HC Deb 31 May 1905 vol 147 cc322-5
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty can he explain why the midshipman of His Majesty's ship "Kent" who fired at and wounded his superior officer was allowed to withdraw from the service; was any Court-martial held upon the midshipman in question, or was any punishment inflicted upon him; does the Board of Admiralty hold that in cases where an officer of the Fleet has used a lethal weapon against another officer, the Admiralty have power to dispense with a Court-martial and thus to render impossible the punishment prescribed by the Naval Discipline Act; and, if so, does this apply to men as well as to officers.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty can he state for what reason the midshipman of H.M.S. "Kent," who shot the sub-lieutenant, had been threatened to be cobbed or beaten; was it for a breach of the King's Regulations; had this midshipman ever been cobbed before, and had he been bullied by his fellow officers; was the sub-lieutenant, who was shot, in uniform and in the execution of his office at the time; has he received a hurt certificate; and will he be entitled to any compensation for his wounds.

THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PKETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)

With regard to the hon. Member's two Questions, I have nothing to add to the statements made in the House on May 18th† in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South Donegal, and subsequently in debate.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Do the Admiralty propose to allow officers of the Fleet to fire at and wound superior officers and then be withdrawn from the service without Court-martial? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is destructive of the whole discipline of the Fleet?

MR. PRETYMAN

In this matter there are three parties concerned—the officer injured and his friends, the officer who inflicted the injury and his friends, and the naval service. Neither of the first two parties, I am in a position to state, desires, from their point of view, that this matter should be further dragged before the public. The third interest, and the most important—that of the naval service—has been most carefully † See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 748 considered by the Admiralty, and the action taken has been taken with due regard to the interests of the service. The interests of the service would, in their opinion, suffer and not gain if any further details were dragged before the public.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I really must press this. Is the discipline of the naval service to be subjected to the desires of persons implicated in affairs of this sort?

MR. JOYCE (Limerick)

Why try to hush up the scandal?

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

Does the hon. Member remember that in November last a boy was sentenced to twenty-four strokes of the birch for striking his superior officer? Is there one law for the rich and another for the poor? Is a midshipman to be allowed to shoot his superior officer with impunity while a boy who strikes his officer is punished?

MR. PRETYMAN

A few days ago the hon. Member was justifying this act.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

And I think the Admiralty have justified my action by not bringing up this boy for trial to show what provocation he received.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said that he should put down another Question, and, if he did not get a better Answer, he should take the appropriate course.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether he will put down for to-morrow or to-morrow week the Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty or some other Vote on which I can call attention to the refusal of the Admiralty to explain why they have allowed a midshipman who fired at his superior officer and shot him through the cheek to retire from the service without being Court-martialled?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)

It is generally understood that to-morrow will be devoted to the Local Government Board Vote. The hon. Member had better consult through the usual channels as to the best means of getting the discussion he asks for.