MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER AND THE NAVY.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
have only just returned from the Continent, or I -should have asked leave long ago to correct a statement which
appeared in the Spectator of December 23rd. In your leading article of that date, in commenting on the Navy debate, you say that at the Cannon Street meeting "I earnestly begged all those who were present to take possession of certain literature issued by the London Chamber of Commerce, which I assured them was to be relied upon in every par- ticular." And you proceed to point out that the facts contained in these documents were inaccurate in various particulars. You refer to some lists, which you speak of as "Mr. Forster's " lists, in which the 'Inflexible' and Dread_ nought' are classified as first-class battle-ships, the Bar- %deur " Centurion,' and Collingwood ' as second-class battle- ships; and you say, "If these lists of Mr. Forster's had been incorrectly drawn up, on what were they to depend " ?
It is plain that there has been some misunderstanding in this matter. As far as I know, only two documents con- cerning the Navy have been issued by the London Chamber -of Commerce on its own authority. As a member of the committee which compiled, and of the council which sanc- tioned these two documents, I am clearly responsible for what they contain.
But as a, matter of fact they do not contain a single one of the statements which you quote and criticise. As you will see from the copies of the pamphlets which I enclose, there are no lists or the battle-ships of European Powers, and no misstate- cleats with respect to the Tice ships yuu natar. In a pauipulet prepared by Lord Charles Beresford, and for which that dis- tinguished officer is responsible, there is a list of our battle- ships, but, as you will note, they are quite correctly classified. I have no idea how the misconception on which your article is based arose ; but there is evidently a mistake somewhere, and it is not mine. I trust you may find room for this correction, for if my contributions to the discussion of naval and military matters have any value, it is owing to the fact that I take great pains to be accurate, and that I speak, whenever I c of things which I know from personal observation. I am as familiar with all the ships you name as I am with my own drawing-room, and the kind of mistake which you attribute to me is one which I do not think I could possibly make out of [If Mr. Arnold. Forster will examine the series of papers which were handed to all those who left the meeting in the City, he will find among them a large sheet, giving the battle-ships of European Powers, said to be reprinted from the newspaper, England. In this he will find that the ships are classified in the manner which, as he agrees with us, is erroneous. Un- fortunately, it was for purposes of debate the most convenient paper for reference ; and he will find that the numbers of first-class battle-ships, as assumed by opposition speakers in the debate, corresponded with those in the paper, while Sir W. Harcourt gave, in this respect, the correct figures. If he has any difficulty in identifying the paper, we will send him a copy received at the door of the meeting, and naturally assumed by all recipients to be one of those to the accuracy of which Mr. Arnold-Forster certified.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
