British Sea Power

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 613, 15 March 1929, Page 9

British Sea Power

NAVY ESTIMATES PRESENTED

Defence of Nation’s Policy

“BIG FLEETS NO MENAGE TO PEACE - ’

British Official tvrreTess Received 11.39 a.m. RUGBY. Thursday. INTRODUCING the Navy Estimates in the House of Commons, the Rt. Hon. AY. C. Bridgeman said they showed a reduction of £1,435,000 over last year’s estimates. If one compared them with those of 1914. there was an apparent excess of £4,300.000; but that was more than wiped out by £5,500,000 in non-effective charges, and also by the fleet air arm. Therefore, the Estimates this year were £2,500,000 less than in 1914.

When one took into account the difference in the value of money, we were spending less by £27,500,000 than in 1914. Before the war, the Navy cost 24.5 per cent, of the total Budget, and now it cost 6.9 per cent. The Government had carried out a steady programme of replacement. In round figures this cost £45,000,000. During the five years for which he had been responsible, the air arm had risen from 105 aircraft in 1924 to 135 in 1928, and by the end of 1929 the number should be 153. It was a very modest force; but great progress had been made owing to the zeal and efficiency of its members. NEW CRUISERS In the coming year, continued Mr. Bridgeman, three new cruisers would be laid down. The design of one had not.yet been settled. Concerning the other two, it had been decided that they should he 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 new cruisers of that size to replace those which had to be scrapped in the future.

The Government’s building programme was sometimes spoken of as if it were a great addition instead of a replacement programme. That was absurd. Before the war, we had 111 cruisers and now we had 52, and if we went on replacing at the rate of three cruisers a year, we should only have 50 under 20 years of age in 1940. If we were to do less now, we should be faced with a very heavy programme in later years. NAVAL DISARMAMENT It suited the purpose of certain people, proceeded Mr. Bridgeman, to make out that this country was not doing its fair share in naval disarmament. That was not true. We were always willing to do our share in that direction. So far as naval disarmament went, we had done far more than any other country in the world.

Some people talked as if the first act of disarmament was the Washington Conference in 1921. At that conference the United States made a handsome proposal to scrap a number of capital ships which were built or building, and did scrap nearly half a million tons. We agreed to scrap 400,000 tons of completed capital ships. We had, since the armistice, scrapped over 2,160,000 tons. No fewer than 1,650,000 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 part in naval disarmament before and after the conference, he was unable to say. But that was not all. We were invited to a conference at Geneva in August, 1927, and we went there. We put before that conference a plan which would »have resulted in an enormous reduction of armaments —a plan approved by every member of this House. Unfortunately that cou-

ference broke down, although both 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 guns, and we wanted a larger number of ships with six-inch Besides that, we had made other attempts in the machinery of the disarmament conference at Geneva, and finally by the proposals generally known as the Anglo-French proposals, which we submitted to other Powers. NO ARMS RACE WITH U.S. The plan, to which the French had agreed, would have met the American situation in this way. There would have been no limit to the number of 10-000-ton ships the Americans could have provided. The plan did put a limit on the number mounting eight-inch guns. That was an advance on the Geneva proposals; but unfortunately it was not acceptable to them.

“The Prime Minister has already said,” continued Mr. Bridgeman, “that we are not going to engage in any building competition with America. We have shown our intentions, both at the Washington Conference and in our proposals at Geneva. We have done more than any other country in the actual reduction of armaments. We have shown our willingness to consider every proposal that has been made, and we are the only country in the world that depends for its existence upon the free passage of food and raw materials' across the sea from the Dominions and other countries. We have every reason to be satisfied that we have done our best.”

Mr. Bridgeman continued: “I think there is a good deal of very unwise talk about this idea of building competition with the United States, and it is in no way borne out by any policy which I have had the honour to carry out since I have been at the Admiralty. At the Geneva Conference, we offered to mark time on 10,000-ton cruisers un(»l the United States had caught us up, and then to stop altogether. In 1927-1928 we dropped three cruisers in case they might still wish to consider the proposals which we had made, and the fact that this year we are deciding on a replacement of six-inch gun cruisers goes, with the other points which I have mentioned, to show perfectly plainly that we are not, and have not been, trying to go one better than America.” Mr. Bridgeman said he could endorse the words uttered by Mr. Herbert C. Hoover, President of the United States, in his inaugural address —that the desire of other countries for peace was as deep and sincere as that of the United States. LOVERS OF PEACE

“The two Powers,” continued Mr. Bridgetnen, “are both lovers of peace. Both by interest and tradition they have both renounced recourse to war as an instrument of national policy, therefore it is quite unreasonable to suppose that either* one or the other

will be engaged in a war of aggression against any other, and it is still less reasonable to imagine that there is any danger of their fighting 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 the peace of the world is not endangered by ths fact that one or two or more peaceloving nations have strong navies, so long as those Powers are not animated by ambition of territory or lust of conquest. “Nobody can say that either of us is so animated. On the other hand, there is a certain w-ant of logic among those who hold thajt, if you make a proportional reduction of armaments all round, you have necessarily taken a step in the direction of peace. if everybody’s forces are proportionately reduced, their chances of success against any other Power are just the same as they were before, and therefore the incentive to war rests where it is. CONFIDENCE SOUGHT “But the real test 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 of armaments is no guarantee against war, where the spirit of peace does not exist. “But after that, it has been said that reduction is still a most desirable thing. It is desirable in the interests of economy, and still more desirable in the interests of humanity. If it were possible to abolish the use of submarines, or the use of poisonous gas, or attacks by air on noncombatants, it would -be an Immense step forward in the avoidance of the incalculable suffering of war. If the people who perpetually talked about the dangers of war would instead express generous confidence in the desire of all the great nations for peace, it would make peace far more certain, and the reduction of armaments much more likely, than insistence on very elaborate mathematical tables to meet the requirements of countries whose conditions were totally different, and whose needs were in no way comparable.”

Mr. Bridgeman added that this country was prepared, as in the past, to listen to any proposal that could he made, while claiming for itself the right to protect its insular position and Imperial responsibility, as every other country would claim for itself.

TALK OF NEW PARLEY

BRITAIN SURPRISED fAustralian and N.Z. Press Association) Reed 11 a.m. LONDON, Thursday. Official circles are surprised at the Paris story of the forthcoming naval conference. It is learned that Britain has neither issued nor expects an invitation. The Government is unlikely to involve itself within a few weeks of the election, while President Hoover is not sufficiently settled to take the initiative. But the Disarmament Preparatory Commission meets in April and this may enable the Powers to again acquaint themselves with each other’s views and estimate the chances of another naval conference before it is convened. It is pointed out that a recurrence of the 1927 breakdown cannot be risked. Thorough preparation is necessary, which is impossible by June.