Walter Talbot Kerr

Admiral Lord Walter Kerr and staff on board HMS Majestic in 1896
Photograph: Naval and Army Illustrated.

Admiral of the Fleet THE RIGHT HONOURABLE Lord Walter Talbot Kerr, G.C.B. (28 September, 1839 – 12 May, 1927) was an officer of the Royal Navy.

Early Life & Career

Kerr was promoted to the rank of Vice-Admiral on 20 February, 1895, vice Hunt-Grubbe, and in May, 1895 he was appointed Vice-admiral commanding the channel squadron, with his flag in the Majestic, for two years.

He was promoted to the rank of Admiral on 21 March 1900; By a special Order in Council he was promoted Admiral of the Fleet in June, 1904.

Senior Naval Lord

On 19 August, 1899 Kerr succeeded Sir Frederick Richards as Senior Naval Lord.

In a 1901 letter to Arnold-Forster, Lord Selborne stated that he believed Kerr's views on current strategy to be, "quite as good as Fisher's and Beresford's."

In 1905, Selborne informed the Prime Minister that he placed Kerr "in the same flight" as Fisher, Wilson and Beresford.

Submarines

In March, 1900, Kerr wrote, "The matter of submarine boats cannot be ignored and must be taken up by us. Our first want is a design." He recognised the limited potential of the early submarines and the inherent difficulty in obtaining funds for such an unknown quantity. He minuted on 26 October that the submarine had "a very limited sphere of usefulness", and suggested that they be used "for any purpose to which they can be adapted" and that "it is desirable to word the letter to give the impression that the sphere of usefulness of these vessels may be very wide if found to be a success."

On 20 January, 1901, Kerr minuted:

In doing this I think that we have not only adopted the best course that was open to us, but also done all that we can prudently do … While we are bound to follow up the development of the submarine boats and thus have at our disposal whatever advantages they may possess, it is not desirable to plunge too heavily as it must first be in the dark, nor until experience points us in the direction in which we should work.

Taking note of the French exercises in which submarines were pitted against forces representing a British close blockade, Kerr went on to write that the French submarines, "have achieved considerable success and a blockade must in consequence be maintained at a greater distance from their ports than formerly, thus affording greater facilities for their ships to evade an enemy."

On 5 July, 1902 Kerr vetoed Captain Bacon's request that his submarines be named, noting that, "The names … suggested by Captain Bacon are rather formidable." The Hollands were to be named Discosaurus, Piscosaurus, Nothosaurus, Pleisiosaurus and Somosaurus. A1 was to be called Icthyosaurus.

In 1904, Kerr put forward the case that the submarine was no longer an instrument of coast defence, writing on 6 January, "In no case can the submarine, in my opinion, be classified as 'fixed defences'. They are free to move, up to the extent of their limitations."

The relationship between Kerr and Fisher was inherently difficult. Fisher at first feared that Kerr's elevation to senior naval lord doomed his own chances, as he might be too old to succeed Kerr when the latter stepped down. Fisher ‘unceasingly harassed’ (Boyce, 108) and irritated Kerr by his correspondence demanding strengthening of the Mediterranean Fleet, and Kerr rightly believed that Fisher fed information to ‘Navy Leaguers and kindred spirits’ (ibid., 138). Kerr was scathing in some of his minutes on Fisher's proposals, describing them as based on impulse rather than calm and deliberate judgement. Kerr asserted they ‘had a right to expect something better than a demand for impossibilities from an officer holding the position of the C. in C. in the Mediterranean’ (Marder, 400). Kerr advised Selborne against appointing Fisher second and first naval lord, alleging the latter appointment would be ‘universally condemned’ (Boyce, 137). Fisher, in turn, worked to undermine Kerr's reputation, suggesting that the Board of Admiralty was more concerned with the details of uniforms—‘Kerr is humbugging about the oak leaves on the admirals' full-dress coat, etc’ (Bennett, 243)—than what he regarded as the dangerous situation in the Mediterranean. Kerr, however, could be equally critical of Fisher's future rival Beresford, then second in command in the Mediterranean, remarking that Beresford's ‘impetuosity leads him to launch forth reckless condemnations on insufficient and ill-thought out grounds’ (Bennett, 237). Kerr was described as ‘politely neutral’ in 1903 on the Fisher question and in 1904 he welcomed the prospect of freedom from ‘this unpleasant job’ (Mackay, 211, 308). During Fisher's absence as commander-in-chief at Portsmouth (1903–4) the implementation of the new scheme rested largely with Kerr, and it was owing to his firmness that things proceeded well until Fisher returned as first sea lord.

Supersession

After Fisher was announced as Kerr's successor, Cyprian Bridge wrote to Gerard Noel, "I look with dismay upon the loss of W. Kerr's honesty and straightforwardness in a place where both are much wanted."

In Lord George Hamilton's words, he might well be termed the preux chevalier of the navy. He was created KCB in 1896 and GCB in 1902.

Soon after Kerr entered the navy his widowed mother became, with her younger children, Roman Catholic, and Kerr was thenceforth a devoted Catholic. His religion made him widely suspect in the navy. Fisher wrote in 1901 that Kerr was ‘a slave to the Roman Catholic hierarchy … he is a pervert and has all the antagonism of the pervert to the faith he has left’ (Hough, 132). He was president of the Catholic Union of Great Britain from 1917 to 1921. After his retirement Kerr resided at Melbourne Hall, Derby, and died there on 12 May 1927. A funeral service was held on 17 May at St David's, Dalkeith.

Wealth at death; £79,988 0s. 11d.: Probate; 22 October, 1927.

Bibliography

• "Admiral of the Fleet Lord Walter Kerr" (Obituaries). The Times. Friday, 13 May, 1927. Issue 44580, col A, pg. 11.

Service Records

• The National Archives. ADM 196/36.
• The National Archives. ADM 196/14.
• The National Archives. ADM 196/70.

Naval Offices
Preceded by Frederick G. D. Bedford	Junior Naval Lord 1892 – 1893	Succeeded by Gerard H. U. Noel
Preceded by Sir Frederick W. Richards	Second Naval Lord 1893 – 1895	Succeeded by Sir Frederick G. D. Bedford
Preceded by Robert O'B. FitzRoy	Senior Officer in Command of the Channel Squadron 1895 – 1897	Succeeded by Sir Henry F. Stephenson
Preceded by Sir Frederick G. D. Bedford	Second Naval Lord 1898 – 1899	Succeeded by Archibald L. Douglas
Preceded by Sir Frederick W. Richards	First Naval Lord 1899 – 1904	Succeeded by Sir John A. Fisher