MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty has he now received the further particulars required to complete the Report called for on 11th May as to the firing away, on 29th April last, in two hours, by eight battleships of the Mediterranean Fleet, of 10,513 rounds of ammunition, valued at £875, at ranges from 600 to 1,800 yards; is he aware that the whole practice took place at over 1,800 yards, and that at that distance it is impossible to see the splash of a one-inch rifle bullet in the water; that there was no marking in respect of 9,615 rounds out of the 10,513, and that it was consequently of no utility in improving marksmanship. In what respects did this practice depart from the Admiralty regulation that the attainment of good shooting and proficiency in gunnery are always to be considered as taking precedence over all other duties. Is the Report already received one made by the Commander-in-Chief himself on his own action in ordering this practice, and have the Admiralty called for or received any 1168 other Report or statement thereon from any gunnery or other officer. Why is it that up to 18th May some of the battleships and first-class cruisers in this fleet had only had three half-days gunnery practice since 1st January, and that one ship had not had that; and has any explanation of this been called for from the Commander-in-Chief; and, in view of the practice that the reasons of failure in gunnery practice are considered by the Admiralty, and such steps taken with regard to the individual officers concerned as in the opinion of the Admiralty are required, what steps have been taken in the case of this individual officer.
§ *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.As I informed my hon. friend on the 9th June, † the Commander-in-Chief has been asked to furnish a further Report with regard to some details of the firing on the occasion referred to. This Report has not yet been received, and until it is received I am unable to state to what extent, if at all, the practice failed to conform to the Admiralty regulations, or what were the reasons which led the Commander-in-Chief to vary the regulation practice, if any such variation occurred. The Report which has been received is from the Commander-in-Chief, and contains the details as to the number of rounds fired and other particulars, which I have already communicated to the House. No Report from any subordinate officer has been called for. The information which the hon. Member seeks in the last paragraph of his Question will not reach the Admiralty until the half-yearly Returns of Progress in Gunnery are sent in. If, when they are received, it be found necessary to take any special action, the Board of Admiralty will take such action in the way, and at the time, which they consider most advantageous to the interests of the Service. I venture to think that it is not desirable that every exercise of the discretion of the Board in respect of any particular ship or officer should be made the subject of Question and Answer in the House of Commons. The action of the Board in this, and in other matters concerning
† See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 324.1169 the discipline and order of the Fleet must, I submit, be judged as a whole, and, as long as the Board retains the confidence of Parliament, it must be trusted to exercise the discretion which is conferred upon it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESDoes the hon. Gentleman hold that no Questions should be asked in this House as to the exercise of the discretion of the Board?
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThat is not the point, I suggest that no Question should be asked as to a particular officer with regard to a hypothetical punishment, and in respect of a contingency which has not yet occurred.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe hon. Member asks "in view of the practice that the reasons of failure in gunnery practice are considered by the Admiralty, and such steps taken with regard to the individual officers concerned as, in the opinion of the Admiralty, are required, what steps have been taken in the case of this individual officer." That Question is directed to ascertaining whether any offence has been committed by an individual officer, and whether, if so, any particular action is necessary, and I say that no such contingency has arisen.