Evening Post. MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1928. NAVAL DISCIPLINE

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 83, 9 April 1928, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1928. NAVAL DISCIPLINE

On the 19th March the King and Queen of Afghanistan were introduced to some of thp glories of the British Navy past and present. King Amanullah, said our report, witnessed 100 years of naval progress to-day, when he visited at Portsmouth first Nelson's flagship, the Victory, and then tho modern battle-cruiser Tiger. Afterwards he made a voyage in' the submarine L 22 to' Southampton, being submerged most of the way. His Majesty was greatly thrilled when he fired a dummy torpedo at a destroyer. For the British people there was more thrill in the news from the Mediterranean Fleet which by an unhappy coincidence was the subject of a statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty on the same day. By the orders of the. Commander-in-Chief the departure of the Fleet from Malta had been postponed, RearAdmiral Collard had struck his flag on the Royal Oak, and the Captain and Commander of the vessel had been relieved of their positions and directed to return to England. As "certain issues important from the point of view of discipline remained" the Board of Admiralty had decided that in the interests of the Service they should be investigated by courtmartial. In due course the venue was laid at Gibraltar and the hearing was fixed for the 31st March. Though the Admiralty had previously denied the rumours that there had been a mutiny or a refusal to sail under Rear-Admiral Collard, the description of the proceedings as "the most dramatic naval trial in a hundred years" recalled X'ague memories of the mutiny at the Nore or even of the court-martial on Admiral Byng. The setting was certainly worthy of something great. Tho scene, said tho Press Association's report, was extraordinarily pieturesquo and impressive. Outside lay tho whole of tho Mediterranean Hoot, riding at anchor in tho Bay of Gibraltar. Within was a Court composed of nino officers, all frock-coated, with epaulettes. Drawing his sword, Commander Daniel surrendered it to tho Court, placing it on tho tablo in front of tho president. In his famous description of the impeachment of Warren Hastings in Westminster Hall Macaulay says that f'the place was worthy of such a trial," and after doing full justice to the bunch of peers and the brilliant audience, he adds, "The culprit was indeed not unworthy of that great presence." Nobody would think of talking in the same way of the proceedings which have just been concluded at Gibraltar. The reference to "the most dramatic naval trial in a hundred years" which seemed in anticipation to emphasise ils importance, serves rather, now that it is all over, to indicate how small it must appear in the perspective of history. The frame was altogether too good for the picture. That imposing bench of nine frock-coated naval officers, with the whole of the Mediterranean Fleet in attendance, seemed to have had nothing to engage its attention that was worthy of the great presence. Could not the washing of all that dirty linen have been accomplished privately before a humbler tribunal without all the pomp and circumstance that have focused the attention of the whole world upon it? Has not a bench of Justices often composed similar quarrels and bound the parties over to keep the peace, or even promoted a settlement without the calling of evidence in public? If the ordinary civil procedure had been applicable to the case, it could at least have been settled without grave scandal, but petty and even childish as the issues may have been intrinsically, it is clear that when the parties were an Admiral on the one side and the Commander and Captain of his flagship on the other, the character of the case was changed to one of supreme importance. The squabbles about the dance and the jazz band and the language attributed to RearrAdmiral Collard had undoubtedly, in the words of Mr. Bridgeraan, raised "certain issues, important from the point of view of discipline." The charges brought against Commander Daniel related to conduct lending "to the prejudice of good order and discipline," and technically it does not appear that there was a defence.to any of them. The report which he had made on the events connected with the departure of Rear-Admiral Collard from the Royal Oak contained criticisms of the Rear-Admiral which were plainly subversive of discipline since they were directed at his superior officer. The public reading in the Royal Oak's wardroom from a document "certain remarks and criticisms on his superior officer's conduct, calculi ated to bring Admiral Collard into contempt," was obviously a still more flagrant breach of the King's Regulations. The substance of both Commander Daniel's and Captain Dewar's defences was that if they had used language calculated to bring Admiral Collard into contempt, he had got no more than he deserved, because all that they had said was true. One of their statements was that he "had used insulting, language in. the pre-

sence of ratings." Obviously such a statement, whether true or not, was calculated to bring their superior officer into contempt, and therefore the truth was no defence. This is the explanation of the singular ruling which the Court gave when the Judge-Advocate objected to the crossexamination of Admiral Collard on the .very matters which had provoked the criticism in question. The Court was cleared to consider the point, and, finally, it was ruled that the questions regarding Admiral Collard's conduct were irrelevant, but admissible. The Judge-Advocate explained that they were only admitted to give tho accused every reasonable latitude. If the questions were irrelevant, they were also inadmissible, but the Court gave a ruling which was really selfcontradictory in order that the accused might get the moral benefit of a defence which was technically no defence. The verdict against both the accused was really a foregone conclusion, since the language they had used was beyond dispute. That there had been a technical offence was virtually admitted by Commander Daniel's counsel in his concluding speech, but he argued that the Commander "had been actuated by his concern for the morale of the ship.' On that ground and because the conr duct of Admiral Collard, which had evidently been highly provocative, ■was beyond review by the Court, a verdict which punishes Commander Daniel and Captain Dewar alone, and punishes them severely, naturally offends pne's sense of justice. British opinion, as summarised by the "Daily Express," seems not unreasonable: (1) The whole incident is discreditable to the naval authorities. Mismanagement that' permitted an impression of mutiny to be created out of a vulgar jazz band squabble deserves the strongest censure, (2) Admiral Collard cannot be acquitted of a share of responsibility for the incident and the consequences. (3) Captain Dewat and Commander Daniel broke the regulations and earned a sentence, but their actions wore' prompted by excessive zeal and loyalty to the personnel, and for that reason their case deserves special consideration. They should be re-em-ployed at an early date.