§ 6. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the speech of the United States principal representative at Geneva, Mr. Gibson, on 22nd April last, in which he declared that his Government was prepared to agree to any reduction in naval armaments, however drastic, so long as it does not leave any category of war vessel unrestricted; and what response is to be made to this renewed invitation on behalf of His Majesty's Government?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINYes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have, of course, noted the important statement made by Mr. Gibson in the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament. As was at once stated by my Noble Friend, Lord Cushendun, His Majesty's Government share to the full the hopes and wishes of the Government of the United States as therein set forth.
His Majesty's Government, equally with the Government of the United States, desire not merely a limitation, but a reduction of naval armaments. They have, indeed, themselves made proposals for such general reduction, and that the reduction should be applied to every class of war vessel.
856 As between ourselves and the United States such difference as has hitherto existed has not been concerned with these great principles, nor with the relative strength of our respective Navies, but with the determination of the categories into which ships of war should be divided. On this point, His Majesty's Government have noted with much interest the new criteria suggested by Mr. Gibson. They attach great importance to the possibilities opened by the greater elasticity given by his suggestions for the adjustment of the agreed naval strengths to the different circumstances of the two Powers. Finally, they desire me to take this opportunity to express their warm appreciation of the cordial and conciliatory spirit shown by the American delegation and to give the assurance, on their behalf, that it is in the same spirit and with the most earnest wish to reach complete agreement they will consider the American suggestions.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that that admirably expressed answer, apart from the sentimental statements, contains nothing definite as to acceptance, and may I ask if this offer will be treated differently from the similar offer made in September last in a note handed to the right hon. Gentleman by Mr. Houghton on behalf of the Washington Government?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI really do not understand the motive of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in endeavouring to diminish the effect or the substantial importance of the statement which I have just made in regard to the American proposals.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was exactly on this proposal of categories that there was failure to reach agreement at Geneva in 1927, and my motive is to see that we make no further blunder of that kind?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. and gallant Gentleman in his question does not define the point of difference which existed between us. I have done that in my answer, and, by defining it, I hope that I have reduced it to its proper proportion.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESIn view of the statement of policy made by the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that no class of war vessel ought to remain unrestricted, does that mean that he has finally abandoned the policy outlined in the Anglo-French pact by which French submarines of under 600 tons were unrestricted?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThere never was an Anglo-French pact. The hon. Member uses language which is inappropriate—
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThe Speaker is the judge of that; how do you know whether it is appropriate language or not?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINIn the suggested basis of discussion offered by the French and British Governments, it has always been the desire of His Majesty's Government that every class of war vessel should be restricted, and our own proposals included a suggestion for the restriction of every class. We only varied that position in the hope that by conceding something we might secure progress.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESCan we be assured that in further negotiations we shall not give up so vital a safeguard as the limitation of submarines?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINIf by agreeing with the Americans that the limitation and restriction of every class of war vessel ought to be secured, we can secure it, the hon. Gentleman may be satisfied that His Majesty's Government will not be wanting.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that it is possible to come to a settlement on this question with the United States prior to coming to a settlement with them as to the use to which naval powers should be put in regard to the seizure of private property at sea?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is going beyond the scope of the question on the Paper.
§ Mr. TAYLORCan the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the statement which he has just made, whether it is the intention of the Government to sign an additional Clause?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThat has no relationship to this question.