§ 6. Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether, in view of the rejection of the Canadian Naval Aid. Bill, the Board of Admiralty propose to provide for the margins of naval strength which are absolutely required for the whole world protection of the British Empire for the autumn and winter of 1915 and in the spring of 1916 by merely advancing by a few months the construction of three ships of the current British programme?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI do not desire to make any further statement on the subject at the present time.
§ Mr. LEEWill the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement on the Shipbuilding Vote?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYes, certainly. I owe it to the House—both sides of the House—to make a very full statement on this subject, and give good reasons for the action taken.
§ 7. Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in consequence of the situation created by the rejection of the Canadian Naval Aid Bill, the Government have determined to advance the construction of the three contract ships of this year's programme, he can guarantee that there shall be no delay in their completion; whether he is aware that His Majesty's ship "Conqueror," His Majesty's ship "Princess Royal," and His Majesty's ship "Audacious," were not completed until seven months after the allotted date; that His Majesty's ship "New Zealand" was not completed until three months after the allotted date; and that His Majesty's ship "Centurion" and His Majesty's ship "Australia" were not completed until two months after the allotted date?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second part in the negative—I cannot give such a guarantee—and to the third, in the affirmative. There have been delays as stated by the Noble Lord.