MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why was the Memorandum, dated 16th September, 1902, concerning the entry and training of officers and men of the Royal Navy, signed by one alone of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, viz., by the First Lord of the Admiralty; did all the other members of the Board of Admiralty concur in the decisions and determinations therein announced, and especially did all the Naval Lords so concur; and, in view of the fact that alterations in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions are usually promulgated by command of their Lordships of the Board, and by the Secretary to the Admiralty, why was the signature of the Secretary on this occasion omitted.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe Memorandum in question was signed by the First Lord in accordance with precedent, which does not require that such documents should be signed by all the; members of the Board. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative. The Board of Admiralty works, and has 848 always worked, on the system of joint responsibility in the same manner as the Cabinet. The changes affecting officers were promulgated to the Fleet in a circular letter dated 19th December, which was signed by the Secretary as usual. The actual alterations in the King's Regulations will be embodied in the Addenda for the current year, and the usual notice will be promulgated to the Fleet in due course.