asked the First Lord of the Admiralty at what date flogging was abolished as a method of disciplinary correction in the Navy; whether any demands have since been received from admirals, captains, or others asking for its reintroduction; and whether, since the abolition of flogging, there has been observable any deterioration or improvement in the morale and discipline of the Navy?

Corporal punishment was finally suspended as regards the Navy in 1881. Without an exhaustive search it cannot be stated whether any demands have since been received for its reintroduction, but it is highly improbable that any officers who entertained such views would represent them officially to the Admiralty. There has been a gradual and very satisfactory improvement in the morale and discipline of the Navy during recent years, but it cannot be stated that this is due to the suspension of corporal punishment.

Is not it most likely that it is due to that caused?

asked if the question of an increase in the pay of the Coastguard can be considered in the case of those men who have no gardens with their cottages, but who have cottages only in cities and towns where the cost of provisions has increased in recent years, so that they are worse off now than they were ten years ago, and considerably worse off than they were forty years ago when the rate of pay was last settled?

I do not think that the wages of the Coastguard are insufficient, or that they have difficulty in paying their way, although some stations may be slightly better off than others. As indicated in previous replies, it is not proposed to increase the pay of the Coastguard. It is, perhaps, worth noting that a man, as a rule, does not serve for more than five years at the same station.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the firm of. Owen and Sons, Limited, of Liverpool, who supply capstan bars, black boards, and other articles to the Navy, are paying the workmen who make them from 4s. 6d. to 8s. per week less than the standard rate of wage, and that, although the firm were parties to an agreement entered into by the employers and workmen of the district, they refuse to comply with the terms of the agreement; and whether he will strike this firm off the list of those who are invited to supply articles of the kind mentioned to the Admiralty?

No complaint as to the rate of wages paid by Messrs. Owen has previously been received. I am making inquiry into the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, although thirty-eight skilled labourers at Bull Point have been granted the maximum pay of 28s. during the last seven years, they were all placed on the progressive list previous to that period, and that during these last seven years no skilled labourer has been placed on the progressive list; whether he can explain this; and whether he is aware that, in consequence of this action, an ordinary labourer with twelve months' service is eligible to receive 1s. a week more than a skilled labourer with thirteen or fourteen years' service?

The statement made in the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is correct, and the reasons why no skilled labourers have been placed on the progressive scale of pay during the last seven years are, in the first place, that from 1904 onward, reductions in the number of men employed in naval ordnance depots generally were being effected, and in the second, that from the 17th February, 1910, a system of working to the mean of the scale of pay was substituted for the previous method of a progressive scale. Since that date fifty-seven men have been advanced to the skilled grade. All skilled labourers on the minimum of the scale received an advance in pay of 1s. per week from the 1st August last. I have already explained in previous answers to the hon. and gallant Member how it arises that labourers in certain cases receive more than skilled men on the minimum of the scale.

Is it not the fact that the result of the action taken is that unskilled labourers are now able to get a shilling a week more than skilled labourers?

I have explained before that the flat rate for unskilled labourers is 22s., but people doing responsible work may for a short time get 1s. or 2s. a week more for that work, and therefore in some cases they would get 24s. The minimum for a skilled labourer is 23s. Therefore in that case the unskilled labourer is getting more than the skilled labourer for the time being, but the skilled labourer can go up to 28., and in special cases to 31s.

Is it not a fact that practically anybody can do the work which is performed by the unskilled labourer at the rates referred to, whereas it takes a skilled man to do the other work?

No. For the time being the unskilled labourer is doing responsible work.

Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that it is the policy of the Government to put unskilled labourers to do skilled work?

No. The labourers who were doing the special work for this short time are, in many cases, men who will be promoted to the rank of skilled labourers.

asked (1) whether the temporary naval hospital accommodation at Harwich, which has been admitted to be unsuitable, is now closed; and (2) whether two cases of enteric fever in the Fleet at Harwich have recently had to be sent to Chatham owing to insufficient hospital accommodation on the spot; and whether a beginning has been made of making good this deficiency?

Harwich is one of those places on the East Coast which have only in recent years acquired a naval importance. The following arrangements are made for the treatment of sickness among the increasing numbers of sailors stationed there: All ordinary cases occurring in the flotillas are taken on board the parent ships, where there is the usual Service accommodation for sick, and are transferred to Chatham Naval Hospital at convenient opportunities; urgent and serious cases are accommodated at Shotley, opposite to Harwich and half a mile away, where there is a well-appointed naval hospital belonging to the Shotley training establishment. In ordinary times there is room in this hospital for treating such naval cases, but if there were to be an unusual amount of sickness among the boys at Shotley difficulties in providing accommodation might arise. My right hon. Friend is therefore making provision in the forthcoming Estimates for certain extensions at Shotley Hospital which will effectually provide against such a contingency. My right hon. Friend is not prepared, as at present advised, to ask Parliament to build a separate naval hospital on the Harwich side of the water, as that would involve duplication of services and heavy expenditure. A case of enteric fever was recently sent from Harwich to Chatham for treatment because the patient himself elected to be sent to Chatham Hospital, and his condition at the time is stated to have warranted that course.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board adheres to the policy which provided for the maintenance of a 60 per cent, superiority over Germany in "Dreadnoughts" and for an increase in that margin as pre "Dreadnoughts" decline in relative fighting value; and, if so, what will be our percentage superiority over Germany in completed "Dreadnoughts" on 1st April, 1914?

These argumentative questions are very suitable for discussion when Navy Estimates are presented.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to decline to answer that question?

My hon. Friend must see that it is quite impossible to deal adequately with it within the time at the disposal of the House and by way of question and answer.

asked whether, in view of the fact that it is the stated policy of the Board to maintain a greater superiority than 60 per cent, in armoured ships, cruisers, and destroyers over the next naval Power, the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that we maintain a greater superiority than 60 per cent, in the active list personnel?

The manning requirements of the Navy depend upon the fleets which it is necessary to maintain in commission, and no standard based on the numbers of a foreign navy would be applicable. As a matter of fact, however the margin of superiority in personnel which the hon. Member recommends has been, and continues to be, more than fully maintained.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if we are to maintain this superiority of trained men we shall require 23,500 men added to the personnel in 1915?

Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he will be able to secure the necessary addition to the personnel after his action towards the shipwrights?

I really do not think that that arises out of the question.

It arises later on.

asked on what date the battleship "Conqueror" was due for delivery from the contractors; whether she is shown in the Navy List as having been commissioned on 23rd November for service in the Second Battle Squadron; whether, as a matter of fact, 16th January was the date arranged for placing the ship in full commission; whether her commissioning has been again postponed and, if so, for what reason; and when it is expected that the vessel will be ready to join the Fleet?

The contract date for completion was the 31st March last. The reply to the second, third, and fourth-parts of the question is in the affirmative, the postponement being due to certain defects in connection with the turret gun machinery, which are being rectified. The vessel is expected to be ready to join the Fleet in three weeks' time.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his decision with regard to the exclusion of naval traders from His Majesty's ships is final, and, if so, is he aware that, owing to the exclusion of these traders, distress exists amongst the persons directly and indirectly affected thereby; whether, since the exclusion of these traders, the canteens are selling uniform clothing; will he explain why officers are allowed to have their own tradesmen visit them on board ship and the men refused a similar advantage; and will he cause notices to be posted up in the ships informing the men that orders previously given to naval traders can be completed ashore?

This is a matter to which great care and attention have been given, and the decision to exclude traders from His Majesty's ships must be regarded as final. There has been no representation from the Fleet that any inconvenience has been experienced in consequence of these orders, and presumably the only effect, so far as purchases are concerned, is that the men may have transferred their custom to other traders. Any inconvenience or, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, distress, which may have been caused will therefore only be of a temporary nature until matters have adjusted themselves to the new conditions. No tailor-made clothing is allowed to be sold in the canteens, and the articles of clothing which may be sold there are strictly limited. The object of the excluding Order is to put an end to the touting for orders, which has been a feature of the past. If there is any reason to apprehend that the visits of tradesmen to officers are accompanied by anything in the nature of touting for orders, then we shall certainly consider the further extension of the excluding Order.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he is pleased to call "touting" has been continued for years as part of the Admiralty machinery, and that the abrupt cessation of this touting, as he calls it, is causing great distress amongst women engaged in naval trading?

Both the statements of the hon. Gentleman are incorrect. It may have been the practice, but it was no part of the Admiralty regime, and there was no abrupt cessation of the practice. We gave due notice, and the men have leave at present to go ashore. We thought it better that the bluejackets should go ashore for their purchases.

asked whether seamen under fifty-five years of age, if called upon by the Admiralty for service, by proclamation or otherwise, are entitled to receive their travelling expenses, and, on re-entry, the same good conduct pay as when pensioned; whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that men having the rating of chief carpenter's mate were called up last year to attend the naval manœuvres for a month, that they were not given travelling expenses, and did not receive their badge money, being only paid 4s. 9d. as chief carpenter's mate, when they should have received 5s.; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter so that the men in question may be duly compensated?

Good conduct pay is payable to all pensioners when called out for service in the Fleet, but not when voluntarily serving, as at manœuvres, unless specially sanctioned. On the occasion of the last manœuvres certain pensioner artisan ratings were asked to volunteer for temporary service under conditions which were stated at the time, and did not include good conduct pay. The question of allowing good conduct pay on future occasions is under consideration. Travelling expenses are repayable under the Regulations to all seamen when called out for service in the Fleet or attendance at naval manœuvres. I am not aware of the particular cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman in which travelling expenses were disallowed, but if details are furnished I will cause the matter to be investigated.

asked how many men have been discharged from the Royal dockyards since 1st December, 1912; how many of these men had served five, seven, ten, and over ten years, respectively; what steps, if any, were taken to absorb the redundant men in any vacancies existing in other departments; and how many men were by this means: saved from discharge from the Works Department?

The number of men discharged from the Royal dockyards as being in excess of requirements—i.e.,excluding the discharges on account of age, invaliding, or at the men's own request —during the period referred to is 167. This figure includes forty-six men who were entered temporarily for a short period for specific work. Of those discharged, sixteen had served for five years, five for seven years, one for ten years, and eleven for over ten years. Inquiries were made locally at the time of the discharges to ascertain which of the redundant men could be absorbed in other departments, and twelve men were by this means saved from discharge from the Works Department. In addition to the twelve transferred, three men discharged have since been re-entered in other departments, and six are now being employed as casual workmen. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that as regards the discharges in question from the Devon-port Works Department, he has already been informed that these discharges were rendered necessary by the completion of the works in hand. I may also tell him, further, that as an act of consideration, we continued the engagement of a number of these men over the Christmas season.

Are we to understand that these long service men will be taken on again as soon as vacancies occur?

We discharged 167 men out of about 50,000 because there was not work. For those who have got over seven years' service there is a gratuity. As soon as there is work for them they shall certainly be considered. I do not know whether the hon. Member would keep them when there is no work to do.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates a new and revised edition of the pamphlet entitled "How to Join the Royal Navy," and, if so, when that edition will be available for distribution?

A new edition is now in the press, and a supply is expected very shortly.

asked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has selected a number of sites round the coast for hydroplane stations; and whether he is contemplaing any large extension of the Naval Wing of the Royal Flying Corps?

asked if several stations and garages for aeroplanes and dirigibles are to be established on the East Coast of England to accommodate the aircraft which may be employed by the Admiralty in the North Sea?

The establishment of aircraft bases on the East and South Coasts, as well as the general development of the Naval Wing of the Royal Flying Corps, are both questions that are receiving the close attention that their importance demands.

Will another statement be made as to these stations?

I am afraid I cannot go beyond the answer I have given today.

asked whether the Department has received any protest from the naval shipwrights relative to the new conditions of pay and service; whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that these new conditions deprive naval shipwrights of certain advantages promised to them on joining unless they are prepared to give up the right of reverting to the dockyards after completing twelve years' service; whether he is aware that a boy entering the Navy as a shipwright from the dockyard under the new agreement is practically in a worse position than a man joining from outside, seeing that on entering the outside man immediately becomes a petty officer, while it takes a naval apprentice from the age of eighteen one or two years in the yard and twelve months in the Navy as leading seaman, making two or three years altogether, before he can get first-class petty officer rating; and whether, in the circumstances, he will reconsider the recent changes in the naval shipwright ratings so as to bring them more into line with the traditions governing service in His Majesty's Navy?

No protest has been received since the issue of the circular letter giving the conditions in detail, of which I sent the hon. Gentleman a copy, though I received a telegram alluding to one aspect of the question on the day of the issue of the circular. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the third part, a man who enters the Navy as shipwright from outside will do so as petty officer. He must be over twenty-one. Boys who are trained for shipwrights in the dockyards enter between fourteen and sixteen, would be rated leading seaman between nineteen and twenty-one, and petty officer between twenty and twenty-two. The age for attaining petty officer rating averages the same in each case. The answer to the fourth part is in the negative. The changes made are very favourable to the men who accept them, as I have already explained. In fact, I may say that the amount spent on the shipwrights is proportionately greater than on any other class.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the alternative offered by the Admiralty to the shipwrights is to their disadvantage?

No; I do not know that I could accept that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me a statement showing the incorrectness of his reply?

The reply I gave the hon. Gentleman on the 13th of this month was a detailed statement of the new pay, and I repeat that the changes made were very favourable to the men, and certainly of the money spent, this class, having regard to its numbers, received a greater proportion than any other class.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shipwrights regard the arrangement as very unfair, and that they were forced to sign a paper damaging to their future prospects, and, as they consider, against their original contract?

They were asked to choose the new scale and give up the right to go back to the yard or stick to the old scale. We have taken care to secure that if they do go back to the yard the establishment shall be open to them, over and above the existing establishment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only about forty-six out of 600 shipwrights have been got to sign the paper, and will the right hon. Gentleman kindly deal with that question? I have carefully looked into the matter, and it looks as if it was really unfair to the men who are asked to sign against their original contract?

My expectation is that the circular letter which was issued will deal with all these matters of detail, and will remove all those misapprehensions. I certainly give an undertaking to look into the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow a certain specified time to elapse before captains of vessels force the men to sign the paper?

Captains of vessels do not force the men at any time. It is at the men's option to sign or not to sign.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say how many European and native doctors, respectively, are employed in the British Colonies of West Africa?

The numbers (including those employed in the British Protectorates) but exclusive of doctors not in the Government service, as to whose numbers I have no information, are respectively 214 and 7.