HC Deb 20 March 1896 vol 38 cc1456-7
MR. C. HARRISON (Plymouth)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Board of Admiralty will alter the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, 1893, as regards Article 633, Sub-sections 3 and 6, so as to assimilate the procedure in Naval courts-martial to the procedure contained in Articles 82, 87, 88c, 90 and 92 of the Army Regulations, 1893, which altered the procedure of Military courts-martial then similar to the procedure under the Admiralty Regulations now in force, and thus allow in future at Naval courts-martial a prisoner's friend, counsel, or solicitor, to address the Court direct, and to put questions to the witnesses direct; and, whether the Government will introduce a Bill to repeal or amend Section 60 of The Naval Discipline Act, 1866, and substitute a provision similar to Section 70 of the Army Act, 1881, to enable the Board of Admiralty to make provisions as to the matters (a), (b), (c), and (d) in Section 70, and by Regulations to be framed there under, confer on Naval courts-martial the same powers of adjournment as are now conferred on Military courts-martial under Article 65 of the Army Regulations, 1893?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,) Hanover Square

It is not proposed to alter Article 633 of the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions in the sense suggested by the hon. Member. The question of conferring on Naval courts-martial certain powers of adjournment was considered when the present Regulations were framed. No sufficient reasons have as yet come before me for the introduction of a Bill to amend Section 60 of the Naval Discipline Act.