§ MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to pay by way of compensation or otherwise any and what sums of money to any and what persons in relation to the running down of the yacht "Mistletoe" by Her Majesty's ship "Alberta," and the various proceedings consequent thereon; and, whether such sums are included in the Navy Estimates already laid upon the Table, and under what heads and sub-heads?
§ MR. HUNTThe whole of the information asked for in the first part of the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman is contained in the Papers already laid before Parliament. The total sum payable in relation to the accident to the Mistletoe was nearly £4,000. That has already been paid. No future payment will be made but the annuity to the 1477 steward of the Mistletoe, whose arm was broken, which is contingent on his arm not being sufficiently recovered to enable him to earn his pension in the Naval Reserve. The payments have been made out of the surplus of last year; the Votes will, therefore, not appear in the Estimates for the current year. The payments fall under Vote 14, which is a sum taken for payments on account of damage done by Her Majesty's ships.
§ MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSgave Notice that he would on an early day after Easter call attention to the practice of making such payments out of the surplus of last year.
§ Sir ROBERT PEELI wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, without Notice, a Question with reference to a subject which is to be discussed to-night, on which I am desirous, on personal grounds, to have some explanation, inasmuch as one of the victims of the collision between the Alberta and the Mistletoe was a relative of mine, and was the daughter of my late lamented Colleague. In the Papers laid upon the Table it appears that the Admiralty have reprimanded one of the officers who "contributed to this stupid blunder," and I wish to know, Whether it is correct, as has been asserted in the newspapers of yesterday and to-day, that Captain Welch, one of the two officers in command at the time of the collision, has declined to accept the reprimand of the Admiralty, and if that is so, whether really law and justice should not be done in this case, and whether the two officers should not be tried by Court martial?
§ MR. HUNTThe right hon. Gentleman has given me no Notice of the Question. I have seen in a quasi-comic paper that statement.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELIn The Times newspaper?
§ MR. HUNTThere is a statement of the character which he has described in the paper I have alluded to, and I believe it was copied into others. I have seen it in no other periodical. But it is perfectly impossible for an officer to decline to receive a reprimand. It would be an act of insubordination. He may ask for a Court martial, if he is so disposed, and in that way, but in no other way, can he repudiate a reprimand.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELThen he has not asked for a Court martial? May I 1478 ask the right hon. Gentleman if Captain Welch has requested to be tried by court martial?