COURT DEFENDED.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 138, 23 March 1935, Page 5

COURT DEFENDED.

REVERSAL OF THE VERDICT. . • " . ,vV THE HOOD-RENOWN COLLISION. (United Press Association —Copyright). LONDON, March 31. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell, in answer to a Parliamentary question, asid that there were many precedents for the recent course taken by the Board of the Admiralty in reversing the verdict of the naval courtsi-martial. In particular, he referred to the Aduffalty’s dissent from the findings of the courts-martial which acquitted the captains of H.M.S. Conqueror and H.MJS. Howe in 1862 and in 1893. On both occasions the course which the Admiralty had taken was considered by the House of Commons and was approved. On the first, Lord Palmerston, and on the second, Mr Asquith, vindicated with great force the right and duty of the Admiralty, as the authority supremelyresponsible for the safety and discipline of the. Navy, and pronounced their opinion in the matter touching the safety of his Majesty's ships quite apart from any decision which. the courts-martial may Lave -reached. In reviewing the proceedings of the recent courts-martial, the - Admiralty took fully into account the whole evidence, in which both the facts of the case and the contentions of the three officers concerned were perfectly clearly set forth. “I am satisfied that the board’s action was just, was in accordance with precedent, and was required in view of the board’s responsibility to * the Navy and the public,” Sir Bolton concluded.

The Board of the Admiralty, in reversing the decision of the courtsmartial in the Hood-Renown collision case, declared that Rear-Admiral R. E. Bailey could not be acquitted of all blame, and reinstated Captain Saw-, bridge in his command of H.M.S. Renown. The courts-martial verdict had dismissed him from the Renown and declared Rear-Admiral Bailey blameless.