§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, I rise to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether a Court-Martial has been held, or whether it is intended to hold a Court-Martial, in the case of any of His Majesty's ships that have been lost during the present war, and, if so, which.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE)My Lords, in reply to the Question of the noble Earl I have to inform him that only one Court-Martial has so far been held in the case of the loss of one of His Majesty's ships—that is, the case of the auxiliary cruiser the "Oceanic," which ran aground early in September on the coast of Scotland. As regards the intention of holding a Court-Martial in the case of any other ship, I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question either in the negative or in the affirmative. The Admiralty are not able to give the noble Earl the information which he desires. I understand that on this occasion the noble Earl does not desire to do what so often happens in the case of Questions in our House—namely, to make this the foundation for further discussion.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNENot to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI gather that he proposes to do so on some future occasion. It may therefore be of some help both to him and to us if I say one or two I words upon the general position taken up by the Admiralty. The noble Earl was quite right on a former occasion in stating that the holding of a Court-Martial in the case of the loss of a ship has been in the past, although not an invariable, vet a general custom in the Navy. It represents, as I understand, rather a custom than a statutory obligation; and it is a custom which, as one looks through the history of the past two hundred years, has somewhat tended to diminish in observance, although its observance has remained general—that is to say, there were very few cases in the eighteenth century when Courts-Martial were not held, and there were rather more in the course of the nineteenth century in which it was not thought necessary to hold a Court-Martial. The Admiralty take the view that the conditions of warfare have changed in many respects so fundamentally that more occasions may now arise in which it is not necessary to hold a Court-Martial than was the case previously. Obviously we cannot look into the minds of our predecessors, and what the view of the Board of Admiralty a hundred years ago would have been in the case of a ship sunk by a mine or by a torpedo from a submarine, it is, of course, entirely impossible to conjecture. The Admiralty regard those changed conditions as in some degree justifying a change of practice. They also, in this present war, lay emphasis on the fact that the holding of Courts-Martial during its continuance would in a great number of cases involve the attendance of a number of officers, some of them very prominent, who are importantly engaged elsewhere; and that is a factor which, as the noble Earl will realise, has become more salient in naval warfare as conducted at present than could have been the case in the past.
The general view which the Admiralty take—and this may be of some assistance to the noble Earl in initiating a future discussion—is that, where there is any question of a failure on the part of an officer to obey orders, to act with due sense of responsibility, or to take proper precautions, or in cases in which misbehaviour on the part of a crew or any portion of it is alleged to have 469 led to disaster, it is advisable that a Court-Martial should be held; but in cases where those considerations do not in any degree arise, speaking generally the Admiralty hold that a Court-Martial may not be necessary. It is important to remember, however, that there are a number of cases, in their opinion, in which Courts of inquiry, as distinct from Courts-Martial, may be held with a view to elucidating the cause, very often the material cause, of particular disasters. And in stating their view that Courts-Martial may not in every case be necessary, the Admiralty desire to emphasise the difference between those Courts and Courts of Inquiry. I do not think that this afternoon there would be any advantage in my pursuing the subject further. Therefore I will leave it there, taking it from the noble Earl that he desires to deal with the subject at some later date.