asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, having regard to the fact that all acting sub-lieutenants are required to pass the same examination in engineering, gunnery, and torpedo, he has considered that those serving in some of the older types of ships have not the same advantages in practical work as those serving in the most recent types; and whether he will see that by appointing acting sub-lieutenants to the newer types of ships during the last six months before their examination equal advantages are secured to all?

It is recognised that there may be inequalities of opportunity among acting sub-lieutenants owing to the difference in types of ships, but the examinations in the subjects mentioned are so framed as to minimise this disadvantage. It is, however, considered that greater disadvantage would arise from transferring an acting sub-lieutenant to a new ship and new instructing officers during the last six months of his service, experience having shown that the best results can only be obtained by moving junior officers as little as possible.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty at what date the increased pay which he has promised for the various ratings in the Navy takes effect; and whether any payments became due on 1st December last, and, if so, for what ratings were they so payable?

The increased rates take effect from 1st December last; the ratings to which they are applicable are shown in the Order in Council of 16th December, 1912.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a letter recently published, which was writen by Vice-Admiral Sir Percy Scott, Baronet, on the 13th January, 1908, whilst at the time commanding the First Cruiser Squadron under the higher command of Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, in which letter Vice-Admiral Sir Percy Scott asked the editor of a periodical to send him 200 copies of the paper and some posters; whether he is aware that the issue of the paper alluded to contained an article attacking the admiral then commanding the Home Fleet, and that copies of this journal and posters were sent to every officer and every ship in the fleet; whether, in view of the fact that a breach of discipline occurred on this occasion, in direct contravention of Article 9, King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, he will call on Vice-Admiral Sir Percy Scott, Baronet, for an explanation; and whether the retirement of this officer will be delayed until this matter has been investigated?

I have seen some of the articles in the periodical called "John Bull," to which I understand the hon. Member refers. As I stated on the 16th of January last, it would not be in the interests of the naval service to revive the controversies of five years ago, and I have no intention of doing so. I do not propose to institute any inquiry nor to take any action to ascertain the accuracy or merits of the statements in the articles.

Is it not a fact that if this matter had been published at the time, this officer would have been court-martialled for an act of treachery and insubordination? I am prepared to stand by the authenticity of this accusation outside this House as well as inside.

The hon. Gentleman has shown himself willing to use very harsh language against persons who cannot defend themselves, but that fact does not in any way induce me to answer hypothetical questions.

If I am prepared to make the statement outside as well as inside the House, does not that fact defend me against the charge of attacking an officer in his absence?

We can all form our own opinions.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that the number of completed British destroyers not more than 12 years launched is 116, as compared with a corresponding German total of 106, representing a British superiority of 9.4 per cent.; whether the Board of Admiralty adheres to the principle laid down on 18th March last that our superiority over Germany in this class of vessel should be more than 60 per cent.; and, if so, what special measures are proposed to be taken in order to raise our superiority to that ratio which the Admiralty regard as necessary?

The figures are approximately correct; but I do not wish to anticipate the full statement I propose to make when I introduce the Navy Estimates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this point when introducing the Estimates?

If there is a desire to examine the relative destroyer strength of the two countries, I should be prepared to do so, but I am not very anxious to enter into great detail in the matter. I shall be prepared to give the main features of the relative strength of the destroyer fleets.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the House was informed on 24th July last that the destroyers of the 1912 programme had been laid down at the very beginning of the year; and, seeing that none of these vessels were laid down until June and some not until last December, whether he will state the explanation of the discrepancy?

All the destroyers of the 1912–13 programme were ordered early in the current financial year, sixteen of them in March and the remaining four in May. The date of ordering, which determines the date of completion, is prescribed by the Admiralty. Within these limits the date on which the keel plate may be laid down is left entirely to the discretion of the building firm. I find, on reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT, that in my speech I appear to have loosely used the phrase "laid down" instead of "ordered."

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the reduction of the destroyer programme from twenty to sixteen is fulfilling the statement made in July last?

Obviously it would be better to leave a question of that kind until the Estimates are before the House.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in 1912 we had thirty-one pre-"Dreadnought" battleships not more than fifteen years launched to Germany's nineteen, and that in 1916 the figures will be seventeen and fourteen, respectively; and, if so, to what extent it is proposed to increase our "Dreadnought" superiority above 60 per cent., in order to compensate for the decline in the relative value of our margin in ships of the earlier type?

The figures for 1912 are correct. Those for 1916 depend on the day on which the comparison is made; they are correct for 19th March. I shall hope to enter generally into this subject next week.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the decline in the fighting value of the pre-"Dreadnoughts" will be recognised in the estimates of the relative strength of the fleets?

That is just one of those questions I am hoping to deal with in any statement the House may permit me to make next week.

asked the difference in the rates of wages of the trades employed in the Royal dockyards and private dockyards, individualising the different trades?

asked whether the rates of pay in the Royal dockyards were based on the payment given to men working at similar trades outside; and if he can state the date when a scale of comparison was drawn up?

The rates for the hired men in the principal trades in His Majesty's dockyards are as follow: Boilermakers, coppersmiths, fitters, founders, and pattern makers have a standard rate of 36s. a week, and a maximum rate of 40s. a week, with "special" rates the maximum of which is 42s. a week in the case of coppersmiths, 45s. in the cases of the boilermakers, founders, and pattern makers, and 48s. a week in the case of the fitters. The standard rate for the shipwrights is 36s., for the joiners and plumbers 34s. 6d., for the bricklayers 34s., for the smiths 36s., with "special" rates the maximum of which is 45s. For painters the average is 32s., with a maximum of 34s., and a "special" rate maximum of 35s. 6d. To these wages should be added the value of certain privileges which dockyard employés enjoy, as compared with the generality of outside employment. Outside rates vary in different parts of the country. The Noble Lord will find them pretty fully set out in Command Paper 6054.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if there is unrest among men employed in the Royal dockyards; if so, will he state to the House the cause of the unrest; and cause a Committee of Inquiry to be formed to look into the question?

In addition to the requests put forward at the annual hearing of petitions, a number of representations have been made by dockyard employés in favour of an increase in wages. These representations call attention to the increased cost of living and rental charges, and point to outside wages, which, as a result of the great prosperity of the shipbuilding industry particularly, are now at high-water level up to date. The Noble Lord is aware that the fullest facility is given year by year for the men to state their case by petition, enforced by personal representation, to representatives of the Board who visit the yards for the purpose of hearing the men's petitions. Since last year this duty has devolved upon me, and I have already heard the petitions at Devonport, Portsmouth, Chatham, Deptford, the West India Docks, and Dover. I have still to hear the petitions at Portland, Pembroke Dock, and Haulbowline. These I hope to complete shortly. The Board will thereafter consider the requests put forward by the men and announce its decisions. Whilst I cannot anticipate those decisions, I can assure the Noble Lord that every effort will be made to secure their early publication.

Is there any danger of a strike in any of the great dockyards?

I sincerely hope not. We have an annual review of the wages paid. The greatest care and patience are taken in the hearing of the petitions, and we give annual decisions. Those for this year will be promulgated as soon as possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the men have got it into their heads that a very large number of these petitions always receive the same answer, "not permissible," and that no explanation is given as to why this is so?

It does occur that the phrase "not acceded to" is repeated a good many times. That arises from the men in every yard putting forward the same petition in various classes year after year, and in certain cases they are not within our jurisdiction. As an illustration, I may mention that the men have asked to be superannuated on the higher pay. That is a matter of Statute interpretated by the Treasury, and is not within our jurisdiction. Therefore, we have no alternative but to use the phrase, "not acceded to," and that is multiplied again and again in a number of cases; but we desire to treat those men sympathetically, and we listen with great care to their petitions.

What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that the wages in the shipyards are at high-water mark owing to the prosperity in the shipping trade? Is he not aware of the fact that these rates of wages are the result of contract between the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and the workmen's federation, and there is no question about high-water mark? It is normal rate of wages, and is considerably higher than in the dockyards.

The hon. Member must be aware that in the shipbuilding industry wages have gone up successively in recent years. In using the phrase "high-water mark," I do not wish to use it offensively, but it is a fact.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the House to infer that the phrase "not acceded to" is only used in reference to matters that are dependent upon Statute?

Not at all. I gave that as an illustration of the use of the phrase. As a result of last year's petitions we increased wages by £42,000, and since 1906 we have increased our rates charge by £141,000.

asked the rates of pay sanctioned by the Lords of the Admiralty to men working in Royal dockyards, respectively, as fitters, riveters, boiler-makers, pattern-makers, founders, smiths, coppersmiths, shipwrights, and joiners, and the corresponding rates of pay paid for similar class of work in private yards?

I have given the weekly rates of wages paid in His Majesty's dockyards to fitters, boiler-makers, pattern-makers, founders, smiths, coppersmiths, shipwrights, and joiners in a reply to-day to a question by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, whom I have referred to Command Paper No. 6054 in regard to the wages paid in private yards. There are no men rated as riveters in the dockyards. Mechanics who have been trained as riveters in the outside trade are entered in the boiler department as boiler-makers. The men engaged on ship riveting work are rated as skilled labourers, and are paid according to their ability and service within the scale for that class, which for hired men is as follows: Minimum, 23s.; maximum, 28s.; with "special" rates, the maximum of which is 31s.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question as to corresponding rates of pay for similar work in private yards?

In private yards riveters are treated as tradesmen, but our classification gives more continuous employment than is possible in private yards.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all those men in private yards have for the last three years been employed from 1st January to 31st December?

Yes, but in 1908 22 per cent. of shipwrights were unemployed.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that working overtime in the Royal dockyards has for some time past been carried on at an unusual rate; that dissatisfaction has arisen in the Royal dockyards on this account; and whether he can see his way to effect some modification in this respect which shall include cessation from work on Sundays except under very special circumstances?

It is the fact that recently an abnormal amount of overtime has been asked for in the yards, but I am not aware that this circumstance has led to any general dissatisfaction. A detailed statement of the amount of overtime worked in each yard is submitted to the Board week by week, and the matter is carefully watched. Our general rule is that overtime shall be treated as an exceptional expedient.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question with regard to work on Sundays?

That would only occur in cases of extra pressure, and the men would receive special pay for that day.

asked whether it is proposed to enter a certain number of engineer officers in His Majesty's Navy direct from the mercantile marine service or private shipbuilding yards?

No, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the difficulty that exists in obtaining shipwrights for the Royal dockyards; and whether he will reconsider the decision given on behalf of the Admiralty against the suggestion to have two examinations annually for the admission of the apprentices?

The Admiralty are fully aware of the present great activity in the shipbuilding industry, and of the consequent difficulty in obtaining shipwrights already in employment in other districts for service in His Majesty's dockyards. It is not, however, at present considered that there would be any advantage in reintroducing the practice of having two examinations a year for the entry of apprentices.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement to the House as to the revision of the scale of pensions for widows and allowances for children of men who have lost their lives in their country's service in connection with the working of aeroplanes, hydroplanes, and submarines?

As stated in the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend on the 14th October last, the scale of pensions and allowances in these cases is the same as that granted in the case of men killed during warlike operations. In view of the far-reaching effect of any change, it is not considered possible at present to revise the scale.

Has the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty gone back on what he told the House the other day?

No. If the hon. Member will refer to the answer given, he will see that the statement of the First Lord was that the question was under consideration. It has been considered, and in view of the far-reaching changes in- volved it is not considered possible now to revise the scale.

asked if any offer of naval assistance has been received from the Union Government of South Africa; and, if so, the nature of such offer?

I learned from a Press report that a resolution has been passed in the Union House of Assembly instructing the Union Government to consult with the Imperial Government as to the making of better provision for South African naval defence. The Union Government will no doubt take steps in accordance with this resolution.

In introducing the Naval Estimates, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what naval provision is necessary for the protection of the South African Dominions?

I am not sure whether that will be a subject which I can specially select to dwell upon. I think in view of the Resolution which has been passed that we had much better wait to see whether any further steps are taken by South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information regarding an attack upon a British survey party at Teheran; and whether any further disturbances have taken place in the Bunder Abbas district?

Mr. Nunn and his surveying party were in some danger from parties of raiders, but arrived safely at Bunder Abbas on or before the 14th instant. His Majesty's Minister at Teheran reported in a telegram dated the 17th instant that the raiders—previously estimated at 300 strong—attacked Bunder Abbas on the 16th instant and further hostilities were anticipated. British subjects have been invited to take shelter at the Vice-Consulate. The guard at the Vice-Consulate has been reinforced and Maxim guns landed. Two of His Majesty's ships are on the spot and, according to the last report, the situation has improved.

May I ask how long is this state of anarchy to be allowed?

That is a question I could not go into. I do not admit the fact.

Will the hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity to make a statement on the subject?

I had a recent opportunity of dealing with the question about a month ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether proceedings have been instituted in the High Court of British East Africa, on behalf of the Masai tribe, with regard to their recent removal from their Laikipia Reserve; and, if so, what is the exact nature of the proceedings; and whether the plaintiffs represent the tribe and have authority to plead on its behalf?

Yes, Sir. The action is rather a complicated one, but, in general terms, the plaintiffs claim that an agreement dated the 26th April, 1911, and made between the then Governor of the East Africa Protectorate and certain chiefs and elders purporting to act on behalf of the Masai tribe, whereby the latter agreed that a part of the tribe should vacate an area called the Northern Masai Reserve and remove to an area south of the Uganda Railway is not binding on the tribe generally and that the tribe are still entitled to the Northern Masai Reserve under the terms of an agreement entered into on the 9th August, 1904, between the Governor and certain then chiefs of the Masai tribe. The plaintiffs claim to act on behalf of the Masai tribe generally, but I am unable to say to what extent they actually represent the tribe, and the whole matter being now sub judice I shall be unable to answer any further questions in relation to it.

asked whether the Secretary for the Colonies has any recent information as to outbreaks of serious disease amongst men and cattle in the New Southern Reserve recently allocated to the Masai; whether there is any evidence that deaths from anthrax have taken place; and, if so, what steps are being taken to deal with the matter?

No, Sir; but I will make inquiry.

asked what action it is proposed to take in respect of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into matters affecting the currency of the British West African Colonies and Protectorates?

The recommendations of the Committee were accepted, and a Currency Board has been constituted and has held several meetings. The design of the new coins has been approved and specimens have been for some time open to the inspection of hon. Members in the Tea Room of this House and I had hoped to have received the hon. Members' congratulations on my design. The Royal Mint is now making the necessary arrangements for the minting of the coin. It has been decided to postpone the note issue, recommended by the Committee, until the new coinage has had time to prove itself successful.

Is the actual coinage not yet begun, and are there not grave and economic objections to the proposal of the Departmental Committee, which do not appear to have been fully considered; and will the right hon. Gentleman abstain from imposing on this Colony the Cæsars of the Colonial Office until there has been time for further consideration.

I gather that there has been some objections, but I do not regard them as either grave or economic, and there is no intention in my mind to give further time for consideration.

asked if the refusal of the Liberian Government to grant certain concessions to Messrs. Lever Brothers was due to the fact that the firm's proposals would have had the effect of excluding any other economic enterprise on the part of natives or foreigners, and would thus have amounted to a monopoly inadmissible under the terms of the commercial agreement between Germany and Liberia; and whether, by the action of the Colonial Office, such a monopoly has now been granted on British territory?

I am not aware of the reasons for which the Liberian Senate rejected Messrs. Lever's application for a concession. The answer to the second part of the question is, I am informed, in the negative.