§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the powers of the Board of Admiralty, with reference to the review or revision of the proceedings and sentences of the recent courts martial, extend not merely to the cancelling or reduction of sentences, but to the expression of opinion in the case of findings or of sentences which seem under all the circumstances to be unsatisfactory; are there any instances of expressions of opinion on the part of the Board of the unsatisfactory character of findings of courts martial or of sentences, and of action taken by the Board in consequence.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONThe powers of the Admiralty in relation to courts martial are defined by Section 53 of the Naval Discipline Act. As regards the second part of the Question, there have been several occasions on which the Admiralty have criticised the findings of a Court.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the memorandum of the Board of Admiralty, whose issue with reference to the recent courts martial at Portsmouth has been promised, will be the work of the Naval Lords, who do not vacate office with a change of administration, or will likewise be the work of the First Lord of the Admiralty and of the Civil Lord; whether the Secretary to the Admiralty is himself a member of the Board of Admiralty, and has he a consultative voice, as of right, at Board meetings; whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has a supreme authority at the Board of Admiralty or a mere co-ordinate authority, and, in the event of differences of opinion arising between him and the Naval Lords with reference to the terms and conclusions of the memorandum, is his opinion controlling and decisive; and on whom will the responsibility to Parliament and the 119 liability to Parliamentary criticism appertain for this memorandum, and will it be published before the prorogation of Parliament.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONAdmiralty Minutes issued in the name of the Board are the work of the Board collectively, including the secretaries. The position of the First Lord in relation to Parliament and to his colleagues is defined by Order in Council of the 10th August, 1904.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLBut surely the First Lord is supreme. He is responsible to this House, and his opinion should prevail over that of his colleagues.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty, in considering the memorandum with reference to the naval courts martial, will have regard to the fact that nine stokers were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, amounting in the aggregate to nine years, seven months, and eleven days, in consequence of a disturbance originating by the giving of the on-the-knee order, which is not permissible if given as a punishment, but which is permissible as a disciplinary measure; and whether, owing to the difficulty of making a distinction between a punishment and a disciplinary measure, the Board will consider the propriety of the abolition of the on-the-knee order in all cases except for She purposes of instruction or drill.
I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the on-the-knee order, formerly given to delinquents at the Bar of the House of Commons, was abolished by a Standing Order of this House so far back as 1772; and whether the Board of Admiralty will consider the propriety of incorporating a similar order in the King's Naval Regulations.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONBoth these Questions raise points which will be dealt with in the Admiralty Minute, the contents of which I am unable to anticipate.
§ MR. JOHN WARD (Stoke on-Trent)May I ask whether, in view of the unsatisfactory decisions of naval courts 120 martial, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of introducing a civil legal element?
§ *MR. SPEAKERNotice should be given of such a Question.