HL Deb 04 July 1907 vol 177 cc830-41
EARL CAWDOR

My Lords, I rise to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) What is the prescribed strength of the Channel Fleet in battleships and cruisers, and what is its actual strength at the present date; (2) What battleships and cruisers belonging to this Fleet are now undergoing repairs; at what place or places are such repairs being carried out; and by what ships are those undergoing repairs replaced; (3) Are the vessels replacing ships, now under repair, fully manned; (4) What training, if any, in night practice, is being given to destroyers and torpedo boats which are attached to the Nore Division; (5) Are ships manned with nucleus crews given night practice; (6) What is the number of destroyers in the Channel and Home Fleets, and in the Home Ports—(a) In full commission, (b) With nucleus crews, (c) Under repair or laid up, and what is the number available for sea in twenty-four or forty-eight hours in (a), (b), and (c) respectively; and to ask for Papers.

In putting these questions to the noble Lord I do not think I need assure your Lordships that I do so in no hostile or critical sense whatever. The defences of this country and the efficiency of the Navy are interests far too great, to my mind, to be the playthings of Party; and in so far as I am able it will certainly always be my endeavour to keep them absolutely free from anything of the kind. But, my Lords, there has been much—shall I say?—wild statement as to what are said to be the facts with regard to the present condition of the Navy. I refer to statements not alone in newspapers, because, with all my great respect for the Press, I should not, merely on newspaper articles, think it necessary to raise any question as a rule in your Lordships' House. But the remarks to which I refer have gone a good deal further than that. Rumours have been put about with respect to the want of repair of the Fleet, the small numbers of the Channel Fleet as it exists at present compared to what is its prescribed strength, and with regard to other matters of the same kind, emanating from quarters which ought to know the facts.

There are other Questions besides those on the Paper which I should like to have addressed to the noble Lord, but I feel that I have already pressed him upon them and I accept the Answers he has given. I pressed the noble Lord not very long ago on the question of repairs. The noble Lord gave me a perfectly straight Answer, namely, that in his opinion the vessels were being kept in a proper and sufficient state of repair, and that the staff in all the dockyards in this country and abroad were in a condition to maintain those repairs at a proper standard. I cannot continue asking the noble Lord Questions of that kind, because I accept his statements when he makes them. There is another Question which I have not put on the Paper, and I will tell your Lordships why. For some reason which I cannot explain, the perpetual statement seems to be made that the Fleet at the Nore is nothing but a Fleet in reserve. The Fleet at the Nore, as I understand it, is made up at the moment of six battleships, two having been withdrawn from each of the three Fleets—the Channel Fleet, the Mediterranean Fleet, and the Atlantic Fleet—and six first-class cruisers also withdrawn from those Fleets; and we have had the assurance more than once in the noble Lord's Memorandum on the Navy Estimates and from himself personally in this House that the intention of His Majesty's Government is to maintain those twelve vessels in full commission and absolutely efficient as a foremost fighting Fleet. But it does not seem to matter what is said. Certain persons continue to assert that the Fleet at the Nore is nothing but a Fleet in reserve. I take upon myself the responsibility of not asking the noble Lord that Question again, because I accept the statement he has made that the Fleet at the Nore is in an efficient state, that it is fully manned, and that it is in the front rank of our fighting Fleets. Of course, the noble Lord will correct me if I am not quoting him correctly.

I think the time has come when it is very undesirable that so many statements of the nature I have referred to should be made without being authoritatively contradicted. It is very easy to say sometimes that these rumours do not harm, but if persisted in they create a certain amount of unrest in the public mind. I merely say these few words because I wish to tempt the noble Lord, if I can, to state to your Lordships as clearly and as definitely as possible what is the real and actual position of the Channel Fleet, and, if he will, of the Home Fleet as well; and if the noble Lord will unburden himself on the subject he will not only be satisfying your Lordships but will also be removing a feeling of uneasiness which I am afraid is beginning to permeate all classes in this country. I have asked for Papers. I do not know whether any of the matters I have referred to are matters on which the noble Lord can lay Papers. If so, it would be satisfactory that we should have the information in black and white. I therefore beg to-put the Questions which stand in my name, and to ask whether any Papers on the subject can be aid on the Table.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)

My Lords, I have to thank my noble friend for putting these Questions on the Paper. because the somewhat elastic procedure of this House enables me if the House will allow me, not to confine myself to the Questions on the Paper, but to go rather into the general question of the position of the Navy. We do not desire to keep anything back from the House or from the country, but I wish to maintain a certain amount of reserve. I do think there are circumstances connected with the Fleet, and the policy with regard to the Fleet, which it is not desirable to announce too publicly. I will give as full information as I can, and I will further pledge myself that such things as I think it undesirable to state publicly I will at any rate offer to communicate to the noble Earl who has raised this question, to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in this House, and to the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition in the other House.

Now Lord Cawdor has referred to— shall I call it?—the mosquito campaign which has been carried on in the Press and other quarters against the Admiralty and their policy, and the new arrangements with regard to the Fleet. During my public life I have been brought a good deal into contact with the Press and I know what "good copy" means. But I think those who search for good copy do not always found that copy on actually ascertained facts. I attribute no mala fides, but I think a great many of these attacks have a very ill-informed foundation. I do not want to fall into a difference with the Press in this matter, but a great many of these statements are a good deal like sheet lightning, which after a certain amount of illumination passes away leaving greater darkness than before. But I do resent and protest against some of these statements being re-echoed by officers retired, and, I am afraid, sometimes also by officers on active service. I think that is contrary to the good discipline of the service. I am sure these officers would feel aggrieved if officers who serve under them had been lacking in that self-control which they have recently, some of them, exhibited.

What are the points that are raised against us? This sort of argument has been put forward. The Empire is in jeopardy; we are living over a live mine; we are sitting on a volcano. These are very vivid descriptions, no doubt, but I think they rest on assumptions which cannot be maintained. The people who put forward this sort of attack assume that the whole lessons of history are forgotten or rejected. For, my Lords, the history of the British Navy is of great antiquity; it goes back to the earliest times of our country. It is true that the Navy has had in its time its heavy knocks, its defeats, its disasters; yet, my Lords, I say with confidence that in the end the British Navy has always been successful, it has always come out top dog in the fight; and I think we may trust the sea dogs of the present to give just as good an account of themselves as their predecessors have done in the past. Then it is said that the Home Fleet is a fraud on the public and a danger to the Empire. It is said we have now an emasculated Channel Fleet. I will deal with these two points a little later on.

Then, my Lords, it is said that the Sea Lords of the Admiralty are the subservient servants of a time-serving and parsimonious Government. I protest against such statements. There is no foundation for them. I can assure your Lordships that the whole of the Board of Admiralty, whether they be civilians or naval men, the moment they enter the Admiralty doors drop all questions of Party and devote themselves entirely to the advantage of the Navy and the safety of the Empire. How is the present Board of Admiralty constituted? I leave on one side my civil colleagues and myself. There are four Sea Lords. There is, in the first place, the First Sea Lord, Sir John Fisher; and nobody, at any rate, whatever fault they may find with him, can say he is a man with no power of asserting himself, or one who has not done great service to the country and to the British Navy. The Second Sea Lord is Sir William May, a man known to the whole world to have done admirable work at the Admiralty, and to have distinguished himself in every command which he has held. I have a third colleague, Sir Henry Jackson, a Fellow of the Royal Society, a man of great scientific attainments, the greatest expert there is in wireless telegraphy.. The Fourth Sea Lord is Admiral Winsloe, a man who has shown the greatest capacity in command, and in service generally. I hold that if these charges against them and against their civilian colleagues were to be maintained, we should be driven out of office; we should be hanged as high as Haman, if we left our responsibilities unfulfilled. I can assure you that no pressure is brought on the Admiralty Board, and that if such pressure were attempted the Board would not stand any such dictation.

There are three points you should carefully remember. In the first place the distribution of ships must be under the control of the Admiralty Board, because the wants of the country change from time to time. The conditions as between ourselves and other Powers are constantly changing, and you want so to distribute your force from time to time as will make you as safe as possible, and ready to meet any emergency. Therefore I contend there must be no idea of finality with regard to the distribution of ships. The distribution of ships must go on changing from time to time according to the requirements of the moment; and to fix a particular fleet at a particular number for all time is making a great mistake, and not making a proper use of the forces at your disposal.

As regards the Home Fleet, about which so much has been said, it must be remembered that it is in process of development. I do not pretend that it is now complete; I do not pretend to prophesy in what position that Meet may be in eighteen months' or two years' time.

There is still a third thing that I think should also be carefully remembered and considered. That is the geographical position which this country possesses, and also the position that it has, not merely by the situation of the British Isles, but by its possessions in all parts of the world. We lie across the chief courses of all European commerce by the position of our island at the issues of the Atlantic Ocean. We hold also the Straits of Gibraltar, the mouth of the Mediterranean, and then we hold Malta, Aden, Bombay, Colombo, Singapore, and Hong-Kong. Then there is the Cape and Bermuda, and a number of harbours in our Colonies. In the future these Colonies can be of the greatest service to the British Navy. They can be of service by increasing their harbours, improving the docks and coaling facilities, perhaps by themselves starting flotillas of the smaller ships such as submarine destroyers. You cannot carry the smaller vessels which are the fringe and accompaniment of a fleet with you across the ocean. I believe if the time of danger came when you had to send a great war fleet across the ocean, it would be of enormous service to the fleet to find there the small flotillas which are so important for naval operations.

I will bring before you what I think a very faithful representation of the strength of the Fleet as it now is. The figures are not exactly the same perhaps as in the Dilke Return, but I will try to explain in what small particulars they differ. I do not propose to make any comparison between either the various Powers severally as against England or any combination of Powers against this country. I am going to give you very shortly what seems to me to represent the full present strength of the five great naval Powers of the world. The list was made out for 1st June, 1907. On that date Great Britain had fifty-seven battleships of less than twenty-five year old. In the Dilke Return I think the number is sixty, but I take out the "Edinburgh," the "Thunderer," and the "Devastation," because of their age. These fifty-seven vessels also include eighteen vessels that are of a more or less obsolescent type. That leaves thirty-nine first-class battleships for Great Britain. The United States has twenty-two battleships less than twenty-five years old and of these four belong to the obsolescent class, leaving eighteen. Germany has twenty battleships, of which nine are obsolescent, leaving eleven. France has twenty-one battleships, from which I deduct seven obsolescent vessels and the "Iéna," which I do not think can be used again, leaving thirteen. Japan has eleven vessels, of which two are obsolescent, leaving nine. Therefore, so far as battleships of the first and important class are concerned. Great Britain has thirty-nine, the United States eighteen, France thirteen, Germany eleven, and Japan nine.

Taking armoured cruisers of twenty years old and less, I find that Great Britain has thirty-two, the United States twelve, France eighteen, Germany six, Japan ten. I am not going to compare the ships of the various fleets against one another. This I do say, however, that it seems to me that those who choose to go into this subject and see what the comparative value of the ships is, will undoubtedly be convinced that, whether it is a question of size, speed, armament, or armour, British ships will show up extremely well against the ships of any other country in the world. That is lather a striking and, I believe, an accurate account of the various fleets as they stand at the present moment.

I now come to the Questions put to me by Lord Cawdor. The first Question is: What is the prescribed strength of the Channel Fleet in battleships and cruisers, and what is its actual strength at the present date? The prescribed strength of the Channel Fleet at this moment is fourteen battleships, consisting of eight "King Edwards," the "Triumph" and the "Swiftsure," then the "Ocean" and the "Vengeance" of the "Canopus" class, and, lastly, the "Jupiter" and "Illustrious" of the "Majestic" class. These last six vessels will, I think, in a reasonable time be changed for a wholly homogeneous class. The battleship strength will be greater eventually than it is at present.

What. I should like to point out is this, that, though it is true that the number of battleships in the Channel Fleet at this moment is less than it was in Sir Arthur Wilson's time, yet the general strength of the squadron of battleships is, I think, greater now than ever it was, because the eight ships of the "King Edward VII." class outshine anything that was ever brought together before, and those eight ships at this moment entirely surpass the ships to be found in any other fleet in the world. I think that when the other six ships are made up into a homogeneous group you will find that the battleship portion of the Channel Fleet is a force which cannot be met by any other fleet in the world— I doubt even whether by any combination of fleets. Then there are attached to the Channel Fleet the four armoured cruisers that constitute the First Cruiser Squadron. There are three protected cruisers, a repair ship, and a despatch vessel. The next Question asked is, What battleships and cruisers of this fleet are undergoing repairs?

EARL CAWDOR

I asked for the prescribed strength of the Channel Fleet and its actual strength at the present date.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I am coming to that. The Channel Fleet at the present time is short of two battleships, which are undergoing their annual refit, and the First Cruiser Squadron has been away in American waters. But since 24th June a number of fully-manned ships of the Home Fleet have been temporarily placed under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet. At the present time these vessels are six armoured cruisers of the first type, which constitute a fifth new squadron, three scouts, one destroyer depot ship, and thirty-seven destroyers. These ships are under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet up till 10th July, and he is now carrying on a cruise and manœuvres with all these ships. The First Cruiser Squadron, which has been away during the last few months in America, has returned to-day to these waters.

I am next asked: At what place or places are the repairs being carried out? Two battleships, the "New Zealand" and the "Triumph," and the protected cruiser "Juno" are undergoing repair, the "New Zealand" at Devonport and the "Triumph" and "Juno" at Chatham. The "Juno" is under repair on an extensive scale, which amounts to more than the annual refit, and so she has been replaced in the Fleet temporarily by the "Gladiator." The "New Zealand" and "Triumph" have not yet been replaced, because they are only undergoing the usual annual refit, and as soon as that is complete they will rejoin the Fleet.

Then I am asked: Are the vessels replacing ships now under repair fully manned? The "Gladiator" is fully manned. Then it is asked: What training, if any, in night practice is being given to destroyers and torpedo-boats which are attached to the Nore Division? I suppose that by destroyers and torpedo-boats attached to the Nore Division the noble Lord refers to the flotilla under the immediate orders of the Torpedo Commodore in the Home Fleet. This flotilla consists, apart from the attendant scouts and depot ship, entirely of fully-manned destroyers, usually twenty-four in number. No torpedo-boats are attached to this flotilla. This flotilla has constant and systematic night training, with and without lights. The ships manned with nucleus crews are given night practice.

I am further asked: What is the number of destroyers in the Channel and Home Fleets, and in the Home Ports (a) in full commission; (b) with nucleus crews; and (c) under repair or laid up; and what is the number available for sea in twenty-four or forty-eight hours in (a), (b), and (c), respectively? I am afraid that in regard to a portion of that question the answer is one which I would rather not give to the House, though I am quite ready to give it to the noble Lord privately. My answer to the rest of the question is this—that 123 destroyers are in home waters, and belong to the Home Fleet; but, when required, the destroyers are detached for service with the Channel Fleet. At present there are seventy destroyers in commission with full crews; thirty-seven are attached to and are cruising with the Channel Fleet, fifteen are attached to the Home Fleet under the immediate orders of the Torpedo Commodore, ten are attached to the Home Fleet and employed on duties with the gunnery and torpedo establishments and on experimental duties and eight are in Home Ports. Of the remaining fifty-three destroyers, all have nucleus crews except three that are in dockyard hands.

The question has been raised more than once—What proof is there that the ships of the Home Fleet are ready for sea and are properly trained? I have only this morning received a gunnery return which, I think, does no small credit to the Home Fleet as a whole— that is, including the reserve vessels with the Nore Division. We all know that the weather latterly has been extraordinarily unfavourable for shooting, as well as for human beings, and these tests this year have been carried on under quite exceptionally difficult circumstances. In spite of this and all other drawbacks, the Home Fleet occupies third place in the whole six principal fleets from which we have returns. I can give the House the actual order of merit, which is—(1) the Mediterranean Fleet, (2) the Altantic Fleet, (3) the Home Fleet, (4) the Australian Squadron, (5) the Channel Fleet, (6) the Third Cruiser Squadron. I may say that this order of merit is based on an official scale of points which takes into consideration both the accuracy and rapidity of firing. I think that is a very creditable place to have been taken by the fleet at the Nore, with the reserve ships, which I have included; and I think it should go far to assure the House that the Home Fleet really is in its present undeveloped condition a very formidable force, and one which will be able to give of itself a very good account, if it is called upon, in time of war. I hope that I have been able to give the information that I promised, and I hope that noble Lords will consider that, after all, we have a very good defence to make of the present efficiency of His Majesty's Navy, and that the Board of which I have the honour to be the head is really active in promoting the best interests of the service.

LORD BRASSEY

My Lords, before this discussion closes I desire to make a suggestion arising out of the decision recently taken to offer His Majesty's ship "Collingwood" for sale. I do not question the discretion of the Admiralty in regard to the sale of the "Collingwood." The list of battleships named in the Dilke Return includes, however, five ships of similar type and approximately even date to the "Collingwood," and three other ships of approximately the same date as the "Thunderer" class. I desire to express most earnestly the hope that those ships may not share the fate of the "Collingwood." I would strongly urge that all of those ships, or, at all events, some of them, may, when the time comes to pay them out of commission or otherwise to deal with them, be placed in Australian harbours. In those distant waters the ironclads of an older day would, I am convinced, be found extremely valuable both for the training of the Colonial Naval Reserve and also in an emergency for harbour defence.

EARL CAWDOR

My Lords, I should like to tender my thanks to the First Lord for the courtesy and fulness of his reply. I hope that what he has said may tend to do away with many of the rumours to which I have referred, and to create confidence. In regard to the shortage of the Channel Fleet in battleships, can the noble Lord tell the House how long the strength has been twelve instead of fourteen, and whether that is the outside shortage that there has been in the fleet in recent months? In the event of two battleships allocated to the Channel Fleet undergoing considerable repairs at any time, their place, I take it, would be taken by other vessels. I presume that it is only in the case of shorter repairs that they would not be replaced.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

There are two different classes of repairs. One is the annual refit, and that is the case of the two ships I have mentioned. Then there are times when vessels have to undergo considerable repair, and then the ships would be replaced.

EARL CAWDOR

With regard to the question of Papers, the noble Lord has given the House some extremely interesting figures with respect to the proportionate strength of the fleets of Great Britain, the United States, Germany, France, and Japan. I do not know whether he would consider it desirable that they should be issued in a Paper. The figures are of considerable value, and they appear to me to be a slight modification of the Dilke Return.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

Very little.

EARL CAWDOR

I again thank the noble Lord for the statement he has made.

House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.