NELSON DAY DINNER.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18242, 28 November 1924, Page 13

NELSON DAY DINNER.

LORD CHELMSFORD ON NEW CRUISERS. DEPENDENCE ON THE NAVY. (feou oce otcx cobeesfoxdext.) LONDON, October 21. More New Zealanders than usual attended tho Nelson Day dinner arranged by the Navy League in celebration of the 119t'u anniversary of Trafalgar and the death ofNelson. It took place at the Gonnaught Eooms, which were liberally decorated with flags and flowers. Behind the chair of the president (the Manquis of Linlithgow) was a photograph of the famous Admiral, surmounted bv a wreath of laurel. Distinguished guests present included: The Bight Hon. the Viscount Chelmsford (First Lord of the Admiralty), the Eight Hon. the Lord Darling, the veteran Admiral the Hon. Sir Edmund R. Fremantle, Lieut.-General Sir It. D. Whigham, Air Vice-Marshal Sir -J. M. I Salmond, the Marchioness of Linlithgow, , Sir A. H. Euseell, Gen- ! eral Sir E. W. C. Chaytor, Sir Thomas Mackenzie, Mr A. F. Roberts, Mrg W. JI. Cruicksha.uk (who was present by special nomination from New Zealand), Captain J. E. Kirk, Mrs Kirk, Miss Rees, Sir Joseph and Lady Cook, Lady Chelmsford, Viscount Curzon, and Barcm and Baroness de Goldsmid da Palmaira. immediately before the dinner, the president sent a message to the King and Queen, conveyipg an expression of the loyal feeling of those present to the Throng The reply duly received contained the following remark: "It is gratifying to his Majesty that the Victory has 11 aw been restored, and will for ever reqftrd the achievements of our greatjSea heroes."

T"o Lord ]}arling was entrusted tho toast "The Glorious and Immortal Memory of Jfelson and his Colleagues." He said he never felt so embarrassed in his life nor so puzzled to know how this task came to be imposed upon him. Tho toast seemed to be absolutely typical of Lord Nelson. He was a man who in? variably remembered those whom ho called his comrades. When ha went to fight his sea fights he called them a baud of brothers—every ''man in the Navy belonged to the band of brothers _ —and it was greatly for that reason 'that Nelson was so enormously successful on the seas. Lord Nelson stood out above all othors in the Navy, and represented its spirit absolutely and faithfully. Thero«was no man who stood out so prominently in the Army. He had no doubt that it was because the spirit of Nelson animated the men of our Navy in the that they behaved bo gallantly and achieved such great results. (Cheers.) It was impossible to help wondering what would have been the cojurse of events had Nelson been alive in the war just over. He would, of course, have found absolutely different conditions, but we could not but feel sure that if he had had to use modern weapons he would havo used them with the hand of a master. People who had beep, no nearer the sea than Mar-gate-Slaughter)—criticised our admirals for their conduct at the Battle of Jutland, but it must be remembered that at Jutland it was not merely a question of taking the Navy into action, but of taking the whole British Empire into action, and saving or losing that within a quarter of an hour. The British Navy, although now smaller, was still useful, and many people apparently wanted it to fight their battles. The toast was honoured in silence, all standing. Admiral Sir E. It. Fremantle pror posed "His Majesty's Dominions Overseas." Ho referred to the recent cruise of the Imperial Service Squadron, and hoped that the tour had cemented the good feeling which had always existed between: the Boyal Navy and the Dominions. Singapore was thought by the naval representatives to be of the greatest importance to the security of tho Empire and to the safety of our communications in the Eastern Seas.

Mr S. Harris (president of the Navy Lcaguo of Canada) and Sir L. E. Groom (Attorney-General of Australia) responded. Folly of Unpreparcdness. The Marquis of Linlithgow, proposing "Tho Imperial Forces of the Crown," expressed the view that there was no profounder error thau to suppose that the weakness and unpreparedness of this country for war would lead to the peace of the world. (Cheers.) There was luo? thing more certain to lead to a general holocaust in every sea and in every continent thiui the break-up of tho British Empire. Everyone felt convinced that with the splendid new material with which the three Services were filled there would be the same spirit of loyalty and devotion to the person of the Sovereign, the same determination to work for efficiency, the same upholding of those great traditions whjch were the precious heritages not merely of the Services, but of the whole nation as we found in the days of Nelson, in the late war, and down our long history. Imperial Necessity. Viscount C'helnisford said that when he received the invitation to be present he felt it was his bouhden duty to accept, as holding the office of First Lord of the Admiralty. He was under no delusions that there were differences of opinion between the Council of the Navy League and the administration over which he had the honour to preside, but he wns confident that in fundamentals they were agreed, and the fundamentals were summed up in tho wonderful words: "It is upon the Navy, under the good providence of God, that the wealth, safety, and strength of the kingdom chiefly depend." Those words found a place in the Articles of War in the time of Charles 11., and they had been handed down over since in the 2>rcamble of the Act. The British people had turned to the principle embodied in those words as certaiuly as the magnetic needle always turned to tho north.

"From 1914-1924; ivo have had eight Fivst Lords of the Admiralty, and it is not beyond the bounds of probability that in the course of the year there may be a ninth. Surely it cannot be otherwise than unsatisfactory that so often in a decade we have these changes in the chief of this great department." (Hear, hear.) There must necessarily be a lack of cofttinuity which must follow upon the change in office—it seems as if it ciocs not matter having a new First Lord if it is more convenient!

Cruisers and their Value. Nelson so often referred in his letters and despatches to the lack of frigates. Frigates were the eyes and ears of the Fleet, and there were two occasions when it was by his profound grasp of strategy that ho averted disaster when there was shortage of frigates. "Substitute cruisors for frigates to-day," said Lord Chelmsford. "You may "remember that some few months ago the present Government laid down the policy of building fivs cruisers, and we were subjected in that policy to a good deal of criticism. Oi'r criti;s told us that we were starting c-gain that race of arms, they told us that we were building these cruisers not for the necessities or urgent needs of the Navy, but for the sake of relieving unemployment. (Continued at foot of noxfc, column.^

The Washington pact did not; lay down any limitation with regard to the building of cruisers beyond that cruisers were not to be more tftan 10,000 tons and not carry greater arihament than Sin. guns.- Wo are not starting a new race in armaments, but it follows that if other countries build cruisers of certain dimensions and certain armament, we must follow suit— history shows us by innumerable examples that if you pit vessels of inferior size and arm'apient against vessels of superior size and armament you are simply lending your men to certain death. As to relieving unemployment, I give that a categorical denial. I have always taken up the position that I have had nothing to do with unemployment;. My duty was only to look after the interests of the ilavy— (cheers, and 'quite right'), on two occasions when deputations waited on me I said emphatically that that was not my business. The business of the First Lord of tho Admiralty is to see that as many vessels arc built as arc required by the urgency of tho moment.

♦'What purposes do cruisers serve? (1) They nre the cj*es and ears of tho Fleet and' (2) they must patrol tho great sea trade routes. It is obvious that if we arc going to have- cruisers to bo the eyes and cars of the fleet wo cannot have fewer than others who arc likely to be opposed to us upon tho other side. The question of patrolling the great sea routes is a very difficult one. In the late war one single ship was able on a trade route to hold up all other ships jtnd do irreparable damage. At ono moment in the war, with the Emden, the Karlsruhe and other enemy ships, as well as Von Spec's vessels afloat, wo had as many as seventy-five cruisers looking for tliem. That shows tho ira- . perativc need of cruisers for patrolling the trade routes.

"The life of a cruiser is calculated by experts to be fifteen years, and there arc many who would say that that is probably too long. The wear and tear during one year of war must bo counted equal to two years of peace. Dunng the war we built a great number of cruisers with very small fuel capacity for the purposes of the war for service in the North Sea, but now, with the change of the situation we have to look forward to naval warfare, not in the limited area of the North Sea, but on the oceans very much further away, and we require vessels of much greater fuel capacity. Our cruiser strength now is forty-eight, compared with 115 cruisers in April, 1914. By wastage, if no replacements take place, as has been proposed, by 1037 we shall not have a cruiser fit to take the se&. That is the position with regard to cruisers. I am of opinion that no Government would take the responsibility of ignoring that verv serious state of things. (Cheers.) In conclusion, I will end as I began. Never should it be forgotten that it :s upon tho Navy under the good providence of God that the wealth, strength, and safety of this Kingdom cliiefly depend."