MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the grounds on which the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have arrived at the conclusion stated in their Memorandum on the Victoria Court Martial, that— 342
The Rear Admiral's belief that the Commander-in-Chief would circle round him was not warranted by the proper interpretation of the signal;whether the signal in question was a usual signal or a novel one; whether it was susceptible of more than one interpretation; and whether the Lords of the Admiralty propose to allow the same signal to be used in future in like circumstances?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHThe House will scarcely expect me, in answer to a question, to enter upon so technical a subject as the reasons why a signal is not open to certain interpretation. There is no such signal in the Signal Book, as the hon. Member's question might lead the House to suppose. The signal made by the late Commander-in-Chief was composed of two separate signals—one addressed to the First Division to turn in succession 16 points to port, the other addressed to the Second Division to turn in succession 16 points to starboard. The signals are necessary and proper ones, and will certainly remain in the book. There is no reasonable possibility of the same manœuvre ever again being ordered by an officer commanding a squadron when columns are too close to each other.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESHas the right hon. Gentleman given the House the whole of the signal? As a matter of fact, in addition to the words quoted, did the signal not conclude with the words "preserving the order of the Fleet"?
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESBut do not the words "preserving the order of the Fleet" govern the whole signal, and absolutely invalidate the contention made in the Minute that the interpretation given by Admiral Markham was wrong, whereas, on the contrary, it was right?
§ [No answer was given.]