asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say the amount in the German Navy Estimates for 1912–13 for new construction, and the amount to be spent on the new shipbuilding programme for 1912–13?

The amount voted in the German Navy Estimates for 1912–13 for new construction was £11,491,187. The amount voted for the new programme was £2,909,245. These figures include £97,847 for airships and experiments with airships.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in some cases labourers with six months' service at Bull Point are receiving more money than labourers with ten years' service; and whether he can give any reason for this inequality?

It may be as the hon. Gentleman states. If so, it is in consequence of the allowance to labourers for work which is regarded as superior to fetching and carrying, and also the allowance when men are employed on lyddite shell owing to the disagreeable nature of the work.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman will explain why danger money is not given to the men employed in the Naval Ordnance Department at Bull Point; whether he is aware that these men handle lyddite, cordite, and other explosives; and will he say if this is work entitling men so employed to receive danger money?

Men below the grade of storehouseman working in the laboratory and handling explosives are rated and paid as skilled labourers. They handle loose cordite but not lyddite, the latter being contained in filled shells. Men employed on the examination of lyddite shell or otherwise handling picric acid are at present paid an allowance of 5d a day, not as danger money, but on account of the disagreeable nature of the work. Danger money is not paid to any men employed in Naval Ordnance establishments, nor can I give any undertaking to alter the existing practice.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that dissatisfaction prevails in the Royal Navy with regard to the question of hospital stoppages; and whether he can see his way to put an end to what is regarded by the men to be both an inequality and a hardship?

The Board have given this subject their careful consideration during recent years, but regret they are unable to introduce any further modification of the present system. The amount in question, £3,500, is not a serious burden so far as the Navy is concerned; but the change would raise various difficult questions of principle affecting other Departments.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to say when the instructions to Commanders-in-Chief relative to the wearing of plain clothes by petty officers and others will be issued; and will he say whether men below the rank of petty officers will be allowed the same privilege?

The Commanders-in-Chief have already received instructions from the Admiralty, as stated in the answer given to the hon. Member for North Birmingham on the 20th November. The case of those below the rating of petty officer has not been overlooked.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the question in regard to the men below the rating of petty officers?

They have not been overlooked, and that is provided for in the instructions which have been sent from the Admiralty to Commanders-in-Chief.

asked whether there is an Admiralty order authorising payment of an extra 1s. to the men of the yard craft for excessive work; whether he is aware that on the day of the launching of the last battleship at Devon-port the crew of the "Rover" were working excessive hours, but have not yet received the extra pay; and will he explain why the money is being withheld?

An allowance of the kind referred to in the question is authorised by the dockyard regulations; but the dockyard officers report that, on the occasion referred to, the crew of the "Rover" did not work excessive hours.

If I am in a position to prove that the men on the "Hover" did work excessive hours, will he give them the extra pay?

The whole question is now under consideration.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that applicants for temporary positions, even of a month's duration, in His Majesty's dockyards have to undergo a medical examination, and that applicants are compelled to stand in a line destitute of clothing; and whether his practice can be discontinued in the case of those applying for short periods of employment, and in all cases be conducted with due regard to decency?

The dockyard regulations require that men entered in the dockyards are to be examined by the medical officer with respect to their physical fitness; in the case of entrants for short periods the examination is required to be only of a general and cursory character. I am not prepared to recommend the discontinuance of the examination. It is certainly our desire that the examination should be carried out in such a way as to avoid all unnecessary indignity. If my hon. Friend will give me the particulars upon which he founds the suggestion to the contrary, I will have inquiry made.

asked how many battleships Germany now has in full commission in home waters; and what is the corresponding British total, exclusive of such vessels as are in dockyard hands for repair or refit?

I am not prepared to give this information at the present time. But the hon. Member may rest assured that the margins of ships available immediately or at short notice are sufficient.

Does not the squadron which has been sent to the Mediterranean, together with the six battleships now under repair, reduce our full commission force to fifteen?

I should prefer always to deal with questions of actual naval strength at some period after the situation has actually occurred, and not to have to state from day to day exactly what ships are undergoing repair and how long they will take to bring them up into the active squadron. I am able positively to give the House the assurance that our margins are amply sufficient to allow for the withdrawal of any vessel from the Mediterranean.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the statement made by him in introducing the Supplementary Estimates that in 1915 the proportion will be thirty three to twenty-nine first-class battleships in home waters?

That is a very partial and imperfect account of the statement I made on that occasion, to which I strictly adhere.

asked whether, in view of the fact that under present arrangements we shall have in home waters in 1914 twenty-five fully commissioned battleships and six battle cruisers to Germany's twenty-nine battleships and six battle cruisers, he will consider the advisability of creating an additional battle squadron in home waters before sending ships of this type to foreign stations?

The number of battle cruisers which Germany will have in 1914 is five and not six, as stated in the question. Under present arrangements we shall have thirty-three fully commissioned battleships and five battle cruisers in home waters in 1914. In addition, there will be sixteen battleships of the Second Fleet for which full complements of active service ratings are provided, and which can be completely manned without calling out the reserves.

Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into account his speech in July, in which he said that a squadron of these battleships would be sent to Gibraltar?

Yes, I am including the squadron which would be based on Gibraltar.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Memorandum which he submitted to the Government of Canada stated that the position in 1915 in home waters will be first-class battleships thirty-three to twenty-one?

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider Gibraltar in home waters?

Yes, Sir; the ships based on Gibraltar are available for general and special defence of the United Kingdom.

Is it not a fact that Gibraltar is three and a half days' sailing from the North Sea?

It depends on the speed the ships go at.

asked whether it is the intention of the Government to increase the pay of Royal Marine officers afloat to the same level as that of lieutenants of the Royal Navy of corresponding rank?

asked the time considered necessary for inquiry into the case of increase of pay of Royal Marine officers?

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on Monday last.

asked whether any airships have been ordered for the Navy from Germany?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked if any trials have been carried out by His Majesty's ship "Conqueror"; and, if so, with what result; whether her gun-mountings have proved satisfactory; and, if not, when will they be in working order?

The gun trials of the "Conqueror" were carried out on the 17th June last. Owing to the gun-mountings being of a novel design it was found necessary as the result of the trials to make some modifications. These are practically complete.

asked whether His Majesty's Ship "Pegasus" completed an extensive refit in Sydney Dockyard early in 1911; how many months she was in commission before her arrival at Devonport recently; what is the expenditure now estimated for her repair; and what is the estimated life of the ship on completion of these repairs?

The "Pegasus" completed an exhaustive refit in Sydney Dockyard early in 1911, and has been fourteen months in commission since this refit. The expenditure now estimated for her repair is about £8,000, on the completion of which the estimated life of the ship is about six or seven years, with annual repair.

As this ship has only done fourteen months since she had an exhaustive refit, would it not be more economical to scrap her than to repair her?

No, Sir. There are minor duties on some of our distant stations for which ships of this class are still fitted.

asked what was the amount spent upon repairs to His Majesty's ship "Proserpine" in the years 1910–11 and 1911–12 respectively; whether this ship is on her way home; when did she leave the East Indies station; when is she expected to arrive in England; and whether she is to be recommissioned on arrival?

The ship is not on her way home, but is paid off for large refit at Malta. She left the East Indies station on 7th July last. Her refit is expected to be completed about the middle of February next. No orders have yet been given as to her subsequent movements.

Do I understand the men on board this ship will be allowed to return home for Christmas?

I am not quite sure what the arrangements will be, but we are endeavouring to give the regular Christmas leave in all cases where it is possible.

asked what ship is to take the place of the "Pandora" on the Cape station pending the arrival of His Majesty's Ship "Pegasus" after completing her repairs at Devonport; and whether the present condition of His Majesty's Ship "Pandora's" boilers is sufficiently good to allow of her proceeding to sea without an escort?

The "Pegasus" is expected to be ready to leave England soon after the "Pandora" arrives home. There is no question of any third ship being sent to the Cape temporarily. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Seeing that two of "Pandora's" sister ships have broken down at sea, luckily without any serious damage, would it not be safer to send some escort for her from the Cape?

That is a matter of which the responsible officers must judge, and they inform me she is in a condition to steam without requiring assistance.

asked whether the electrical work on His Majesty's ship "New Zealand" and His Majesty's ship "Conqueror," which is unfinished owing to the dispute in the contractors' yards, is to be completed in Devonport dockyard; if so, at whose cost the work is to be done; and whether it will be done in strict compliance with the Fair Wages Clause?

So far as His Majesty's ship "New Zealand" is concerned, the electrical work was not completed when she left Messrs. Fairfield's, but was completed in Devonport dockyard by the contractors at their expense. As regards His Majesty's ship "Conqueror," in order to avoid delaying the ship, it has been decided to defer work on other ships, and transfer dockyard employés to this ship to complete the work. The cost of such work will be chargeable against the contractors. Our charge against the contractor will certainly not be lower than compliance with the Fair Wages Clause would have imposed.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say why this work is to be completed by dockyard employés?

Because we want the ship to go to sea.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say why the work could not have been completed in Glasgow?

The question shows that; there was a dispute. The ship was taken to Devonport dockyard, and we took hands off other ships and put them on this one in order to complete her, some of her electrical gear not having been fitted.

Then there was a dispute?

asked the number of officers and men which form the reduced nucleus crews at present on board ships of the "Majestic" class at Devon-port or elsewhere; and what length of time and what additions to the crews would be necessary 1o get these ships ready for sea should the necessity arise?

It would not be in accordance with Admiralty practice to give the strength and competition of the complements of the Third Fleet ships.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the "Majestic" a short time ago was manned by two officers and seven men for a considerable time?

What was the date?

Two or three-weeks ago.

I will certainly inquire into the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the policy indicated in Mr. Borden's speech in the Canadian Parliament on the 4th instant of placing Admiralty orders for small vessels for the Imperial Navy with Canadian shipyards, when they are able to undertake them, in spite of paying some share of the extra cost over and above the cost of constructing similar vessels in this country, he will bring Admiralty practice into line with this policy by ceasing to provide boots for the Navy with uppers made of German box-calf leather in order to effect a saving of 2¼d. per pair?

I do not think this question is very happily conceived. It is my duty to facilitate by every legitimate means in my power the participation of the Oversea Dominions of the Crown in the duty of Imperial defence. I do not see what need there is at the present moment to connect this policy with that of buying boots for the Navy, which has been often dealt with by my right hon. Friend, and can be discussed at any time on the Navy Estimates.

asked the full circumstances attending the resignation, as First Sea Lord, of Admiral Sir Francis Bridgeman?

Reasons of health led to the resignation from the Board of Admiralty of the late First Sea Lord. The regret which is felt personally by me and by my colleagues on the Board at the withdrawal of so distinguished an officer is only tempered by the fact that no difference in view or policy had led to any disagreement.

Might I ask the First Lord if it is a fact that ill-health and no other cause at all was the reason for the First Sea Lord's resignation?

So far as I am aware, no other cause whatever.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has the authothority of Sir Francis Bridgeman for the statement he makes that the resignation was owing to causes of ill-health?

I speak with a full knowledge of the circumstances, and my statement is conclusive.

It is a very important matter. Might I ask on which side t he proposal for resignation emanated— from the Admiralty or from the First Sea Lord?

I should like, before answering such a question, to know whether the Noble Lord is speaking on behalf of Sir Francis Bridgeman.

That is a very fair question. No, Sir, I have not had any communication from Sir Francis Bridge-man of any sort or kind since his resignation. I merely ask this question in the interests of the Service, because so many Sea Lords have left during the last year. It is a question in which the Service is very interested.

Might I ask whether the statement that the resignation of Sir Francis Bridgeman is owing to causes of ill-health is made with his authority?

No, Sir, I take full responsibility for the statement that the cause of ill-health led to the retirement of Sir Francis Bridgeman. For that I take full responsibility, and I require no other responsibility to cover it.

Might I ask for an answer to my question — on which side the proposal for the resignation emanated?

Very well, since the Noble Lord presses it: the proposal emanated from me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is not a fact that the Sea Lords have threatened more than once during the last month to resign?

There is absolutely no truth in that statement.

Might I ask——

On a point of Order. Might I ask you, Sir, to kindly state how many supplementary questions may be asked by one Member?

I never allow more than eight in all.

I was talking of supplementary questions.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada on 6th. December, that he was assured that the aid which Canada proposed would enable such special arrangements to be consummated that without courting disaster at home an effective fleet of battleships and cruisers could be established in the Pacific, etc.; and whether he will state what number of ships and men will be necessary to establish the fleet indicated over and above that he has already described as being necessary for European waters?

The policy of the Admiralty and its explanations have been fully set out in the Memorandum published to the Dominion Government and lately laid on the Table of this House. The Noble Lord's question appears to be a somewhat unsatisfactory condensation of certain parts of that Memorandum. If he would study the original text more closely he would see exactly what is in contemplation.

Am I to understand there will be no fleet sent to the Pacific, as was stated by Mr. Borden to the Canadian Parliament?

I have nothing to add to the statement contained in the Memorandum. That gives the Admiralty position, and if the Noble Lord will read it he will see what the position is.

I have read it. It says there will be a fleet of battleships for the Pacific. Is that the fact or not?

That is by no means an accurate statement of what is contained in the Memorandum. Nothing that corresponds to what the Noble Lord says appears in the Memorandum, but there is a statement in it which in some respects resembles what the Noble Lord did say. If, however, he will compare what he has said with what appears in the Memorandum he will see where he is in error.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many naval officers have left the Board of Admiralty since October, 1911; and if he will give their names and rank, and the reasons for their resignation or dismissal?

The facts are well known to the Noble Lord and to the House, and full explanations have been given when occasion has required them.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is taking any steps to counteract the price being charged for oil for fuel purposes; and if the continued scarcity and high price will affect the future construction of oil-burning ships for the Navy?

All possible steps are and will be taken to obtain supplies of oil fuel for His Majesty's Navy on the best terms. The question of fuel supply must necessarily have an important bearing upon the design of ships.

Has the Admiralty any reliable source of supply apart from the Oil Trust?

I believe there is a Committee sitting almost daily on this subject which is one of great difficulty, and the importance of which we are certainly not likely to lose sight of. I have no further statement of policy to make at the present moment.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that Captain Charlton stated at the Marconi Inquiry that there was great difficulty in finding suitable wireless experts, and that the replies to the advertisement were mostly unsatisfactory; and whether, in future statements of necessary qualifications, the restriction to university trained men will be removed, and a training at the Electrical Institute or an engineering college substituted?

The answer to the first part of the question is generally in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the number of civilian experts in wireless required to assist naval officers is very small, only three being so employed, and there is no probability of another being required under present conditions. The definition of a university education has been interpreted in a wide sense, and provided that the candidate possesses the requisite technical qualifications, no rigid line would be drawn as to the college or institute at which he may have been trained. I may add that the Admiralty has been guided in this matter and will be guided in the future solely by the desire to obtain the best man for the work, and that neither a university training nor the absence of it will be considered a bar.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the meaning of the phrase used in the advertisement that the applicants must have a university training?

I did not draft the advertisement, and I have not studied it; but I will inquire as to the actual meaning. But I understand there is no idea of drawing a social distinction or erecting any artificial barrier, and any such idea would be foreign to the whole spirit in which the naval administration is conducted.

asked the exact date on which the Government became aware of the peril to the Empire through insufficient naval forces, as disclosed by the Admiralty Memorandum to the Government of the Dominion of of Canada?

I have at present nothing to add to the full statement of Admiralty policy contained in the Memorandum in question.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that in his speech the Canadian Prime Minister said, "If the conditions which face the Empire at this moment respecting naval defence are grave, based upon the assurances of the Government of the Mother-country and the report of the naval experts of the Admiralty, so as to demand instant and effective action, then I will appeal to Parliament for instant and effective aid, and, if Parliament does not give it me, I will appeal from Parliament to the people," and whether that does not show there is great peril to the Empire?

I cannot attempt to answer questions about speeches delivered by responsible Ministers of the self-governing Dominions. That has nothing to do with the Admiralty. I can answer any questions in regard to Admiralty policy, and the Admiralty policy is fully set forth and explained in the Memorandum, which, if it is read and studied, will be found to put the case exactly as we wish to have it put at the present time.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any information was given to the Canadian Prime Minister during his recent visit which has not been disclosed to this House?

Yes, certainly a great deal of confidential information was given.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of any steps which are being taken to induce the Executive Council of Ceylon to vote a gift to the Imperial Navy?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister "whether, in view of the fact that the placing of the order for the three Canadian "Dreadnoughts" in this country would involve the payment directly or indirectly of wages to the extent of at least £5,000,000 sterling in this country out of money provided by Canadian taxpayers, he will now consider the advisability of altering the fiscal system of this country so as to give some preference to Canadian products in our home market?

The answer is in the negative. His Majesty's Government have no intention of altering the fiscal system of the United Kingdom.

Will not the cost of these "Dreadnoughts" be largely met by duties levied on British imports going into Canada, and will not the British manufacturer, as the foreigner, pay the duty?

Having regard to the very great importance felt in many parts of this House as to this particular question, could not the right hon. Gentleman give a day to discuss the possibility of making some return to the Dominions oversea for this generous policy which is proposed?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be as well to build these "Dreadnoughts" abroad, as under Free Trade that is supposed to be as good?

None of these questions seem to arise.

asked if the memorandum of the Admiralty given to the Canadian Ministers was intended as a request for an emergency contribution of "Dreadnoughts" from Canada?

The memorandum speaks for itself. It contains no request, and leaves the facts set out to the unfettered consideration of the Canadian Government and Parliament.

asked what additional taxation per annum will be put upon the British taxpayer in providing maintenance for the three "Dreadnoughts" to be built by Canada?

I am not pre-pared to reply to this question while the subject to which it refers is still under discussion in the Canadian Parliament.