500.A4b/214
The British Chargé (Chilton) to the Secretary of State
Sir: It appears to His Majesty’s Government from the extracts from the annual report of the Secretary of the Navy, which have been made public, that the United States naval authorities are again asking authority to utilise the large appropriation for the purpose of increasing the elevation of the turret guns of 13 capital ships already granted by Congress but on which action was suspended. In these circumstances His Majesty’s Government think it desirable that their views on this important subject should at once be laid before the Government of the United States, especially as the fact that His Majesty’s Government have not so far expressed their views on the subject is apparently regarded in some quarters as indicating [Page 7] that in their opinion the proposed action is not inconsistent with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty.8
The relevant provision of the treaty is chapter II, Part 3, Section 1 (d), which prohibits, subject to certain exceptions, expressly provided for, any reconstruction of retained capital ships or aircraft carriers except for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and submarine attack. In the view of His Majesty’s Government the words quoted govern the whole of the remainder of the paragraph, and the subsequent sentence dealing with alterations in side armour, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament, does not in any way diminish the effect of these governing words, but merely develops them in certain respects, while also introducing certain exceptions which had been agreed on for special reasons. It follows that nothing which amounts to “reconstruction” may take place unless its object is to provide means of defence against air and submarine attack, as permitted by the above section.
It is clear that an increase in the elevation of turret guns of capital ships cannot be intended for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and submarine attack.
As regards the question whether such increase in the elevation involves any “reconstruction”, the increase of the elevation of guns together with consequential alterations such as scrapping or replacement of existing fire-control systems, etc., involves considerable “reconstruction” in the fullest sense of that term. It is, therefore, the view of His Majesty’s Government that an increase in the elevation of turret guns is not permissible under the terms of the treaty.
There is, however, a larger aspect of the question, and it is on this that His Majesty’s Government desire to lay particular stress. One of the objects of the treaty, as expressed in the Preamble, is to reduce the burdens of competition in armament; and His Majesty’s Government cannot but feel that the inevitable result of the action proposed by the United States naval authorities will be to defeat this object to a considerable extent. The proposal is to increase the elevation of the turret guns of 13 capital ships. His Majesty’s Government are, of course, not aware of the exact amount of expenditure which this proposal would involve, but they note that the sum of $6,500,000 is proposed for that purpose, in addition presumably to any portion of the sum of $300,000 per ship per annum, regularly available for repairs without express congressional sanction, which may be employed. If, however, the proposal is carried! out, it can hardly be doubted that public opinion in the United Kingdom will demand a corresponding increase in the elevation of [Page 8] guns of the retained British capital ships, which will involve dealing with 17 or 18 ships, at an approximate cost of £116,000 per ship. The Japanese Government would probably feel compelled to take similar action, and the peoples of the three countries concerned would have to support the great expenditure involved, while the relative position of the three fleets would not be materially affected by the alterations. His Majesty’s Government cannot doubt that the Government of the United States will agree that such a result would not only be deplorable in itself, but inconsistent with the objects of the Naval Treaty and the hopes which its conclusion inspired.
In these circumstances His Majesty’s Government desire to make an earnest appeal to the Government of the United States not to impose upon the peoples of the countries concerned the burdens of the competition in armament, which will inevitably result from the execution of their present proposals. Those proposals are, in the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, inconsistent with the provisions of the treaty, but even if arguments can be found in support of the contrary interpretation, it cannot be doubted that the effect of carrying them out would be entirely incompatible with its intentions. His Majesty’s Government earnestly emphasize the psychological effect of such a departure as seems to be contemplated and the great disappointment it would cause to the people of all nations who regard the action of the United States Government at the Washington Conference as one of the most notable steps ever taken by any Government to establish conditions of world-peace.
In order to avoid any possibility of misconception, His Majesty’s Government desire to repeat the assurance which has more than once been given to the United States Government that no alteration has been made in the elevation of the turret guns of any existing British capital ships since they were first placed in commission.
His Majesty’s Government desire, therefore, to propose that the Government of the United States, the Japanese Government and His Majesty’s Government (the Governments of France and Italy are not directly concerned in view of the special provision of the Treaty allowing them to increase the calibre of the guns of their retained capital ships), should each undertake not to make, during the term of the Treaty, any increase in the elevation of the turret guns of their existing capital ships.
In making this communication I am to explain that His Majesty’s Government intend to make a similar proposal to the Japanese Government, but have thought it well to lay their views before the Government of the United States without delay.
I have [etc.]