HOOD-RENOWN CRASH

Taranaki Daily News, 23 March 1935, Page 9

HOOD-RENOWN CRASH

RESPONSIBILITY OF ADMIRALTY. PRECEDENT FOR REVIEW OF CASE. British Wireless. Rugby, March 21. Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell, First Lord of the Admiralty, in answer to a Pariiamentary question, said there were many precedents, far the recent course taken by the/ jlpard of Admiralty in reversing the verdict of the naval courte-martial concerning the collision between H.M.S. Hood and H.M.S. Renown.

In; particular he referred to the Admiralty’s dissent from the findings of the courts-martial which acquitted the captains of the Conqueror and the Howe in 1862 and 1893. On both occasions the course the Admiralty had taken was considered by the House of' Commons. It was. approved on the first occasion by Lord Palmerston and on file second by Mr. Asquith and vindicated with great force.

It was the right and duty of the Admiralty as the authority supremely responsible for the safety and discipline of the Navy to pronounce its opinion in a matter touching the safety of His Majesty’s ships, quite apart from any decision the courts-martial may have reached.

- “In reviewing the proceedings of the recent courts-martial the Admiralty took fully into account the whole of the evidence in which both the facts of the case and the contentiopns of the three officers concerned were perfectly clearly set forth,” said Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell. "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.”