unt Bridgeman, the First London, May 8. acted upon the advice of the experts Jand were satisfied that the security Lord of the Admiralty in the late lof che Empire was amply safeguard-Conservative Government, opened a ed. As regained our future con-debate in the House of Lords to-day struction he said he could not state upon the Naval Treaty resulting definitely the policy of the Govern-_ from the London Naval Conference. ment.—Wireless through Reuter.
He said that so far as the smaller Anti-French Speech in Rome portion of the Treaty, which was signed by all Five-Powers, was con-Rome, May 9. cerned, the important thing was the The tenseness of Franco-Italian prolongation of the life of capital relation was illustrated by en-hips. "He did not quarrel, he said, thusiastic press echo of a pointedly this, though it was' true we anti-French speech by Deputy Del-up stronger and newer} croix in the Chamber of Deputies. battleships than America was doing.
The Italian deputy's speech evoked With regard to the reservation in frantic applause from the entire the Three-Power Agreement, how-Chamber, with scores of his col-ever, empowering us to increase our leagues embracing the speaker, who naval strength if any Power, not a declared that the head of the Italian signatory of the Treaty, was build-Delegation to the recent London ing to an extent which was threaten-Naval Disarmament Conference outing to us, that seemed to him to guessed and out-mancuvred Briand, place us in a very invidious position, who throughout the Conference was We had to consider not only the lining at the isolation of Italy by Aulantie and the Pacific but also the attempting to bring about a Four Mediterranean and our position in: Power Pact, Europe, whereas neither of the other: "Italy," Deleroix declared, "will two signatories was concerned never abandon the claim for naval that way. parity (with France) which is a Bridgeman submitted Question of life and death to our country. France has ignored the present-day Italy. She is no longer ers when it had been agreed that the Italy of the pre-war period and 70 were needed to meet our require-it France insists upon robbing us ments and were essential for the Jof the fruits of victory and upon protection of our Imperial trade, It Jattempting to establish, under the was said that this Treaty was a step pretext of security, het hegemony] towards disarmament. What coun-lover Europe, we cannot and will not try, he asked, besides our own had tolerate it, We menace nobody, and made a step towards disarmament? are prepared to live in. friendship Some had more ships than before, with all nal Let France re-some had about the same. We alone cognize thi Il our endeavours! had a great diminution of naval prove futile we will act according strength and we had already, since to on Roman traditions." the war, done more than any nation to reduce our ships. Where was this Similar sentiments were expressed great step toward ment by the Foreign Minister, Signor /Grandi, in an address before the cept by ourselves?
Chamber of Deputies this afternoon Lord Carson (Conservative), reiterating that Italy would adhere speaking as one who was First Lord to the parity demand, whereupon of the Admiralty at a critical period the Deputies lustily cheered both of the war, said our mastery of the Grandi and Ti Duce—Trans-Ocean Seas had always hitherto been re-Kuo Min, garded as essential to our existence and to the safety of our country.
Grandi's Declaration He reminded the House of the grave difficulties we had during the war!
Rome, May 9. in feeding our people, He wanted For two hours in the Chamber of the assurance of the Government Deputies to-day Signor Grandi, the that in approving this Treaty they Foreign Minister, surveyed " the had behind them the support of the achievements of the London Naval} experts at the Admiralty.
Conference, marquis of Reading (Liberal) The most striking pat ch dealt with parity with France, He declared that Naval parity was protect, this country the principle of moral international] invasion, He thought. Lord right, something new which arose seemed to take no account whatever from' mutual confidence among the of all that had happened since 1914 nations, and he added that if Italy Wo were, he said, committed to measured her armament in accord: disarmament. We must now envies ige ance with her needs, parity would the Navy fro the aspect of a nation desirous of pence, of a nation straining to prevent wars between other countries and doing the utmost to make certain that. the treaties we had entered into should be duly observed and performed. He thought the Government had every reason to congratulate themselves upon the agreement with America and Japan, and he built, he said, the strongest hopes upon a future agreement between France and Italy.
Earl Jellicoe thought that in view of what was being done in the Navies of other countries, the reduction now proposed in the British Navy went beyond the limits of safety. The Naval Conference since the war had, he said, resulted in reductions in' our Navy, but in no other navies, Instead other countries had actually increased their navies.
'A very great deal of destruction to our merchant vessels in the early days of the war, he pointed out, was done by only two German cruisers, the Emden and the Karlsruhe. If 114 British cruisers were unable to Prevent two cruisers doing that damage how, he asked, could we expect 50 cruisers to prevent damage to our trade and food supplies and secure our sea communications?
Lord Parmoor, the Lord President} of the Council," replying for the Government, said we could mo longer depend upon force alone to secure our safety. Referring to specific points raised during the debate he said the Admiralty' were prepared to agree to 50 cruisers as the minimum required by the Empire up to the next conference in 1936, The justification for the reduction. from 70 cruisers to 50 was the change in the general peace outlook inthe world, The Pact of Paris had made a great difference.
The Government, he concluded, had consciously and conscientiously be insufficient. He stated, however, that he was fairly optimistic as regards the future and said that Franco Italian ce-operation was! essential if Europe was to recover her prosperity.—Reuter.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.