Military equipment
Found in 1412 Collections and/or Records:
(Untitled), 02 Apr 1910
(Untitled), 10 Nov 1911
Letter from WSC, Admiralty, to Rear-Admiral Prince Louis of Battenberg [later 1st Lord Milford Haven], on his proposed appointment as 2nd Sea Lord, stating that it was extremely important that "no whisper" about the appointment should reach the present Board for the time being, also sending some plans which he had worked out secretly for a new type of Cruiser, and asking for his views. [Hand-written copy].
(Untitled), [15] Nov 1911
Minute from WSC ("In the train"), to [Rear-Admiral Charles Madden], 4th Sea Lord, on the deficiency in 21 inch torpedoes, stressing that it was essential that all vessels completed for service should have full reserves of ammunition and torpedoes; asking for report on deficiencies in reserves of guns and ammunition. [Hand-written copy].
(Untitled), 15 Nov 1911
(Untitled), 29 Nov 1911
(Untitled), 12 Dec 1911
Letter from Sir Francis Hopwood [Vice-Chairman, Development Commission, later 1st Lord Southborough] (Brooks's, St James Street [London]) to WSC, reporting that "Armstrongs" [Armstrong Whitworth and Company] had called an emergency board meeting, and that interpreted this to mean that Vickers Limited were asking them to "stand in" in any arrangements with the Admiralty regarding the Thames, expressing fears of the dangers to the Government of an alliance between Armstrong and Vickers.
(Untitled), 27 Dec 1911
Letter from Sir Francis Hopwood [Vice-Chairman, Development Commission, later 1st Lord Southborough] (Hawkshead House, Hatfield, Hertfordshire) to WSC, on a shipbuilding contract with Vickers Limited.
(Untitled), 29 Dec 1911
(Untitled), 02 Nov 1911
Letter from Admiral of the Fleet 1st Lord Fisher (Grand Hotel National, Lucerne [Switzerland]) to WSC, on senior staff appointments, recommending Maurice Hankey [Assistant Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence] to be Secretary of the Committee: "He is Napoleonic"; also on warship design, reminding WSC that "Armour is Vision" and that there were only two types to concentrate on, "the smallest Big-ship and the Biggest Small-ship". [Typescript copy at CHAR 13/2/95-97].
(Untitled), 25 Feb 1912
(Untitled), 28 Jun 1912
Minute by Rear-Admiral Ernest Troubridge, Chief of War Staff, Admiralty, on conditional requirements for naval superiority over Austria and Italy in the Mediterranean, 1913-15.
(Untitled), 22 Apr 1912
(Untitled), 11 Jul 1912
Memorandum from WSC [First Lord of the Admiralty] to the Chancellor of the Exchequer [David Lloyd George] on the naval estimates. [Printed, annotated "Not circulated"].
(Untitled), Aug 1912
Memorandum by WSC [First Lord of the Admiralty] on the naval estimates, 1912-13 and the sketch navy estimates for 1913-18. [Printed].
(Untitled), 26 Dec 1910
(Untitled), 29 Dec 1910
(Untitled), 20 Apr 1911
Letter from Lord Morley [Secretary of State for India] (India Office) to WSC advising him not to send Sir E[dward] H[enry] [Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police] to India with King George V as it would be a "sharp snub" to the Indian Police authorities and would demonstrate fear. Manuscript signed with initials.
(Untitled), 25 Apr 1911
Letter from Sir Arthur Bigge [later Lord Stamfordham, Permanent Secretary to King George V] (Buckingham Palace) to WSC concerning the possibility of [Sir Edward] Henry [Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police accompanying the King to India] which he has not had a chance to discuss with the King. Signed manuscript.
(Untitled), 13 May 1911
Letter from Sir Arthur Bigge [later Lord Stamfordham, Permanent Secretary to King George V] (Buckingham Palace) to WSC discussing the King's visit to India and advocating that Sir Edward Henry [Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police] should accompany the King. Signed typescript.
(Untitled), 30 May 1911
Draft letter from [WSC] (Home Office) to Lord Crewe [earlier Lord Houghton, also Robert Milnes, Secretary of State for India] enclosing letters [not present] from Lord Morley [earlier Secretary of State for India] and Sir Arthur Bigge [later Lord Stamfordham, Permanent Secretary to King George V] about the possibility of Sir Edward Henry [Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police] accompanying the King to India, and saying that the decision should be made by Lord Crewe. Typescript.
(Untitled), 26 Nov 1910
Letter from WSC ("in the train") to the Prime Minister [Herbert Asquith] enclosing a note on the libel against King George V published in the Liberator [see CHAR 12/8/2]. He adds that he thinks that action should be taken to clear the King's name "of such cruel and widely circulated aspersions". Signed manuscript.
(Untitled), [26] [Nov] [1910]
Note by WSC on the libel against King George V published in the Liberator discussing the possible courses of legal action. He adds that the police are seeking evidence concerning the publisher of the libel, and that the King should decide whether action should be taken. Manuscript in the hand of WSC. Covering letter at CHAR 12/8/1.
(Untitled), 23 Dec 1910
Letter from Sir Frederick Ponsonby [later Lord Sysonby, Equerry and Assistant Private Secretary to King George V] (York Cottage, Sandringham, Norfolk) to Edward Marsh explaining that Sir Arthur Bigge [later Lord Stamfordham, Permanent Secretary to the King] will write about the Liberator case. He adds that this is desirable as he disagrees with the views of King George and [WSC]. Signed manuscript.
(Untitled), 24 Dec 1910
Telegram from [Sidney] Harris [Under Secretary of State, Home Office] to WSC informing him that [Sir Arthur] Bigge [later Lord Stamfordham, Permanent Secretary to King George V] has telegraphed to instruct WSC to proceed "as previously settled" [on the case of libel against the King], and that Guy Stephenson [Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions] is in charge of the "legal machinery". Manuscript.
(Untitled), 24 Dec 1910
Letter from Sir Arthur Bigge [later Lord Stamfordham, Permanent Secretary to King George V] (Buckingham Palace) replying to WSC on behalf of the King. The King has decided that proceedings against [Edward] Mylius for criminal libel against him should continue despite the possibility that the libellous article published in the Liberator may be read aloud in Court. Signed manuscript.