No. 7.
28
If this is so, then the fact that the "Powerful" is not an armoured cruiser places the balance of advantage with the old squadron to a considerable degree.
The "Powerful" is not in accord with the latest proposal, not being a 1st-class armoured cruiser, but a protected cruiser.
12th October 1905.
W. R. CRESWELL, Captain,
Naval Director.
20
be a loss and not a gain to the Australian Squadron, as the "Powerful," in their Lordships' opinion, is unquestionably a much more suitable vessel in every respect than the "Monmouth" for the desired service.
I am, &c.,
GEO. H. HOSTE,
pro Secretary.
5891.
PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.
+885
ན་
45612.
(Confidential.)
No. 6.
ADMIRALTY to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received December 27, 1905.)
SIR,
Admiralty, December 23, 1905. My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have had under consideration your letter of the 2nd instant, No. 42153, forwarding a copy of a confidential despatch with enclosures from the Governor-General of Australia regarding the strength of the Australian Naval Squadron.
With regard to the remark made by the Prime Minister of the Common- wealth to the effect that by the substitution of the 1st-class protected cruiser "Powerful" for the 1st-class armoured cruiser "Euryalus" the fighting strength of the squadron is, in the opinion of the Director of the Naval Forces of the Commonwealth, considerably diminished, my Lords desire me to state that this contention is open to controversy, and they desire to offer the following remarks on the point thus raised.``
Although up to a comparatively recent date the theory has been held that the "armoured cruiser' is more powerful than the "protected cruiser," subsequent experience has shown that these designations are by no means a true guide to the relative fighting value of the ships to which they are applied.
Thus the examination of the conditions connected with the cruiser actions in the Far East during the Russo-Japanese war, on which much study and labour has been recently expended, together with the practical lessons afforded by the actions themselves, have shown conclusively that the line of demarcation between the fighting powers of many of the two classes of vessels is not only extremely faint, but that in some cases the supposedly inferior vessel has proved herself the superior as a fighting machine, and this, for practical purposes, in comparing the relative strength of the British fighting line with the fighting line of the principal foreign fleets, has now been held to justify the inclusion of cruisers with casemated batteries in the category of armoured cruisers.
56
As an example of this apparent anomaly it may be quoted that the Powerful" herself has, in most respects, marked advantages over the 'Euryalus," in that she has a larger crew, carries a heavier armament, and possesses a greater coal capacity, and consequently a much more extended radius of action, and this especially fits her for service on the Australian Station. It was, in fact, the lack of bunker space in the Euryalus" class that decided my Lords to withdraw her from the Australian Squadron, and her sister ships the "Hogue," "Sutlej," and "Cressy" from China.
My Lords consider that, in their action under discussion, they have conformed to the spirit of the Australian agreement, but should the Common- wealth Government desire, after further consideration, that the strict letter of the agreement should be adhered to, they will be prepared at the earliest practicable date to substitute a 1st-class armoured cruiser of the "Monmouth" type for the "Powerful."
This would be the only possible alternative to the present arrangement which they could make with due regard to the general requirements of the Service, but they would, at the same time, represent that the change would
• Not printed; forwarded No. 5.
The GOVERNOR OF NEW ZEALAND to the SECRETARY OF
STATE.
(Received February 19, 1906.)
[Copy to Admiralty, February 28, 1906, L.F.]
(Confidential.) MY LORD,
Government House,
Wellington, New Zealand,
December 30, 1905. WITH reference to your predecessor's despatch of the 21st December 1904, concerning the alterations in the strength and composition of the Australian Squadron, I have the honour to transmit herewith, for the consideration of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, a copy of a memorandum which I have recently received from my Premier on this subject.
I have, &c.,
PLUNKET,
(Confidential.)
Enclosure in No. 7.
Governor.
MEMORANDUM FOR HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR.
Prime Minister's Office, Wellington,
December 27, 1905.
The Premier presents his compliments to His Excellency the Governor, and, with reference to the several despatches from the Secretary of State for the Colonies which led to the Act passed last session amending the Naval Agreement, has the honour to request that the Governor may be pleased to call the attention of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to what was agreed upon, and which was subsequently approved by the New Zealand Legislature, and considered in the amended Agreement to strengthen the Australian-New Zealand Squadron in the direction indicated by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty themselves. Instead of strengthening
Powerful the squadron, however, by the substitution of the
for the Euryalus," it diminished the fighting strength of it, and such action is not consonant with the terms of the amended Agreement, the "Powerful being a protected and not an armoured cruiser.
<+
"
The Premier will be glad if the attention of the Admiralty is called to this matter, and will also be pleased to receive such explanation as may be given, for the question may arise in Parliament as to whether the original or amended Agreement has been complied with, and he desires to be in a position to give the necessary information.
R. J. SEDDON.
• No. 2.
17 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
E