HOOD-RENOWN VERDICTS

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 March 1935, Page 7

HOOD-RENOWN VERDICTS

FIRST LORD’S DEFENCE.

[BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.]

RUGBY. March 21.

Sir B. Eyres-Monsell, in answer to a Parliamentary question said there were many precedents for the recent course taken by the Board of Admiralty in reversing the verdict of the Naval Courts-martial. . In particular, he referred to the Admirafty’s dissent from the findings of the Courts-martial which acquitted the captains of the Conquerer and Howe in 1862 and 1593. “On both occasions, the course which the Admiralty had taken was considered by the House of Commons and approved,” he said. 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 supremely responsible for the safety* and discipline of the navy, to pronounce their opinion in a matter touching the safety of His Majesty’s ships, quite apart from any decision which the courts-martial may have reached. In reviewing the proceedings at 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 the Board’s action was just and was in accordance with the precedent, and was required in view of the Board’s responsibility to the navy and the public.”