§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many casualties to ships in the Navy List were subsequently found to have been omitted from the Annual Return issued last year for the year 1906.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.)One causalty of importance was subsequently found to have been omitted from the Return in question. Every endeavour is made to give an accurate and comprehensive report for the Return, but it is found to be very difficult in practice to compile it satisfactorily in its present form. If the issue of the Return is to be continued in future, an amendment in the form of the Return will be asked for.
§ MR. BELLAIRS (Lynn Regis)Do I understand that only one casualty was reported? I have drawn attention to eight.
§ MR. MCKENNAOnly one of any importance. There were some of minor importance.
§ MR. ASHLEYHow does the right hon. Gentleman define the word "importance" in this connection?
§ MR. MCKENNAA case which would require serious repairs.
§ MR. BELLAIRSBut if this House asks for a Return of casualties is not the Admiralty bound to give every case?
§ MR. MCKENNAThe Admiralty are anxious that the House should have the fullest information.
§ MR. LEVERTON HARRIS (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)Are we to understand that where no damage is caused, it is not regarded as a casualty.
§ MR. MCKENNAWe do not include cases where no material damage is done. As I have said, one case of serious damage was omitted by inadvertence.