§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, To state the name of the medical officer who certified that Prince Louis of Battenberg was physically fit for the Naval Service of this country?
THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTOTN) (Middlesex, Ealing)Prince Louis of Battenberg, as I stated the other day, joined the Navy in 1868. The Board of the Admiralty of the day ordered him to be entered without the production of the usual medical certificate. Their decision has amply been justified by the result; insomuch that Prince Louis has always enjoyed exceptional health during the 19 years he has been in the Service, and has carried out 1373 his duties wherever he has been called upon to serve with zeal and energy.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLArising out of the reply of the noble Lord, I wish to ask him whether it is the fact that Prince Louis of Battenberg was submitted, in the ordinary course, to medical examination by Dr. Buckle, of Her Majesty's ship Britannia; that, as he was only known by a number by Dr. Buckle, Dr. Buckle rejected him; that subsequently two other medical officers of Tier Majesty's Service also examined Prince Louis of Battenberg, and that they also rejected him; and that, subsequently, the Prince was appointed by the direct intervention of Her Majesty?
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONSir, Prince Louis of Battenberg, as I stated, failed to obtain the usual certificate——
§ MR. PICKERSGILLMay I point out that the noble Lord did not say that?
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONI said that Prince Louis of Battenberg was admitted by the Board of Admiralty of the day without the production of the usual medical certificate——
§ MR. PICKERSGILLThat is quite a different thing.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONAnd that they ordered him to be entered without the production of such certificate. I can only add that the result has been very satisfactory—[An hon. MEMBER: To Prince Louis.]—inasmuch as in the record of his 19 years' service he has performed duties in different parts of the world with better health and with fewer appearances on the sick list than many other officers who obtained health certificates in the ordinary way.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, which it seems impossible to pass by. The hon. Member opposite asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, at the conclusion of his second Question, whether Prince Louis of Battenberg was not appointed "by the direct intervention of Her Majesty." I wish to ask you, Sir, whether a Question of that kind is not grossly out of Order, and utterly at variance with all the Constitutional practice and all the immemorial traditions of the House of Commons, in introducing the name of Her Majesty into debate?
§ MR. SPEAKERUndoubtedly, the latter part of the hon. Member's Ques- 1374 tion was contrary to the established traditions of this House by bringing the name of Her Majesty and the Crown directly into the proceedings of the House in the way he did.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLSir, perhaps I may be permitted to express my great regret for having transgressed what is undoubtedly a Constitutional usage of the House; and I may say that I did not contravene the Rule of this House advisedly, but that I simply spoke on the spur of the moment.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)inquired, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty would furnish to the House the Return of those officers who had been admitted to the Navy without medical certificates being granted?
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONIt would be contrary to the usual Regulation to admit any candidate without a certificate.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)Are only Royal personages permitted to enter the Service without medical certificates?
§ [No reply.]