland Times, Issue 21100, 4 June 1930, Page 5

NAVAL TREATY

INQUIRY SOUGHT

EFFECT ON BRITAIN MOTION BY MR BALDWIN REJECTION BY COMMONS (United Press Assn.—By Teiegraph-Cnpyright.) (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) Rugby, June 3. Mr Baldwin, the Conservative leader, moved in the House of Commons that a select committee of 11 members be appointed to examine and report upon the proposals contained in the international treaty for the limitation and reduction of naval armaments. Mr Baldwin said that the last thing one wanted in this country was another naval scare, which was easily worked up in certain circumstances. It was purely with a view to obviating the smallest possible risk of anything of- that kind arising that he asked for an examination of the treaty. He wanted to know whether British security remained; whether Britain would be in a position in any circumstances to fulfil her sacred obligations and how the country would stand in future in regard to European standards of naval construction. It would have been a simple problem if America had become a member of the League of Nations, because America and this country as members of the League could make war impossible. We had, however, to consider the question of America outside the League and determined to maintain neutrality so far as troubles in the old world might be concerned. • Mr MacDonald’s Reply. Hie Prime Minister, Mr MacDonald, warned Mr Baldwin that if the Government were to assent to this proposal it would be a departure from the relations between the Executive and the House of Commons which had become part and parcel of our ordinary procedure. Mr Baldwin must remember, he said, that every time the Army, Navy and Air Force Estimates were presented to the House every consideration that he had referred to now was involved. If the Estimates of the last Government year after year had been submitted to a select committee he was afraid there would have been things revealed that were inconvenient to be revealed; but which nevertheless were the subject of a committee’s investigation. Mr MacDonald asserted that nobody who sat through the London Naval Conference would have any doubt that but for the treaty shipbuilding would have been enormously increased over and above what was allowed under the treaty. The policy the Government was proposing was perfectly clear: that was to strengthen our peace security, and as our peace security was strengthened the policy was not to go wasting public money in arming ourselves. Three-Power Agreement. -We went into a Five-Power Conference,” he said, “and we have got a three-Power agreement. We are still working away at the problem which, when solved, will enable us to have a five-Power agreement. Those of us who are pursuing the path of peace take the three-Power agreement as an instalment. We take it as the beginning of the way that must be pursued stage, by stage and step by step till at last through equilibrium we reach disarmament.” In conclusion, Mr MacDonald expressed the hope that the House would reject the resolution moved by the Opposition, and give confidence and support to the treaty. Major Hills (Conservative) emphasized that Mr Baldwin’s motion would be regarded as a condemnation of the treaty. If the Sea Lords had failed in their duty or the Government had disregarded their advice, a vote of censure should be moved, otherwise Major Hills preferred to believe that the Government had the support of the professional opinion of the Admiralty.— (Labour cheers.) “Treaty of Inferiority.” Mr Churchill said the Conservative Party asked that there should be a searching examination into the details of the treaty before the country committed itself irrevocably. It was a treaty of inferiority in form and on paper. We ought not to get into a position where any Power, even the most friendly, had undoubted means to threaten us with starvation. He had no hesitation in saying that the country would be safer with the five battleships which were being scrapped under the treaty than with the cruisers which would have to be built. Was that economy? This conference was the supreme failure of all conferences. The relations between Italy and France had been definitely worsened, and the United States as a result of the treaty would spend between £100,000,000 and £200,000,000 in the next five years. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr A. V. Alexander, said that in his heart of hearts Mr Churchill had no real desire for peace. Mr Baldwin’s motion was rejected by 282 votes to 201. ‘ AMERICAN NAVY THREE NEW CRUISERS. (Ree. 8.55 p.m.) Washington, June 2. Mr Charles F. Adams, Secretary of the Navy, announced that work had been started on three new 10,000-ton cruisers held up by Mr Hoover before the London Naval Conference. The Bin design settled in the pact had been agreed upon in the construction of these vessels, which would be completed in 1933.

It is understood that the changes made provide for vessels with heavier armour on the gun turrets and general heavier armaments without causing loss of speed.