Let me first of all refer to the use of oil fuel for marine purposes. Fifteen years ago, its use was very strongly advocated by Sir Marcus Samuel, Bart., for marine purposes, and he approached the British Government in an endeavour to get it taken up. Matters moved very slowly, but eventually oil fuel was adopted, and Admiral Sir William Pakenham asserts that it was due to the unceasing efforts of Sir Marcus Samuel that the Admiralty vessels constructed during the war were oil burners. The largest of this new class of vessels is the _Queen Elizabeth_. Oil fuel is now largely used in place of coal on our great liners, vessels like the _Aquatania_ and _Olympic_ having gone over to its general use. There are, of course, many reasons which have commended fuel oil to the experts as a substitute for coal. In the first place, inasmuch as one ton of fuel oil is equal to more than one-and-a-half tons of coal, the radius of action of units fitted for utilizing fuel oil is increased over 50 per cent.--I speak from the point of view of bunker weight. Again, one ton of oil occupies considerably less space than an equivalent weight of coal, while this advantage can be materially increased--as is now the usual practice--by carrying the fuel oil in double-bottom tanks. Then the bunkering question is one of vital moment. Fuel oil can be taken on board under far cleaner conditions, and at a greatly accelerated rate, than would be possible with coal. There is no arduous manual labour required. Once the hose connections have been made, the fuel oil is pumped on board at the rate of hundreds of tons an hour, and a few hours suffice to re-fuel our largest battleship. But it is when bunkering at sea is required that fuel oil further emphasizes its immense advantages. This question was some years ago one of the problems of naval strategy: to-day it is regularly carried out in the simplest possible fashion, hose connections to a standing-by oil tanker being all that is required.