§ Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was aware that, by a recent Admiralty order concerning the disrating of petty officers, the alleged defaulter is not given an adequate opportunity of defending himself; whether he could see his way to so amend the order that the defence written or signed by the alleged defaulter should accompany the warrant, and that the warrant should not be considered executed until approved by the 2749W Commander-in-Chief; and whether, in view of the fact that the circular letter does not make it clear that all warrants for disrating should be forwarded for approval, and that without this being done the concession granted is not of much value, he would consider the advisability of making a further statement on the subject
§ Mr. McKENNAThe statement that the alleged offender is not given an adequate opportunity of defending himself is incorrect. Moreover the record of the proceedings, which is now kept under the Order referred to in cases of summary disrating, includes a record of the prisoner's defence. The record of the proceedings is signed both by the commanding officer and the executive officer who attends the enquiry, and the signature of the prisoner is not necessary. The proposal that a warrant for the disrating of a petty officer should not be considered executed until approved by the Commander-in-Chief is not considered practicable. All the warrants for summary punishments are forwarded to the Admiralty, where they are closely scrutinised.