NAVAL COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 117, 27 February 1935, Page 5

NAVAL COURT

SEQUEL TO COLLISION. THE RENOWN AND THE HOOD. CHARGE AGAINST AN ADMIRAL. FOUND NOT RESPONSIBLE. EVIDENCE BY THE CAPTAINS'. (United Press Association—Copyright) (Received This Day, 12.25 p.m.) ! LONDON, February 26. Gun-firing from the naval saluting b'attery and the hoisting of a flag on Nelson's, ship, the Victory, heralded ,the courtmartial—as a result of the collision between H.M.S. i Hood and H.M.S. Renown on January 26, during manoeuvres near Gibraltar —of RearAdmiral Bailey and Captain Tower of H.M.S. Hood, and Captain Saubridge of H.M.S. Renown.

Rear-Admiral Bailey was the first Admiral to be court-martialled since the war, and the fourth since 1859. A guard of seamen with a band received the Admirals with due honours Rear-Admiral Troup, prosecuting, said .that Admiral Bailey ordered the Hood and Renown to carry out an inclination exercise, after which the Renown should have taken station astern of the Hood When a signal was made to form line ahead, the Renown was slightly in the lead of the Hood. Admiral Bailey was blaraable because he did not take action to prevent the development of a situation in which there was risk of collision! Captain Saubridge, commander of the Renown, said he received the order to form line ahead when the ships were 300 yards apart, whereupon he ordered the engines' astern. The Renown was not moving at the moment of collision. He expected that the Hood when she made no further signal, would put her wheel over and bring the Renown astern. Captain Tower, commanding the Hood, said that the ships were 1500 yards apart'when the "line ahead" signal Was made. There was ample room for the execution of, the order. Admiral Bailey demonstrated the position of the ships with models. In evidence he said he gave no further signal because it was important to eliminate redundant signals. He expressed the opinion that the Renown was closing because she was reluctant to lose her bearing before it was necessary. There was no reason to suppose that she would not follow the usual procedure as she had twice recently carried it out. "My opinion was that ;she was manoeuvring badlyV' 'saiof Admiral Bailey. "She could not expect the flagship, which was directing the squadron to make way for her. I have captained the Renown and know she is a handy ship. I have since thought over any other signal that might haye been given but could think of none except taking over command of the Renown myself." The Court deliberated for one and a half hours, and when it .reopened, Admiral Bailey on entering saw his sword hilt, facing him/ indicating that he had been acquitted. Rear-Admiral Bailey, who was charged With hazarding the Hood and the Renown negligently cr by default, was found not guilty. Captain Saubridge will be courtmartialled to-morrow.

. ADMIRAL BAILEY ACQUITTED. FIRST OF THREE CASES. (Received This Day, 1.5 p.m.) LONDON, February 26. Rear-Admiral S. R. Bailey was today acquitted by a court-martial at Portsmouth on a charge of hazarding the battle-cruisers Hood and Renown, which came into collision during exercises off the Spanish coast last month. The court-martial was the first of three to be held in accordance with normal procedure following such an accident. The other two, Captain Saubridge, of the Renown, and Captain Tower, of the Hood, will be tried. The Hood is Rear-Admiral Bailey s flagship and at the court-martial today he blamed the Renown for the collision —British Official AVireless.