§ 16. Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the number of officers and others borne on the active list of the navies of the United States of America, Japan, and Great Britain to-day; and when the Washington Treaty is ratified by all the Powers concerned respectively?
§ Mr. AMERYAs the answer is in tabular form, I propose, with my Noble and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Sir W. DAVISONCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the ships which form a subject-matter of this Treaty, and which belong to this country, have actually been broken up before the Treaty is ratified?
§ Viscount CURZONAre the figures relating to this country final figures, or will they be subject to any revision in the future?
§ Mr. AMERYI answered the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) a few days ago. In regard to the second supplementary, we are carrying out already the additional reductions consequent upon the Washington Treaty.
§ The answer is as follows:
§ (a) The present position, according to the latest information available is as follows:—
| Great Britain.* | U.S.A.† | Japan. | |
| Officers | 8,497 | 10,700 | 7,739 |
| Petty officers and men. | 93,410 | 105,500 | 67,714 |
| Total | 101,907 | 116,200 | 75,453 |
| * Including Marines, but excluding Coastguard and Royal Marine Police. | |||
| †Includes Marines. |
§ (b) Presuming the Treaty is ratified by the early spring of 1923, the position will be:—
§ Great Britain.—Excluding Coastguard and Marine Police, numbers will be reduced to approximately 98,500, including Marines, by 31st March, 1923. Of these, between 7,000 and 8,000 will be officers.
§ United States of America.—No alteration in present numbers is anticipated.
§ Japan.—The total personnel is to be reduced to about 69,000 in the New Year. Of these, between 6,000 and 7,000 will be officers.
2912§ 52. Mr. MORELasked the Prime Minister, seeing that no date is specified in the Treaty on the limitation of armaments signed at Washington in February last, on which the Treaty should be ratified, what is the view of His Majesty's Government as to the period within which such ratifications should take place in order to give effect to the Treaty; whether His Majesty's Government has any information as to the view of the United States on this point; whether non-ratifiation by one of the signatory Powers will be regarded by His Majesty's Government as involving the abandonment of the Treaty; and if His Majesty's Government has been in consultation with the Government of the United States as to the views which that Government would adopt in the event of non-ratification by one of the signatory Powers?
§ The PRIME MINISTERHis Majesty's Government have no definite limit of time in mind as representing the period within which the Washington Treaties must be ratified. Nor, so far as I am aware, have the United States Government. On the other hand, His Majesty's Government cannot regard without grave disappointment the continued delay in the ratification of the Treaties by two of the signatory Powers. I think it premature to take into consideration what the action of His Majesty's Government might be in a hypothetical situation which I sincerely trust will not arise.