§ MR. BALLANTINE (Coventry)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why a Court Martial was not held to inquire into the cause of the loss of H.M.S. Sultan, in accordance with Sections 91 and 92 of the Naval Discipline Act; why a Court of Inquiry was appointed to investigate the question of the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief for the loss of the vessel after she had stranded, whereas a Court Martial was Held to try the captain of 1753 the vessel for stranding her; whether it is the fact that Naval Courts of Inquiry have no power either to examine witnesses upon oath, or to determine judicially the questions submitted to them, but solely the power of making a Report of the Admiralty; and, whether, in the case of the Sultan, the Report of the Court of Inquiry concludes the matter?
§ MR. COBBMay I ask whether the actual loss of the Sultan took place when the Duke of Edinburgh was in command, and whether the effect of what has been done by the Court of Inquiry has not been to screen the Duke from being tried by Court Martial?
§ MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)Will the noble Lord lay on the Table of the House official Papers relating to the loss of the Sultan?
§ * THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing)It is not intended to lay any Papers before Parliament. As I have stated before, all the Papers in connection both with the Court Martial and the Court of Inquiry were sent to the public Press, and they have for a long time been in possession of the public. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is wrong both in his facts and assumptions. It is not true that any attempt was made to screen the Commander-in-Chief, who could not have been tried for the loss of the Sultan. In reply to the question on the Paper, a Court Martial having been held on the captain of the Sultan for the stranding of his ship, it was determined that it was unnecessary to hold another Court Martial on him for the loss of the ship, such loss being consequent on the stranding. The Court of Inquiry was not appointed to investigate the question of the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief, but to ascertain if every possible endeavour was made to save the ship after she was stranded. The powers of Naval Courts of Inquiry are as stated in the question. In the present instance the Commander-in-Chief could not have been tried, for if a further Court Martial had been considered necessary it must have been held on the captain of the ship. The answer to the last question is in the affirmative.
§ MR. BALLANTINEIs it not the fact that the Commander-in-Chief was 1754 in command after the stranding of the vessel?
§ * LORD G. HAMILTONNo, Sir, certainly not. Captain Rice was in command. When a ship is lost, the only persons who, under Sections 91 and 92 of the Naval Discipline Act, can be made responsible are the captain and those on board the ship.
§ MR. BALLANTINEThe President, in giving judgment upon the case, remarked—
The Court considers, according to the charge of stranding, it is our duty to investigate what occurred up to the time you were relieved by your senior officer, who took charge.
§ * LORD G. HAMILTONThe hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate what that means. The Commander-in-Chief superintended the operations which were made to get the ship off the rocks on which she was stranded. But it would be absurd and altogether contrary to precedent to make one man responsible for the acts of another man. It has been the invariable practice of the Navy, whenever a vessel has been lost, that the persons in the first instance to be charged are the captain, officers, and crew of the vessel. That was the case when the Captain was swamped. The persons tried by Court Martial for that ship were the gunner, and the survivors of the crew.
§ In answer to a further question by Mr. COBB,
§ * LORD G. HAMILTONsaid: If the hon. Gentleman made himself acquainted with the customs of the Navy he would know that it is impossible for the Admiral to take command of a ship and to supersede the captain.
§ MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury with reference to the answer given, by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) whether he is aware that no discussion took place on the loss of the Sultan at the time that the Admiralty Vote was taken, because an inquiry was understood to be pending; whether he is aware that the reports in the daily papers referred to by the noble Lord have been of the most meagre description, amounting at most to a column, and frequently to half a column; and whether, not as a matter of right but as a matter of courtesy and accommodation to Members of the House, he will not 1755 consider the advisability and propriety of laying before the House, not now but next Session, a full Report of the proceedings in this very important inquiry?
§ * LORD G. HAMILTONThough the question has been addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend is naturally not conversant with the facts. I can only repeat what I have already said, that in my anxiety give full information of all that occurred not only at the Court Martial but at the Court of Inquiry, a full and detailed Report of all that occurred was sent to the public Press. But it has never been the practice to lay the evidence and Report of an inquiry on the Table of the House, and I am not disposed to create a new precedent which, I think, might be very disadvantageous to the Public Service. With that single exception, the public has been put in full possession of all the facts of the case for some weeks past.
§ MR. ROBERTSONMy question was asked as a matter of convenience to Members of the House, and not for the information of the public. I knew the attitude of the noble Lord, and therefore I asked the First Lord of the Treasury to take into his serious consideration the propriety of giving Members of the House full information as to the proceedings and transactions of this important inquiry.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH, Strand, Westminster)The hon. and learned Gentleman will hardly expect me to give an answer at variance with that given by my Colleague the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty. I am not prepared to pass beyond established precedent in matters of this kind, and no one will recognise more readily than the hon. and learned Gentleman the importance of adhering to precedent in these questions. No doubt the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman will receive consideration.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHWas it not a departure from established precedent to communicate a Report to the Press, which was not taken by newspaper reporters in the ordinary way?
§ * LORD G. HAMILTONThe Press attended the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, and when the doors were closed for the deliberation of Members, I undertook that the Report should be 1756 sent to the Press, so that it should be as available for the public as the evidence had been.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHIs not that a departure from precedent?
§ * LORD G. HAMILTONNo; I believe that whenever a Court of Inquiry has been held with open doors, and the evidence is in the possession of the public, it has been the practice to send the result of that Court of Inquiry to the Press.