§ MR. YERBURGH (Chester)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in "Notes of Naval Progress," July, 1902, published at the Government printing office in Washington, it is stated that the Return of the annual prize firing with heavy guns of the Channel Fleet ships has been published, and the results of the competition are given; whether, as this information is in the hands of a foreign Government, the Admiralty will place the said Return, and the Returns of the annual prize firing with heavy guns for 1901 in the other squadrons, in the hands of members of the House of Commons; and whether they will also grant Returns of the annual prize firing for 1901 of the various squadrons with light quick-firing guns.
§ *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.Yes, Sir. I am aware that a report of the nature referred to, having reference to the firing of one portion of the Fleet, viz., the Channel Fleet, was published as stated. The same Return has also appeared in the Press in this country. The particulars, both with regard to the Channel and other Squadrons, are not for sale as ordinary Papers, but are regarded by the Admiralty as being for the information of the officers of the Navy, and it is not considered desirable to publish them in the form of a Return.
§ MR. YERBURGHMay I ask why these particular figures should be accessible to foreign nations, and not to the House of Commons?
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe figures relate to a particular squadron. It is unfortunate that they should be accessible to foreign nations. Similar figures in the ease of foreign countries are in no case accessible to us. The proper course would seem to be to prevent them becoming accessible to foreign countries in future.
§ MR. YERBURGHI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in 1901, at the annual prize firing of the various squadrons, forty-six ships did not fire at all, among them being two Admirals' ships, the "Revenge" and the "Royal Arthur"; and will he state whether it is obligatory upon ships to take part in the prize firing, and, if so, will he explain why these ships failed to do so.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe reply to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative. The reasons which prevent any particular ship from taking part in the annual prize firing are always reported to the Admiralty, and are carefully considered. In the cases referred to by my hon. friend the reasons given were satisfactory, the ships concerned being principally those employed on special duties in connection with the South African War and the voyage of the "Ophir," or newly commissioned ships which only proceeded to their station during the year.
§ MR. YERBURGHI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that of the 127 ships that took part in the annual prize firing of 1901, while one ship made over 70 per cent, of hits and two ships made over 65 per cent, of hits, seventy-five ships missed the target eighty-five times out of every 100 rounds, and five ships never hit the target at all, and that one Admirals ship, the "Warspite," was last of its squadron in heavy gun firing; and will he state how many of the Admirals' ships were among the class that missed the target 1497 twice out of every three rounds, and what were the names of these ships; and can he say whether the Admiralty propose to take any steps to deal with this inefficiency in gunnery.
§ MR. ARNOLD - FORSTERThe attention of the Board was drawn to the results of prize firing in the ordinary course, but these results do not agree with the figures given in the Question. Prize firing in the Navy is, and must essentially be, a competition between guns of the same nature in individual ships, and not between different ships carrying varying armaments and firing under dissimilar conditions of wind, weather, light, and sea. A comparison of the latter nature would inevitably be misleading. For these reasons a comparison between the results obtained on the "Warspite" and those obtained on other ships in the Pacific Squadron and elsewhere would not be conclusive. On the receipt of the return of prize tiring on each ship, the Admiralty take such immediate action as may be considered necessary after duly considering the circumstances of the individual case, and in forming their opinion they have the advantage of full knowledge of all the circumstances. It is, therefore, not considered necessary to call public attention to special ships, as, by so doing, incorrect opinions might be formed, which, owing to the absence of detailed information, might be misleading.
§ *MR. LUCAS (Portsmouth)asked if it was not possible to publish a Return of prize firing in the British foreign Navies, on the same basis as the Return always moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean.
§ SIR FORTE SCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire, K. R., Shipley)Cannot the hon. Gentleman give us some explanation as to the steps being taken to improve the firing in the Navy?
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERIn answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, I have to say that his proposal cannot be acceded to, as we have no access to the prize firing Returns of foreign nations, and they are not published in the newspapers. In answer to the hon. 1498 Member for Shipley, I have to say that it would take up too much time to give him the particulars he wishes in the form of an answer to a Question.