HC Deb 27 November 1906 vol 165 cc1414-6
MR. DALZIEL (Kircaldy Burghs)

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the Admiralty has been drawn to the fact that important questions relating to the antecedents of Lieutenant Collard were ruled out by the court-martial sitting at Portsmouth, and whether the Admiralty consider that the ends of justice can possibly be served by the exclusion of such questions; and what action, if any, the Admiralty propose to take with regard to the sentence of five years penal servitude passed on the prisoner.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

I have received from my hon. friend † See (4) Debates, clxiii., 1098; clxiv., 1482. private notice of this Question. I have also had similar notice from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. In reply to both hon. Members, I have to say that the official Report of the court-martial has not yet reached the Admiralty. It is expected to-day. When it is received it will have to be examined by the Judge-Advocate of the Fleet before it is considered, as it must be considered, by the Board of Admiralty. It will therefore be impossible for me for some days to come to make any statement in regard to what took place before the court-martial or as to the action which the Admiralty propose to take.

MR. DALZIEL

Do I understand the Admiralty recognise that their hands are perfectly free to revise any sentence passed by the court-martial?

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

Yes; that is a matter of course.

MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.)

asked whether the order, "Down on the knee," was printed or published in any of the Admiralty regulations; and if it was not, whether the right hon. Gentleman would order that it should not be given to any man or boy in the Navy. It was an improper order.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

I think I may safely appeal to the House in this matter. Until the judicial proceedings are exhausted, and they are not exhausted yet, any statement that could possibly prejudice them ought to be avoided by me.

MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

asked whether the Admiralty decided the order in which the cases should be tried.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

No, Sir.

MR. J. WARD

It was entirely the court-martial?

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

The proceedings, so far as I know, are in charge of the Judge-Advocate of the Fleet. He has full responsibility for the order of the proceedings.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

asked whether the Admiralty made an order that the men should be tried by court-martial and the officers by a Court of Inquiry.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

No, Sir, that is wholly false. The proceedings began by a Court of Inquiry. There was a Court of Inquiry in the case of the only officer whose conduct was impugned.

MR. DALZIEL

Was that Lieutenant Collard?

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

Yes; there was a Court of Inquiry in the case of Lieutenant Collard.

MR. DALZIEL

What was the result?

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

I cannot say.

MR. DALZIEL

Has it come to a conclusion?

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

That is one of the points on which a pronouncement might be pro judicial to the course of justice.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Lieutenant Collard refused to answer a question on the ground that he was himself under trial. Was he not tried by a Court of Inquiry as distinguished from a court-martial?

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

No, Sir.