§ SIR E. REED (Cardiff)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state how it has happened that, in the Navy Estimates for the current year, while the revised estimated cost of labour and materials for the hull, fittings, and equipment is less than that of the original Estimates, in the case of each of the armoured first-class battleships built in Her Majesty's Dockyards, the revised Estimates are much greater than the original Estimates in the case of each of the first-class protected cruisers built there; if he can state whether the additional sums required for the latter ships—namely, £16,990 for the Royal Arthur, £10,490 for the Crescent, £16,810 for the Edgar, and £27,220 for the Hawke—have been found fully sufficient for their completion; and whether these large increases of expenditure in the case of these four ships are due to miscalculation in the first instance, or to additions or improvements in their hulls, fittings, or equipments developed during the period of their construction?
*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHIn answer to the second paragraph, the figures are correct, except that, for the Edgar, they should be £26,180. The ships have been completed for practically the amounts named in revised Estimates. Regarding the first and third paragraphs, I have to state that the increase in the cost of cruisers has been due partly to additions and improvements in hulls, fittings, and equipment; partly to change in design and armament of Royal Arthur and Crescent, and partly to rise of wages to dockyard workmen.