asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that Mr. J. M. Campbell laid before the Admiralty in 1891 his original and patentable proposals for the protection of ships from mines and torpedoes, and that he was then persuaded not to publish by patenting, or otherwise, his process, but to sign an agreement that he would accept the amount awarded to him by Parliament, and that these water-containing bulges, which were the design he submitted, have been used with great success on His Majesty's ships, he wilt say what payment the Admiralty has made to Mr. Campbell or proposes to make?

The bulges fitted to His Majesty's ships are the result of experiments carried out by the Admiralty prior to the War and the design adopted does not embody Mr. Campbell's proposals. His claim has been thoroughly investigated by the Admiralty and the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, to whom Mr. Campbell applied, also considered it. The result was that Mr. Campbell failed to substantiate his claim, and the Admiralty do not propose to take any further action in the matter.

Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman noted in my question that it was in 1891 this proposal was brought before the Admiralty; and how can experiments carried out during the War affect a pattern brought out in 1891?

Prior to the War.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that two suits of foreign-service white-drill uniform were measured for, and supplied to, the fifth-class engine-room artificers recently discharged at the home ports shortly before notices were given to terminate their engagements; and will he state why this expenditure of public money was incurred?

Following the regular practice, some of the engine-room artificers fifth class recently discharged at Portsmouth had their kits completed in readiness for foreign service when they passed out of the artificer apprentices' training establishment at the end of last year, before the decision to discharge them was arrived at.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the charges made for the use of the floating dry dock at Portsmouth for repairs of mercantile ships are so excessive that orders cannot now be obtained for such repairs at that port; that the demand for the use of the floating dry dock is two and a half times more than is charged at Southampton and Liverpool; and that the charges for labour and materials are three times more than at Southampton and 11 times more than at Liverpool; and whether he will inquire into the question and give instructions that the charges shall be brought into line with those made at other ports in order to make it possible that ship-repair work can be retained at Portsmouth where, owing to dockyard reductions, a large amount of unemployment exists?

The possibility of reducing charges for use of the floating dock at Portsmouth is being considered, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the expenses incurred in docking a ship in a floating dock are usually considerably heavier than in a graving dock and that any reduction of Admiralty charges made with the object of attracting work to a Government dockyard with the consequent loss of work to private firms needs very careful consideration. I cannot at present undertake that any reduction will be made.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the practice in the Navy to supply provisions and stores required upon indents received; whether any cases have been brought to his notice of waste as a result of the supply of stores and provisions being in excess of actual requirements; and what steps are being taken in connection therewith?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. If the hon. Member is aware of any cases of waste, I should be obliged if he would let me know.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board are considering the disbandment of the Royal Marine Artillery; and whether he can give an assurance that no steps will be taken in this direction before informing this House?

As the numbers of Royal Marines have now been reduced to under 10,000, as against 18,000 in the years before the War, it is necessary in the interests of economy to reduce the existing numbers of Royal Marine Divisions. It has been decided that the best course to adopt is to amalgamate the Royal Marine Artillery and the Royal Marine Light Infantry, and the steps necessary to give effect to this decision are now under consideration.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the great traditions of the Royal Marine Artillery and does he propose lightly to destroy this invaluable asset without consulting the House?

Naturally the House has any question under its control by the power to refuse supplies. In this case, His Majesty's permission has been asked, and we are going to retain the old traditions of the splendid Royal Marine Corps, which was only disunited, or made into two Corps, in 1804 or 1806.

Do not modern conditions specially demand amphibious artillery like the Royal Marine Artillery? Has that aspect of the matter been considered?

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Royal Marine Artillery is absolutely the finest force in the Navy, and can he give an assurance that its disbandment will not be lightly undertaken?

It is not being disbanded. The two corps are being amalgamated and brought together as they were together in the old days, and they will continue their traditions.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure us that the Royal Marine Artillery will not lose its identity in whatever proposals the Government are considering.

So far as we can manage it, neither corps will lose its own identity. They will be merged in the one corps of Royal Marines.

Will they continue to wear their distinctive uniforms?

No, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the attention of the Board had been drawn to the success of the turboelectric drive for warships in America; whether he is aware that 11 battleships and four battle cruisers have been, or are being, fitted with this method of propulsion, whether trials and experiments have been carried out with this system in this country; if so, what is the conclusion arrived at; and whether the system is being tried at the present time?

The Admiralty is fully acquainted with all the developments of the turbo-electric drive in the United States of America. No trials have been carried out for warships in this country, and the turbo-electric drive is not being tried at the present time.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the last available comparative costs of battleship construction as between Government and privately-owned dockyards, together with any difference in time required for construction?

The latest battleships for which a comparison of costs can be made are the vessels of the "Queen Elizabeth" class, where the completed costs compare as follows:

Are those figures prepared on the same basis in regard to overhead charges, depreciation, and rates?

Yes, they include everything.

May I take it that the House may conclude that shipbuilding in the Royal Dockyards is much cheaper than shipbuilding in private yards?

No, there is very little in it.

Is it greater or less?

Do the figures given include overhead charge for private profit in the dockyard as well?

These figures are strictly comparable.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the workmen to be employed at Singapore will be white or Chinese; if the foremen, chargemen, and all in authority will be white men; and if they will be taken from volunteers from home dockyards?

As the construction of the dockyard will be for the most part carried out by contract, the selection of the staff required must be left to the contractor. Probably, foremen and all higher officers will be white, and workmen and grades below foremen will be obtained locally, if possible. No decision as to the staff to be employed in working the yard has yet been made.

Do I understand that the spending of £11,000,000 on this dockyard will not benefit the unemployed of Great Britain?

Certainly it will. About half of the £11,000,000 will he spent in material, and that material will he purchased within the four corners of the British Empire.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in consequence of the withdrawal of the fishery protection cruisers from the North Russian coast during the past three months British trawlers have been precluded from operating in some of the most productive fishing grounds in those regions, and that both loss to the trawling industry and diminution of the national food supplies has resulted; whether the reason for the withdrawal of the protective vessels is that there is now no vessel in the British Navy suitable for continuous duty in these regions during the winter; and whether, in view of the importance of this fishery, both to the fishing industry and to the country, he will take immediate steps to provide a suitable vessel for the work in time for the next fishing season, which commences in September?

I understand that the temporary withdrawal of the fishery protection vessels has interfered with fishing activities in North Russian waters. The Admiralty was compelled, owing to the navigational difficulties experienced on the Murmansk coast by the only suitable type of ship available, reluctantly to withdraw the fishery protection vessels at the end of last year. A vessel has now been sent out again, and it is hoped by next year to make arrangements to enable our fishermen to be looked after all the year through.

Is the vessel sent out able to withstand ice, or will a vessel that can withstand ice be sent out later on as the winter comes on?

The sloop "Godetia" has left, and will be in Russian waters by 1st April. She was withdrawn because of the ice difficulty, but now the ice difficulty is less she has gone out again.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, considering that in consequence of the international importance of the distribution of shipping information, Lloyds are unable to acquiesce in transference of their existing agreement to the Board of Trade, he is prepared to state that the coastguardsmen employed at Lloyds' signal stations shall, as in the case of naval signalling stations, continue to be under the immediate control of the naval authorities?

As stated by the First Lord on 21st instant, the views expressed by Lloyds are receiving the most careful and sympathetic attention.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty under what Order in Council, or other authority, were retired naval officers who were recalled to active service during the late War deprived of their pensions while serving, in view of the fact that petty officers and men of the Royal Navy so recalled were not deprived of their pensions, and that officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Army so recalled were not deprived of their pensions; and will he agree to further inquiry being made into the anomaly whereby retired naval officers are subjected to treatment not suffered by any other ranks in the Royal Navy or in the whole of the Army?

Order in Council of 4th March, 1910, which fixes the remuneration of retired naval officers called up for service, makes no provision for the concurrent payment of full pay and retired pay, and, failing such provision, retired pay is not payable. The question has already been most exhaustively considered, and I see no reason for making further inquiries into it.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Defence Council of the Commonwealth of Australia that the Cabinet should approach the Admiralty to secure the interchange of warships between the Australian and the Imperial Fleets in Mediterranean and Atlantic waters; and what are the relations between the Australian Navy and the Royal Navy in time of peace and war?

The Admiralty are aware that the principle of such interchangeability has received consideration in Australia, and have expressed their readiness to co-operate in such an exchange. Generally speaking, the Australian Navy and the Royal Navy preserve their own individuality, and the relations in time of peace and war will be found in Cd. 5746–2 of 1911.

Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the term "Imperial Fleet" is used, and can he say what is the Imperial Fleet?

All I can say is that in the time of the late War, the Commonwealth Government gave us entire control of their Fleet.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty if men invalided from the Navy, in receipt of a disability as well as a service pension, will be eligible for a Greenwich Hospital pension?

The answer is in the affirmative, and steps are now about to be taken to arrange the procedure for payment with the Ministry of Pensions.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the amount of actual flying that has been carried out by the Royal Air Force units attached to the Royal Navy during the past year?

Although it is not desirable in the public interests to give information in detail on this subject, I may say that Royal Air Force units have carried out a large number of exercises in co-operation with the Fleet during the last 12 months, working both from carrier and from shore bases. I may mention, by way of example, the work of the Fleet reconnaissance squadron in His Majesty's Ship "Argus," which accompanies the Atlantic Fleet on their spring cruise; also the torpedo attacks and bombing and machine gun trials against ships of the Royal Navy, which were carried out last July and August. In addition, a great deal of experimental work has been done, and I would refer, in particular, to the cruise of a development flight of flying boats which was undertaken last autumn in conjunction with His Majesty's Ship "Ark Royal," and from which valuable lessons have been learnt.

Has practice also taken place in flying off turrets and off platforms?

I must have notice of that question. I am hot sure off-hand.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that many men employed in His Majesty's Dockyards, Royal Naval and Army Ordnance, and the Royal Navy victualling yards would be pleased to avail themselves of the opportunity given them to settle in Australia and thus provide vacancies for others now unemployed, provided they could receive their gratuities, so as to enable them to make provision for their wives and children while they themselves are journeying outwards and making the home ready for the reception of their families in a. new country; and can he see his way to consider the suggestions made?

We have no such information as that referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his question on 22nd March.

If I bring the information to the hon. and gallant Member's notice, will he give it consideration?

Certainly; I shall be very glad to do so.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider in what way be can further assist boards of guardians where assistance is desired, financial or otherwise, in any effort to help families who are wishful of settling overseas within the British Empire, and who may approach a board of guardians with this end in view?

I understand that boards of guardians already have extensive powers of assisting the migration of persons chargeable to them. My right hon. Friend has no means out of the funds at his disposal of giving additional assistance to boards of guardians, but suitable families desirous of settling overseas would be eligible for assistance under the provisions of the Empire Settlement Act.

Will my hon. Friend endeavour, after consultation with the Minister, to co-ordinate the work of the Overseas Settlement Com mittee with that of the boards of guardians; and, further, will he see if financial assistance under the Empire Settlement Act cannot be extended to them to assist families to migrate?.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that what the United States Government now propose, irrespective of the misinformation concerning British plans, is that the American Navy should proceed, under the conditions of the Washington Treaty, to modernise such of her ships as may be necessary to bring the ranges of the two fleets into complete parity; and whether he can give the House any information on the subject?

My attention has been drawn to various statements, some in the sense indicated in the question, and some in a contradictory sense, but I have no information as to the eventual intentions of the United States Government.

Has anyone any information on that subject?