Ever since the U. S. became rich enough to have the power to outbuild Britain on the seas, successive Naval Conferences have seen British statesmen arguing for reduction of the maximum size of capital ships. Until last week, U. S. insistence that the maximum be set high enough to permit capital ships of 35,000 tons has been countered by British proposals to make 25,000 tons tops. Last week His Majesty’s Government reversed themselves. With Benito Mussolini now building two 35,000-tonners and with France planning two more, while Germany is about to lay down two or more 30,000-tonners, the British Admiralty announced to the London Naval Conference a new plan drafted by British experts during adjournment of the Conference for the funeral of King George. For the experts spoke the First Lord of the Admiralty, Viscount Monsell. He assented to 35,000 tons as the capital ship maximum; asked reduction to 14 in. of the present 16 in. gun calibre maximum on such ships; urged that aircraft carriers be cut from the present maximum of 27,000 tons with 8 in. guns to 22,000 tons with 6.1-inchers. Continuing, Lord Monsell proposed that further building of London Naval Treaty “A” Cruisers (10,000 tons) be postponed for five years; that distinction between light cruisers and destroyers be abolished and that 8,000 tons with 6.1-in. guns be made the limit in this unified class; that the present submarine maximum of 2.800 tons with 6.1-in. guns be reduced to 2,000 tons with 5.1-inchers. Up popped the French and Italian delegates. In quick succession they said their governments would have preferred a British proposal to limit capital ships to 27,000 tons with 12-in. guns. For the U. S. grey and graceful little Ambassador-at-Large Norman Hezekiah Davis repeated the immemorial naval thesis of Washington: only “quantitative limitation” (limitation of whole fleets by global tonnage) is of real use. Such “qualitative limitation” as the British proposed last week he disparaged as inadequate, though he was forced to admit: “The situation has changed.”
It has changed with Japan’s brusque withdrawal from the Conference (TIME, Jan. 27), and with Britain’s authorization to Germany to violate the naval clauses of the Treaty of Versailles (TIME, June 24) and construct a major Nazi Fleet. Last week, since neither Germany nor Japan was sitting in at the London Conference, its proceedings were illusory. The object was to agree solemnly upon something of a high sounding nature which would permit the delegates to adjourn without too great an appearance of frustration. For this purpose the plan of Lord Monsell showed promise. It was gravely adopted “as a basis for discussion.”