HC Deb 11 July 1876 vol 230 cc1314-32
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,

in calling attention to the circumstances under which Captain Sulivan R.N., was recently superseded by the Admiralty from the command of H.M.S. "London;" and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, Captain Sulivan should not have been removed from the command of one of Her Majesty's ships for any alleged error, shortcoming or neglect of duty, without having been given an opportunity, if he desired it, of explaining or defending his conduct before a competent Court, said, that this was not brought forward as a personal grievance or at the solicitation of Captain Sulivan, who was entirely unknown to him till a few days ago. He brought it forward in the public interest, as it involved a question of importance connected with the Naval Service. The Correspondence which had been laid on the Table spoke for itself. Briefly stated, the circumstances were these. Captain Sulivan, a distinguished officer of 30 years' honourable service, sailed from England in July, 1874, for the East Coast of Africa in command of Her Majesty's ship London. Among the officers of the ship was a chaplain, the Rev. Mr. Penny, and it was on account of the disagreement between the captain and the chaplain that Captain Sulivan was superseded in his command and recalled home at the end of 1875. The purport of the Resolution he offered to the House was that under the circumstances which he would shortly relate Captain Sulivan should have been granted a court martial, for which he had asked no less than three times. It was unnecessary to weary the House with all the details of the squabbles—for that was the most appropriate word—which for 15 months embittered the relations between the superior officer and his subordinate. Captain Sulivan was not a member of the Church of England, and he undoubtedly appeared to have been a Nonconformist by conviction, and to have been ready at all times to assert his principles. Mr. Penny, on the other hand, belonged to the very High Church party—in fact, to the highest order of priestcraft. Each, no doubt, was sincere from his own point of view, but the discordant elements no sooner met than they exploded. The first cause of dissension that arose between Captain Sulivan and Mr. Penny was the absence of the former from the Holy Communion, which Cap- tain Sulivan declined to receive at Mr. Penny's hands. Shortly afterwards Captain Sulivan thought it his duty to order the chaplain that the service on Sundays, which was held on the quarterdeck, should be shortened by limiting the amount of chanting, so as not to interfere too much with the working of the ship. The week-day service was also directed to be limited to "short prayers" from the Liturgy, strictly in accordance with the Instructions for the Navy. These orders evidently constituted in Mr. Penny's mind an unpardonable offence, for from that moment he "cut" his captain and behaved on many occasions in a most disrespectful manner. This was acknowledged by the Admiralty letter of 15th of September, 1874, in which— My Lords are of opinion that Mr. Penny's conduct has in several instances been highly disrespectful towards his Captain. When the London arrived at the Cape, Captain Sulivan applied to the Commodore there for a Court of Inquiry to investigate these matters of difference between himself and Mr. Penny. Commodore Hewett replied that he should forward the application to the Admiral commanding on the Indian Station, to which the London was going, in order that the ship might not be delayed, and that Admiral Cumming should decide as to the charge of "disrespectful behaviour" made against Mr. Penny. The Admiral, however, declined to grant a Court of Inquiry, but directed the chaplain to cease wearing certain gold crosses on his stole, which had given offence, and which Captain Sulivan had remonstrated against as being a "non-regulation uniform." Mr. Penny, however refused to comply with this direction of the Admiral, and the authorities at home, by a letter of the 4th February,1875, declined to make any order on the subject. This was a small matter, but it was a triumph for the chaplain, and contributed to make him persist in his defiant attitude on other points. A few months after, in February, 1875, Mr. Penny again sent through Captain Sulivan a complaint as to the conduct of Divine service, which Captain Sulivan forwarded, with his remarks, to the Admiral. The Admiral, in his Report to the Admiralty at home, stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Penny— Had acted in a spirit apart from that which should be shown by any officer, and especially by a clergyman. He also said— That on any future occasion he should consider it his duty to take most serious notice of it. It was a pity that serious notice was not taken of it at the same time. Nothing further occurred till the arrival of Admiral Macdonald to relieve Admiral Cumming on the station in July, 1875, when, by instructions from home, he directed that a Court of Inquiry should be held "in the disputes between Captain G. L. Sulivan and the Rev. Mr. Penny." Of course, nothing was known to the public of what had taken place, but an answer to the Report of that Court came from the Admiralty, in a letter dated the 15th of September, 1875, and it was to the following effect— After a careful perusal of the whole correspondence, commencing as far back as September, 1874, my Lords have been compelled with regret to come to the conclusion that Captain Sulivan has not acted towards Mr. Penny with that consideration and judgment which is expected from the Captain of one of Her Majesty's ships. My Lords are further of opinion that Mr. Penny's conduct has in several instances been highly disrespectful towards his Captain; and as they entirely agree in the opinion of the Court that so long as these two officers remain together no harmony can be expected, they have decided to remove them both from the ship, and they are to be so informed. But the correspondence of 1874 here referred to was not admitted before the Court of Inquiry, so that Captain Sulivan had no opportunity of dealing with it; and, further, Mr. Penny was not removed, although Captain Sulivan was, and the "disrespectful" subordinate had the satisfaction before the whole ship's company of bowing over the side his commanding officer, with whom he had been notoriously at war for a long time. He should ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to explain how this happened, and whether he considered such an affair to conduce to the dignity or discipline of the Service? Captain Sulivan had since in vain sought for a court martial to vindicate himself. The Lords of the Admiralty stated in a letter of the 6th of December, 1875, that, apart from this disagreement with Mr. Penny, they were quite satisfied with the way in which he discharged his duties while in command of the London; and yet they appeared to justify their very arbitrary proceeding by refusing the redress which the Captain demanded. Admiral Macdonald wrote to Captain Sulivan as follows:— My dear Sulivan,—I can assure you it was with much regret I heard first through the papers that the Lords of the Admiralty had resolved to remove you from your command. I make no comment as to this discharge, but a sense of justice alone has induced me to write to their Lordships my very high opinion of the zeal and ability that you displayed under trying circumstances in the arrangement of the ship. Considering the trying duties which Captain Sulivan had to perform, it was only natural that he should have lost temper with a chaplain of that kind. Before leaving the London he wrote to the Admiralty making a formal complaint of gross misconduct on the part of Mr. Penny, in the presence of several Natives, to which the Admiralty replied that they had called upon Mr. Penny for an explanation. Mr. Penny, accordingly, did write an explanatory letter, in which he made the grossest accusations against Captain Sulivan; but would it be believed that letter had never been seen by Captain Sulivan till it appeared in the Correspondence which was published yesterday? In his (Mr. Ashley's) opinion, the fact alone of such a letter having been written by Mr. Penny rendered it imperative on the Admiralty to grant the court martial which Captain Sulivan had asked for three times and failed to obtain. It was conducive neither to the welfare nor to the popularity of the Service that commanding officers should be subjected to the treatment which Captain Sulivan had experienced. Even had the two officers in the present case been treated alike, their punishment would have been very unequal; for there was a very heavy pecuniary fine inflicted on Captain Sulivan by the circumstances of his super session, not to mention the greater publicity which attached to the recall of a commanding officer. Captain Sulivan had been 30 years in the Service, and the Lords of the Admiralty had themselves expressed an opinion that what had taken place ought not to operate against his future employment in Her Majesty's Navy. He was content to rest the case thus. The Admiralty said that this officer was deserving of employment, and yet he had been. superseded in his ship, because he had not been able to get on with a subordinate officer who had been pronounced guilty of highly disrespectful conduct. It seemed to be the opinion of the Admiralty that an officer in command of one of Her Majesty's ships should combine the indifference of a Gallio in religious matters with the tact of a Talleyrand in the affairs of the world. He doubted greatly whether the demand for such qualities would secure for us equally efficient officers; but certainly, if the absence of these qualifications were to be made reasons for punishment, the interests of Her Majesty's Service would be gravely imperilled. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

seconded the Motion, because he believed that great injustice had been done to a distinguished officer, and that the Admiralty in his case had departed from the line of procedure laid down by Parliament for the administration of justice in the Navy. He was an entire stranger to Captain Sulivan, but he had come forward to support this Motion from a sense of duty. Captain Sulivan was accused of undue interference with his chaplain; but according to Naval Regulations a captain was responsible for the due performance of religious duties on board his ship, and was invested with a certain amount of discretion as to the length, of the prayers to be read. It was also to be borne in mind that Captain Sulivan had on board his ship some 52 Nonconformists, whose religious opinions were entitled to some consideration. He asked hon. Members acquainted with the practice adopted in private families whether it was usual at prayers to read the Creed and those parts of the Liturgy which Captain Sulivan had directed should be omitted? Why, the Chaplain of the House of Commons who read short prayers before they commenced their Sittings, was not required to read the Creed or those parts of the Liturgy; and the House could hardly blame Captain Sulivan for following its own example in that respect. The second complaint made against Captain Sulivan was that he directed the chaplain to omit chanting in the open air on the upper deck, and to confine himself to the singing of hymns. There he thought that gallant officer had used a wise dis- cretion. The third objection raised by the chaplain was that he was desired to omit the priestly invocation, which, not being in the Church service of the Church of England, Captain Sulivan was justified in requesting him to omit. That priestly invocation would have been offensive to all the Nonconformists on board, as it certainly would have been to him if he had been in the ship. Then the fourth and most important point was that Captain Sulivan found that his chaplain appeared in a dress which he had never seen before—a stole with three gold crosses upon it, and on asking his chaplain what that dress was, as he did not know of any Admiralty Regulation authorizing it, the chaplain told him it was a dress given him when he was made a priest by the Church, and that the Admiralty should not take it from him. Captain Sulivan, in his complaint about the stole with those gold crosses on it, said it would destroy the simplicity which had hitherto characterized the service held in the ship, and thus justify the Nonconformists, of whom there were 50 in the London. in objecting to it, and in absenting themselves from it, as would certainly have been the case if these novelties had been tolerated. Admiral Cumming, who commanded at the Cape of Good Hope Station, writing to Captain Sulivan in reference to that matter, asked him to inform Mr. Penny that it was his wish, that he should discontinue the use of the stole with the gold crosses on it in order to prevent dissension on board the London. The Rev. Mr. Penny, in a letter to the Admiralty of the 7th February, 1875, which was not among those Papers, but which the First Lord of the Admiralty had that day kindly laid on the Table, said that in regard to the Admiral's wish that he should for the present discontinue the use of his stole, he felt himself conscientiously unable to gratify him; that he had used the stole for 10 years without its causing the least offence to any one except to Captain Sulivan, who was not a member of the Church of England. Therefore, it was the opinion of the chaplain that to give offence to a person who was not a member of the Church of England was of no importance, forgetting that Captain Sulivan and the 50 Nonconformists were as much members of his congregation as the highest Churchman on board. What was the decision of the Admiralty? On the 2nd of March, 1875, my Lords said that as regarded the stole described they made no order on the subject, observing, however, that in a matter so indifferent no unnecessary offence should be given to anybody on board. Therefore, the Admiralty declined to give any opinion and left that unfortunate difference to be fought out in the ship as best it could be. What had been the consequence? Why, that in the same command, on board of a man-of-war, within the last few months, the chaplain was seated at table, and never rose as the other officers did to the Admiral, saying that he had nothing to do with the Admiral, that he was independent of him, and was under the Lords of the Admiralty. If that was the way in which the Lords of the Admiralty upheld the discipline of the Navy, he thought they would find that discipline rapidly sink. That in subordinate chaplain had been encouraged in his insubordination. He wrote a letter in June which caused Captain Sulivan to apply for an inquiry, which was this time granted, but it was too late. The Court of Inquiry could not go into the matter, because the Admiralty had given their decision upon it. Therefore, Captain Sulivan had had no opportunity of defending himself against the accusations made by the chaplain. No doubt the House would be told that Captain Sulivan had not been dismissed, but only removed from his command, and that had he been dismissed he would have been entitled to a court martial. When he himself asked for the Papers relating to the dismissal of Captain Sulivan, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) corrected him, and said that that officer had not been "dismissed," but only "removed." He had altered his Notice accordingly; but he asked the House what was the difference to Captain Sulivan? If Captain Sulivan had been tried in accordance with his request by a court martial, he did not think they would have done anything more than to severely reprimand him, and he would have remained in command of his ship up to the present time. But the Admiralty had practically inflicted a more severe punishment on Captain Sulivan than if he had been tried by a court martial. He believed he was correct in saying that the Chaplain's Department of the Admiralty was managed by the private Secretary of the First Lord. The private Secretary of the First Lord was not a responsible officer. If he gave advice to the First Lord, the First Lord was responsible. He would now allude to what was, perhaps, the most important point connected with this question—namely, the holding of Courts of Inquiry instead of courts martial. That was a practice which had been gradually growing for f many years both in the Navy and the f Army, to the great discontent of the officers of both Services. He did not at all wish to raise the question of the prerogative of the Crown to dismiss any officer. He freely admitted that the Crown had the right—and had properly the right—to dismiss any officer without giving any reasons whatever. But that was a very different thing from the course that was now adopted—namely, that of condemning an officer first of all and then removing him. The Crown had no prerogative to condemn any man without hearing what he might have to say in his defence. The Lords of the Admiralty referred to the opinion of the Court of Inquiry as justifying them in removing Captain Sulivan. They did not say they removed him by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown without giving any reasons. If Courts of Inquiry were to be held, they ought to be regulated on well-known principles. He thanked the hon. Member for bringing forward the Motion, and he hoped the House would agree to it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in the opinion of this House, Captain Sulivan should not have been removed from the command of one of Her Majesty's ships for any alleged error, shortcoming, or neglect of duty, without having been given an opportunity, if he desired it, of explaining or defending his conduct before a competent court."—(Mr. Ashley.)

Mr. HUNT

said, the Motion which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman opposite was somewhat ambiguous in its terms. ["No!"] It said that— Captain Sulivan should not have been removed from the command of one of Her Majesty's ships for any alleged error, shortcoming, or neglect of duty, without having been given an opportunity, if he desired it, of explaining or defending his conduct before a competent court. The hon. Gentleman did not explain what a competent Court meant in this Motion; but he inferred from the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Motion that he was of opinion that Captain Sulivan should not have been removed without having been tried by a court martial. Well, that raised a very important question—namely, whether the Board of Admiralty, in exercise of the power of the Crown, which was delegated to them, were or were not competent to supersede an officer in his command without a court martial. He maintained that they had the fullest power and authority to do so, and when his hon. and gallant Friend spoke of there being no difference between dismissing an officer from his ship under the Naval Discipline Act and removing him by superseding him and appointing another officer in his place he made the greatest mistake possible. What had been done in the case of Captain Sulivan had been done outside the Naval Discipline Act. The Admiralty had exercised the supreme authority reserved to them by the Naval Discipline Act, and had not apportioned to Captain Sulivan any punishment mentioned in the Naval Discipline Act. Therefore, it was perfectly correct to say there was a great difference between the case of dismissing an officer from a ship and that of relieving him from his command by the supreme authority vested in the Admiralty. Hon. Gentlemen might say that in each case the officer had to leave the ship. That was perfectly true; but in the one case he left his ship with a distinct punishment recorded against him, and in the other be was simply told that he no longer commanded his ship. In the case of Captain Sulivan no punishment whatever was recorded against him in the books of the Admiralty. He had been relieved of the command of his ship because the Admiralty considered it undesirable on public grounds that he should any longer continue in command, but no disgrace or punishment was recorded against him, as would have been the case had he been dismissed from his command. The hon. Member opposite had not alluded to the question of the power of the Admiralty to supersede an officer in his command without an inquiry before a court martial; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him (Sir Alexander Gordon) had fully admitted the existence of that power. That power, indeed, had been exercised by the right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him in office in a notable case in which he had superseded two Admirals in their command. He therefore submitted that the Admiralty possessed an undoubted right to supersede an officer in his command if they thought fit to do so, and that such a course was for the good of the Service. The hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion had made a very clever selection of passages from the Papers suitable for his own purposes, and with the permission of the House he would read other passages from them which would give a different colour to the transaction. What was the case of Captain Sulivan? He had himself appointed Captain Sulivan to the command of the London. and he had also appointed the chaplain; therefore, he was naturally inclined to have supported the captain whom he had himself selected. It was also the practice at the Admiralty to support an officer in command as far as they could properly do so, and therefore he had a double motive in desiring to support Captain Sulivan. But what had happened? When the ship arrived at the Cape of Good Hope on her way to Zanzibar complaints were made by the Captain of the chaplain. It so happened that Captain Sulivan had come within the notice of three senior officers—namely, Commodore Hewett, the Commodore of the Cape; Admiral Cumming, the Commander-in-Chief on the East Indian Station; and Admiral Macdonald. What was the view taken of the conduct of Captain Sulivan by these three officers? When the London touched at the Cape, Captain Sulivan made a complaint with regard to the conduct of his chaplain; but Commodore Hewett thought that there was no necessity for an immediate inquiry into the matter, thinking that were one instituted it would delay the ship unnecessarily, and that the vessel had better go on, leaving the question to be determined by the Admiral on her arrival at her station. It had been put to the House that the chaplain had been insubordinate from the beginning to the end, while all that Captain Sulivan had done was to carefully discharge his duty. But what said Commodore Hewett upon the subject? The Commodore at the Cape was satis- fied that the apprehensions of Captain Sulivan with reference to the performance of the Services by the chaplain were imaginary, and that the chaplain had acted in a temperate and a proper manner, and had complied with his orders in every respect. Thus the matter was passed over to the Commander-in-Chief on the East Indian Station. It was exceedingly painful to him to have to bring forward what he believed to be these unfortunate indiscretions of Captain Sulivan. He was anxious that the matter should have rested where it was. In the interests of the Service, and in the interest of Captain Sulivan himself, he was anxious that the conduct of the latter should not have been dragged into notoriety. He was not satisfied with his conduct, but he was willing to have treated it as an exceptional incident in his career. He knew how fiercely the odium theologicum burnt in some breasts, and he was willing to make allowances for it, and for the excitement produced by the temperature of Zanzibar, in the case of Captain Sulivan, and he had told him that he intended to give him further employment. But it had been said by the hon. Member opposite—"What was the use of superseding a man to whom it was intended to give further employment?" Therefore, because he had taken an indulgent view of Captain Sulivan's case, he was told that he had no right to take any notice of his conduct. What said the Commander-in-Chief? In his letter of the 7th of January, 1875, he said, after duly considering the whole correspondence I have informed Captain Sulivan— I cannot see any ground for inquiry into the manner in which the chaplain has conducted himself. He appears in every instance to have implicitly obeyed his orders. He was not going to uphold the chaplain of the London. He had superseded him. But that was the recorded opinion of these two officers? He went on to say he could see no great disrespect or unbecoming conduct which had been shown towards Captain Sulivan by the chaplain. He went on to say that if Captain Sulivan, instead of pointing out what prayers should be said and what parts of the Church Service should be chanted, had told the chaplain what length of time he wished the Service to occupy, he believed all the discussion which had arisen might have been avoided. He went on to say that if the Captain had desired that the chanting should be omitted for reasons made known to him it would have been wrong if the chaplain had not complied. But he added that Mr. Penny appeared to have conducted the Service in accordance with the Liturgy of the Church of England. With regard to the wearing of the stole, the matter was referred to the Admiralty, and they thought the wearing of the stole should be discontinued for the present. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he did not know what a stole was. A stole was a black narrow silk scarf worn by clergymen of the Church of England over their surplices, which fell down towards their ankles. It was worn in nearly every Episcopal church in the country, except where the clergyman, was entitled to wear a broad scarf. For himself he saw no virtue or magic in a stole, and he listened with equal pleasure to a clergyman if he did his duty well whether he were a stole or not.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

reminded his right hon. Friend that the stole was not so much objected to as the gold crosses on the stole.

MR. HUNT

Well, as a matter of taste, he preferred the stole to the gold crosses on the stole. But the crosses on the stole were simply crosses worked in yellow floss silk. It was a pity that crosses should be worn where they gave offence; but when they were sanctioned by Bishops in this country it was impossible for the Admiralty to lay down a positive rule that no chaplain should have a cross upon his stole. They made no order about the stole, but suggested no unnecessary offence should be given to anyone on board the ship. He maintained that to be a truly Christian principle, and held that they were right in not in making a positive order as to the crosses. He now came to the next complaint. The House would observe that according to the opinions of Commodore Hewett and Admiral Gumming, up to that time the chaplain conducted himself most respectfully and obeyed every order. He regretted, however, that that course was not continued; but he must say that the Captain's conduct to the chaplain was most vexatious and aggravating. He interfered with what was to be read, to say nothing as to interference with the chanting of portions of the Service, which the Rubric said might be said or sung. Chanting, however, might possibly be inconvenient on board a ship; but when the Captain went on to forbid the use of the Apostles' Creed, he was certainly going beyond the line of his duty. But he must tell the House also that when the chaplain got up to preach Captain Sulivan walked out. He said he "withdrew from the service when the chaplain preached."[Sir Henry James: Because he was personally referred to.] Yes, that was what he said; but the chaplain denied that he had made any personal reference, and said he could not have done so, as he was preaching an old sermon. Of course, if the chaplain was preaching at the Captain he was doing what was very wrong; but there were other ways of dealing with the matter besides getting up and walking out, and he altogether denied that he made any personal reference to the Captain. Then there was another matter. The chaplain was in the habit of taking a voluntary mission service on shore, and the Captain forbad him to do so. It was true that he rescinded the order after a certain time, but it was calculated to annoy; and nothing could be more aggravating or tend more to lessen the influence of the chaplain than that the Captain should tell him to shorten the prayers, omit certain parts of the Service, walk out when he began to preach, and stop his volunteer service on shore. It appeared from the Correspondence that the chaplain had occasion to complain that the Captain had neglected to make any provision for the officers and men of the smaller ships of the Squadron attending Divine Service, and the Admiral, while he considered the explanation of Captain Sulivan indefinite and unsatisfactory, found fault with the chaplain for complaining to another captain who appeared at the station, and who was senior to Captain Sulivan. He was not there to defend the chaplain, whom he had superseded. Going on a little further a new Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Macdonald, was appointed, and on the 30th of July he wrote to the Admiralty, saying that he had ordered a Court of Inquiry. That was occupied 10 days with these wretched squabbles, from the 14th to the 24th, and the Report was made on the 28th, so that the duties of the station were neglected for a fortnight. According to a rule that had always been maintained, he could not produce the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry; for his own sake he wished he could, because he thought they would show that a right decision had been arrived at. He read the proceedings most carefully, and the conclusion produced by the perusal of that Report was that both the chaplain and the Captain were to blame—the Captain, in the first instance, when the dissensions arose, and the chaplain afterwards, when he exhibited an improper spirit for a clergyman and disrespect for the Captain. Therefore, he could not uphold either, though the Admiralty, if possible, always upheld a captain, and, with the entire concurrence of his Colleagues, he felt that the only thing to be done was to supersede the Captain. A Court of Inquiry was most essential and most desirable. This was not a case of a charge against the Captain and of evidence before a court martial. These were matters of manner, and a course of conduct creating ill-feeling, which could not be placed in a charge before a court martial. It seemed to him that this was a case in which the two officers should be superseded, for it was impossible that the state of things which had arisen should be allowed to continue; there was discord in the ship, and the services of the ship could not be properly carried on with the existence of so muchill-feeling. Both officers were simultaneously informed that they would be superseded, and that their successors would be sent out by the next steamer. Unemployed captains were many, but unemployed chaplains were few, and it was much easier to send out a captain than a chaplain. He had intended that both should come home at once, and it was through an accident and inadvertence that this was not the case, though they were both superseded at the same time. The captain came home, and the chaplain was directed to come home before his successor arrived. The captain came home and demanded a court martial. The fact did not appear in the Papers because the demand was made on a personal interview. The request made was that a ship should be sent to Zanzibar with a lot of officers to form a Court, for at these distant stations it was often impossible, even when desirable, to obtain a sufficient number of officers to form a Court. The reply he gave to the demand was that he did not consider it possible to frame a charge that would be cognizable by a court martial. He had been told that the Captain ought to have been tried by a court martial, but some of the witnesses were in England while the others were in Zanzibar, so that the difficulties were insuperable. The truth was that both these officers had got into such an antagonistic attitude and into such a state of excitement that everything in their conduct to each other appeared to their jaundiced vision to be disrespectful. He believed that there had been faults on both sides; that originally the fault was in Captain Sulivan, that it soon became a matter of mutual offence, and that eventually the Admiralty did the best thing for the service by removing both officers from the ship. In a private interview, he informed Captain Sulivan that it was an unfortunate business, but that he might tell his friends it would not be looked at in the light in which he regarded it, and that the Admiralty were willing to employ him again. In his opinion, it was to be regretted that Captain Sulivan did not accept this proposition instead of taking the steps he did. The matter would then have been forgotten, for it was one of those unfortunate personal squabbles which sometimes, though very rarely, arose on board Her Majesty's ships. However, as the subject had been brought before the House he had been obliged to go into it fully and to say things against Captain Sulivan which he should not have said except in self-defence. The Admiralty was responsible for order being kept on board Her Majesty's ships. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman expressed his belief that the Admiralty acted wisely in removing both officers and in refusing the court martial to investigate a question of insolence of conduct and manner that was wholly beneath the dignity of such a tribunal.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned any charge which could be brought against Captain Sulivan. In the course of this discussion many hon. Members must have asked themselves the question—"What has Captain Sulivan really done, and why has he been discharged from his ship?" According to the right hon. Gentleman, it was on account of some miserable squabbles which ought not to have been brought under the attention of the House. It was indeed to be regretted that incidents which had caused scandal in the Navy should have occurred at all; but it was not by shirking the question in that House that the difficulty could be got over. Captain Sulivan ought to have been supported in his position in order that it might have been shown that the presence of a chaplain did not make it a difficult duty for a Nonconformist to command one of Her Majesty's ships. Captain Sulivan's position as a Nonconformist was full of difficulty, and seemed to have been made more difficult by the conduct of the chaplain in introducing some of the more novel forms of the Church of England Service, and, arising from this, the proper order and discipline of the ship was risked in consequence of a miserable squabble about a stole and a gold cross. It was bad taste also and want of discretion on the part of the chaplain to speak as he did of "the heavy disabilities under which the Church of England labours in this vessel," for members of the Church of England on board the London certainly enjoyed advantages as compared with the Dissenting portion of the crew. He thought it was well that cases of this kind should be brought forward, in order that chaplains should understand that the enormous advantages they enjoyed should be exercised with some consideration for the opinions and feelings of those who differed from them. Inasmuch as the Admiralty had recorded their opinion that the chaplain's conduct in this case was "highly disrespectful towards his Captain," it was an unfortunate inadvertence, to say the least, that the chaplain had not been superseded at the same time with the captain; nor was it usual, he thought, when a superior and an inferior officer could not work harmoniously together and the conduct of the inferior had been "highly disrespectful," to remove the superior officer. The difficulty might surely have been cut short by the removal of the chaplain, and not of the Captain. To be removed from the command of his ship was a most grave circumstance in a captain's career, and any personal assurances given to him to the contrary would count for very little. One point made against Captain Sulivan was that he had desired the omission of the Creed from the services; but it should have been added that these were the weekday, not the Sunday services. On the whole, he thought that a reprimand in the case of Captain Sulivan would have met the case. There might have been indiscretion justifying such a reprimand as had been given in the case of other captains; but surely to come into collision with a chaplain was not so great an offence as to come into collision with one of Her Majesty's ships. It was said in the Papers that the chaplain had strictly complied with orders. But there was a way of strictly complying with orders, and yet doing so in such a manner as to be very insubordinate. There might be inuendoes, too, even in an old sermon. But how did the right hon. Gentleman know that this was an old sermon? He saw nothing to this effect in the Papers. Did this statement occur in the private proceedings of which the House knew nothing and which the Captain therefore was unable to contradict? That brought him to the last point, which was that a private inquiry might properly lead to a court martial, but ought not to be allowed to take the place of one. The Admiralty stated that, in their opinion, the matters involved were not of a kind that required to be submitted to a court martial. He thought, however, it would have been better if the Admiralty had decided on the Papers alone without a private inquiry, instead of having to fall back again on the Papers. He acknowledged that the Admiralty had a perfect right to supersede any officer who might have been guilty of indiscretion, or whom they might think unfit to command one of Her Majesty's ships. But then they were in this position: that the Admiralty had information before them which the House had not. On the whole, the matter was left in a most unsatisfactory state, and he regretted that the impression should go forth in the Royal Navy that the Admiralty would not sustain the authority of the captains in the maintenance of discipline.

MR. HUNT

said, that he found in the letter that had been placed on the Table of the House that day that the chaplain stated that the sermon which Captain Sulivan said was preached at him was an old sermon preached 12 months ago.

SIR JOHN HAY

regretted exceedingly that Captain Sulivan's application for a court martial had not been acceded to. The place where an officer who had his conduct arraigned should be called on to defend himself was before a court martial. He must remark, however, that the First Lord of the Admiralty had justified the course he had taken by the precedent which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) had established in the case of Admiral Wellesley and Admiral Wilmot. If a division were taken he should certainly support the Resolution, on the grounds that captains were entitled to have their conduct publicly inquired into.

MR. ANDERSON

pointed out that the punishment of the two officers was utterly unequal, for Captain Sulivan had lost the opportunity by his supersession of gaining an increase of half-pay.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 103: Majority 12.