§ MR. BELLAIRS (Lynn Regis)To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the name and class of any ship lost since the passing of the Naval Discipline Act in 1866, when the custom of the Navy to hold a court-martial, as laid down ill Article 91 of the Naval Discipline Act, was not carried out, giving only the cases where there were survivors on whom to hold a court-martial, together with the rank of the senior survivors.
(Answered by MR. Lambert.) The only exceptions to the custom referred to have been the "Fanny," coastguard cruiser, 439 and the "Ariel," torpedo-boat destroyer. In the latter case a court of inquiry was held. The senior survivor of the "Fanny" was the chief quartermaster and of the "Ariel" the lieutenant in command.
§ MR. BELLAIRSTo ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that Parliament in 1866 passed the Naval Discipline Act for the government of the Navy; whether he is aware that Article 91 refers to a ship being deemed to remain in commission after she has been lost, wrecked, or destroyed until a court-martial shall have been held pursuant to the custom of the Navy in such cases to inquire into the cause of the wreck, loss, destruction, or capture of the said ship; and whether this article, together with Articles 92 and 93, providing for the trial of the whole of the surviving officers and crew by one or more courts-martial have been interpreted for many succeeding years to uphold the past custom of the Navy invariably to convene a court-martial when a ship is lost.
(Answered by Mr. Lambert.) Section 91 of the Act is not correctly quoted in the Question. The section contains an alternative. The ship is to remain in commission until either the crew shall be regularly removed into some other of His Majesty's ships or a court-martial shall have been held, pursuant to the custom of the Navy, to inquire into the cause of the wreck, loss, destruction, or capture. It has not been the invariable custom to convene a court-martial when a ship is lost, but there have been only two exceptions since the passing of the Act.
§ MR. BELLAIRSTo ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that an Order in Council has been drawn up, revising all existing regulations as to naval courts-martial, and to come into operation on 1st April, 1908; whether he is aware that Article 663 in the proposed Order in Council lays down the duties of the officer convening the court and orders that he is not to convene a court-martial until he has satisfied himself that the evidence, if uncontradicted or unexplained, will probably suffice to insure a conviction; and whether, seeing that this provision contravenes Article 92 of the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, providing that where no specific charge shall 440 be made against any officer, or seaman, or other person in the fleet for or in respect of the wreck, loss, destruction, or capture of his ship, it shall be lawful to try all the officers and crew, or all the surviving officers and crew, of any such ship, he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter in order to safeguard the principle of holding a court-martial whenever a ship is lost or surrendered.
(Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The 663rd Article is not correctly quoted, the first and governing words being omitted, viz., "When it is proposed to try a person on any charge." The Article does not deal in any way with trials under Section 92 of the Naval Discipline Act, of which the first and governing words are "When no specific charge shall be made against any officer or seaman, etc." The 663rd Article in no way contravenes Article 92 of the Naval Discipline Act. The two deal with different subjects.