Protection of the Seas Act 1897: Difference between revisions
Line 267: | Line 267: | ||
==Rationale== | ==Rationale== | ||
A variety of military, political, and economic factors influenced the writing and passage of the bill. First amongst these was the increasing naval threat of the other powers which, until recently, had lagged behind Vionna-Frankenlisch in naval power but were begining to prove a larger threat. Chief amongst these threats was [[Kingdom of Caledonia|Caledonia]], to the south of Prodava, a kingdom which had proven it could stand up to the [[Imperial Navy (Vionna-Frankenlisch)|Imperial Navy]] during the [[Okkamidur Affair]] and was Vionna-Frankenlisch's closest rival geographically. Caledonian battleships, in particular, had proven their strength during that short conflict and the Imperial Navy's own battleships were of outdated, often eccentric, designs. As a result of the Act, the swift construction of eight new battleships put Vionna-Frankenlisch immediately ahead of Caledonia, which could not match the Empire due to a smaller industrial base. The vast shipbuilding industry of Vionna-Frankenlisch proved itself once more able to out-produce its opponents. | |||
Somewhat unusually for pro-military legislation, the bill recieved significant support from the [[Labour Party (Vionna-Frankenlisch)|Labour Party]] and the [[Socialist Party of Vionna-Frankenlisch]], mostly on the grounds of creating jobs. Both parties recieved significant support from the working-class men who worked at the builders and from their unions and the opportunity to give these supporters work overshadowed any pacifism. The [[Liberal Party (Vionna-Frankenlisch)|Liberal Party]] did not support the bill and the majority of its members voted against or abstained. This opposition was not sufficient to hinder progress of the bill and it passed without Liberal support. | |||
Politically, naval reform was popular amongst the military and Conservative voters, most of whom supported the military and the Empire, were almost always in favour of strengthening the Imperial Navy, often seen as the nation's pride. Though there was some opposition on the basis of cost, some believing the money could be better spent on welfare or relief, this did not have a huge effect on the debate. | |||
==Aftermath== | ==Aftermath== |
Revision as of 09:16, 4 June 2021
Protection of the Seas Act | |
---|---|
Parliament of Vionna-Frankenlisch | |
Territorial extent | Vionna-Frankenlisch and the Empire |
Enacted by | House of Commons |
Date passed | 24th August 1897 |
Enacted by | House of Nobles |
Date passed | 27th August 1897 |
Date assented to | 28th August 1897 |
Date of Royal Assent | 28th August 1897 |
Date commenced | 28th August 1897 |
The Protection of the Seas Act was a piece of legislation passed by the Parliament of Vionna-Frankenlisch in August 1897 with the intention of increasing Vionna-Frankenlisch's naval strength and introducing standardisation to Imperial Navy units. Passed during the brief reign of King Richard II with his support, the act provided 15 million Lucans for the expansion of the Grand Fleet and funding was granted for the establishment of an official Imperial Navy Acquisition Board to replace several outdated Imperial Navy and Ministry of Defence organisations.
Background
It was passed under the Conservative government of Sir Richard Hollins. Though Hollins was not personally in favour of the act, he recognised that naval reform was a popular topic and gave his party freedom to vote on conscience. Conservative MPs voted in favour of the bill almost unanimously. A passionate speech by the Viscount Acton saw the House of Nobles vote in favour of the act by a majority of 191. The Labour and Socialist parties both voted mostly in favour of the bill on the grounds that it would provide important jobs in the shipbuilding industry. King Richard II personally spoke passionately in favour of the act. Several historians theorise that the original bill was written, at least in part, by the King or his advisors.
The 15-million Lucans provided to the Grand Fleet was a figure quite shy from the Admiralty's requests for 21-million but it was a still a substantial sum which gave Admiral Lord Hood freedom to expand his fleet by a great deal. Lord Hood, with the grudging support of his Admiralty superiors, also took the controversial move of selling several recently-built but poorly-designed or technically outdated warships for scrap. This action was condemned by the popular press but gave Lord Hood an additional budget of two million Lucans to undertake a radical shipbuilding scheme.
By 1st November, orders had been placed for six battleships at a cost of approximately 900,000 Lucans each, six armoured cruisers at L500,000 each, eight protected cruisers at L380,000 each, and 20 destroyers at a cost of L36,000 each. This initial expansion, therefore, cost the Admiralty a total of around 12-million Lucans. Two more battleships were ordered on 5th November to be built to a second-rate design, this cost L1.3 million. By the time King Richard II died on 12th November, most of the money had already been committed. Four-million Lucans were invested in the overhaul of coastal fortifications and the modernisation of the Imperial Navy Corps of Marines.
Ships Constructed during the Expansion
Battleships
Ship | Class | Builder | Laid Down | Launched | Completed | Cost |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Imperial | Imperial-class Battleship | J.M Loughton and Sons, Brumley | 6th December 1897 | December 1898 | 4th August 1899 | L881,000 |
Invincible | Imperial-class Battleship | J.M Loughton and Sons, Brumley | 4th January 1898 | March 1899 | 11th October 1899 | L901,000 |
Inflexible | Imperial-class Battleship | Briceport Dockyard | 17th December 1897 | January 1899 | 22nd November 1899 | L900,000 |
Indefatigable | Imperial-class Battleship | Frankenlisch Dockyard | 1st January 1898 | May 1899 | 26th January 1900 | L900,000 |
Invulnerable | Imperial-class Battleship | Phillip Simmonds Ltd, Briceport | 5th February 1898 | May 1899 | 19th February 1900 | L924,000 |
Intolerant | Imperial-class Battleship | Vista Ironworks, Vladimirska | 18th January 1898 | December 1898 | November 1899 | L896,000 |
Marienberg | Marienberg-class Battleship | Fredericksburgh Dockyard | 14th March 1898 | December 1899 | 8th January 1901 | L649,000 |
Passero | Marienberg-class Battleship | John Benton and Co., Julianopolis | 11th January 1898 | June 1899 | 19th August 1900 | L654,000 |
Cruisers
Ship | Class | Builder | Laid Down | Launched | Completed | Cost |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Edrington | Prince-class Cruiser | Fairfax Dockyard | 3rd December 1897 | October 1898 | 4th June 1899 | L510,000 |
Vladimirska | Prince-class Cruiser | Heatheridge, Fredericksburgh | 3rd December 1897 | November 1898 | 19th June 1899 | L498,000 |
Agrea | Prince-class Cruiser | Heatheridge, Fredericksburgh | 19th December 1897 | January 1899 | 5th August 1900 | L507,000 |
Brehm | Prince-class Cruiser | Brumley Dockyard | 7th December 1897 | February 1899 | 27th August 1900 | L514,000 |
Filantropolis | Prince-class Cruiser | T.P Damon Ltd, Frankenlisch | 6th December 1897 | December 1898 | 7th May 1899 | L489,000 |
Andersborg | Prince-class Cruiser | Merton and Sons, Luxington | 3rd December 1897 | December 1898 | 5th July 1899 | L499,000 |
Simon II | Archbishop-class Cruiser | Brumley Dockyard | 11th January 1898 | August 1899 | 12th June 1900 | L380,000 |
Theodore IV | Archbishop-class Cruiser | Featherstone Brothers, Valksland | February 1898 | August 1899 | 19th July 1900 | L391,000 |
Matthew I | Archbishop-class Cruiser | Featherstone Brothers, Valksland | February 1898 | August 1899 | 5th May 1900 | L390,000 |
Nicholas II | Archbishop-class Cruiser | Penchester Dockyard | 15th December 1897 | May 1899 | 14th September 1900 | L394,000 |
Orion | Orion-class Cruiser | Vista Ironworks, Vladimirska | 20th March 1898 | October 1899 | 1st January 1901 | L340,000 |
Acheron | Orion-class Cruiser | Vladimirska Dockyard | 17th March 1898 | July 1899 | 23rd October 1900 | L341,000 |
Cathay | Orion-class Cruiser | Estelle Shipbuilders, Breem | 4th April 1898 | December 1899 | 5th February 1901 | L338,000 |
Arcologia | Orion-class Cruiser | Estelle Shipbuilders, Breem | 1st March 1898 | August 1899 | 9th November 1900 | L342,000 |
Rationale
A variety of military, political, and economic factors influenced the writing and passage of the bill. First amongst these was the increasing naval threat of the other powers which, until recently, had lagged behind Vionna-Frankenlisch in naval power but were begining to prove a larger threat. Chief amongst these threats was Caledonia, to the south of Prodava, a kingdom which had proven it could stand up to the Imperial Navy during the Okkamidur Affair and was Vionna-Frankenlisch's closest rival geographically. Caledonian battleships, in particular, had proven their strength during that short conflict and the Imperial Navy's own battleships were of outdated, often eccentric, designs. As a result of the Act, the swift construction of eight new battleships put Vionna-Frankenlisch immediately ahead of Caledonia, which could not match the Empire due to a smaller industrial base. The vast shipbuilding industry of Vionna-Frankenlisch proved itself once more able to out-produce its opponents.
Somewhat unusually for pro-military legislation, the bill recieved significant support from the Labour Party and the Socialist Party of Vionna-Frankenlisch, mostly on the grounds of creating jobs. Both parties recieved significant support from the working-class men who worked at the builders and from their unions and the opportunity to give these supporters work overshadowed any pacifism. The Liberal Party did not support the bill and the majority of its members voted against or abstained. This opposition was not sufficient to hinder progress of the bill and it passed without Liberal support.
Politically, naval reform was popular amongst the military and Conservative voters, most of whom supported the military and the Empire, were almost always in favour of strengthening the Imperial Navy, often seen as the nation's pride. Though there was some opposition on the basis of cost, some believing the money could be better spent on welfare or relief, this did not have a huge effect on the debate.