§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the strength of the Channel Fleet in battleships when it left Portland on the 23rd September.
524 I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the names of the battleships with the Channel Fleet when it left Portland on the 23rd September; and what were the names of the battleships withdrawn for repairs, and by whose order they were so withdrawn.
§ MR. MCKENNAThe following battleships were with the Channel Fleet when it left Portland:—"Africa," "Commonwealth," "Hibernia," "King Edward VII.," "London," and "Venerable." The following were withdrawn for alterations and repairs:—"Britannia," "Bulwark," "Dominion," "Hindustan," "New Zealand," "Triumph." The remaining two battleships, "Irresistible" and "Swiftsure," did not proceed on cruise on 23rd September, as they were due for refit soon after that date. The "Bulwark" was withdrawn by Admiralty Order; the other battleships undergoing refit were approved by the Admiralty to be taken in hand, the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet having submitted a programme of refits showing the desirability of such action.
§ MR. BELLAIRS (Lynn Regis)The right hon. Gentleman says one battleship was withdrawn by Admiralty Order. Is it not the case that no battleship can be withdrawn unless by Admiralty Order, so that the whole of the eight must have been so withdrawn?
§ MR. MCKENNAThere were not eight, but six. I stated further that the other battleships were undergoing refit and that was approved by the Admiralty to be taken in hand, the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet having submitted a programme of refit showing the desirability of such action.
§ MR. BELLAIRSDoes not the sole responsibility for ships being away rest with the Admiralty?
§ MR. MCKENNAYes, Sir; but the Admiralty issue their Order on the recommendations of the Commander-in-Chief, and in this case the recommendation was made by the Commander-in-Chief.
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)May I ask whether it was by the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief 525 that these six ships were absent at the same time?
§ MR. MCKENNAIt is only by taking one particular date that one arrives at the fact that these six ships were absent. If another date had been chosen it would have been found that fewer ships would have been absent.
§ MR. WALTER LONGI am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but that is not an Answer to my Question. I did not attach any importance to any particular date, but I understand that at a particular period, and at the date given in the Question, a certain number of ships were absent in the Fleet. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that they were absent in consequence of a scheme submitted by the Commander-in-Chief. Was it in accordance with the Commander-in-Chief's recommendation that they were absent at that particular time?
§ MR. MCKENNACertainly; he had recommended a programme which involved the absence of the ships.
§ MR. MITCHELL THOMSONMay I ask whether that recommendation applies not only to the ships themselves, but to the time for which the ships are to be withdrawn?
§ MR. MCKENNAThe recommendation covers both the particular ships and the period. The programme was particularly appropriate on this occasion, because two days after two of the ships had finished their refit.