§ 13. Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the written assurance to be given to the French and Italian Governments by the British Government, in connection with the Franco-Italian naval agreement, that they themselves favour a reduction of the capital-ship gun to a maximum calibre of 12 inches and a substantial reduction in the existing maximum displacement of 35,000 tons, will also be given by the Governments of the United States of America and Japan?
Mr. ALEXANDERThe assurance to be given by the British Government on this matter is not dependent on a similar assurance from the United States of America and Japan. I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on the Navy Estimates on 11th March for the general position in regard to capital ships.
§ Sir C. CAYZERCan the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this written assurance will be in no way binding on the British Government, in the event of the United States and Japan not agreeing to its ratification at the next naval conference?
Mr. ALEXANDERI think, if the hon. Gentleman refers to my statement of last week, he will understand the position. We had already, at London, indicated our view that we should reduce the size of the ship and the size of the gun as far as we could, but there was no agreement, and so we did not act. If there is no agreement in the future, we shall still be in the same position.
§ Sir C. CAYZERThen we may take it that that answer means that this assurance is, definitely, not binding?
§ Commander SOUTHBYAs far as the gun is concerned, was the suggestion at the London Conference that it should be reduced to 12 inches or to 13.5 inches?