§ MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it be the fact that the Admiralty rules only prohibited combinations—"for the purpose of bringing about alterations in the existing rules and regulations of the Navy" and "by appointing Committees, or in any other manner obtaining signatures to memorials, petitions, or applications;" if it be not the fact that the meeting of petty officers at Portsmouth was held for none of these purposes, but solely to protect themselves against public misrepresentations of their opinions by certain Naval Officers, and, therefore, strictly in exercise of citizen rights not abrogated by employment in Her Majesty's service; and, whether, in these circumstances, Admiral Fanshawe's Memorandum was not an indiscreet straining of authority?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHSir, I will not enter into an argument with the hon. Member as to whether a meeting composed of petty officers and seamen called to discuss punishments in the Navy does or does not come within the Article in the Queen's Regulations to which he refers; but I repeat that it was the duty of the Admiral Commanding-in-Chief at Porstmouth to warn men against being led into the commission of acts which, in his judgment, are subversive of discipline and are breaches of the Queen's Regulations. I do not, therefore, consider the publication of the Memorandum referred to was an indiscreet straining of authority.
§ MR. ANDERSONWill the right hon. Gentleman produce the Memorandum, and lay it on the Table?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHPerhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of that Question.