ADMIRAL, FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the present Director of Naval Construction, Mr. White, was in any way connected with, or responsible for, the design of the Victoria; and, if not, who was responsible; did the fact that Mr. White became the responsible builder of the Victoria in a private shipyard necessarily involve any approval of the design of that ship; and did the position formerly held by Mr. White, as one of the principal assistants in the Office of the Director of Naval Construction, carry with it any personal responsibility for, or approval of, the design of battleships authorised by the Board of Admiralty during his period of service in that capacity?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,) Lancashire, Clitheroe(1.) The present Director of Naval Construction (Mr. White) was not in any way connected with, or responsible for, the design of the Victoria. When that design was prepared, Mr. White was not in the Admiralty service. The responsible designer was Sir Nathaniel Barnaby. (2.) The fact that Air. White became the responsible builder of the Victoria in a private shipyard did not involve any approval of the design of that ship by Mr. White. As a contractor, he simply had to carry out Admiralty drawings, specifications, and orders. (3.) The position formerly held by Air. White as one of the principal assistants in the Office of the Director of Naval Construction did not carry with it any personal responsibility for, or approval of, the designs of battleships authorised by the Board of Admiralty during his period of service in that capacity.