The Court Martial
MHE only satisfactory thing about the 'Royal Oak' Court Martial is that it did not disclose anything resembling a mutinous act, though the first rumours of trouble by no means neglected to make use of the ugly word" mutiny." The chief public sentiment that remains after the trial—apart from the sympathy with Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel which undoubtedly exists— is that all the hubbub of .the trial was grotesquely dis- proportionate to the offences committed. The perfor- mance of the Marines' band at a dance, the purple hue of the language which Rear-Admiral Collard is said to have employed about this performance, the use of a Jacob's ladder instead of the accommodation ladder and the question whether the ladder should have been lowered -on the starboard or port side—all such small points seemed grotesquely unrelated to the solemnity of a lengthy Court Martial for which manoeuvres at sea had actually to be postponed.
And then the enormous amount of publicity that has been given to the whole affair ! If Admirals were not traditionally allowed some licence in their language— though contrary to all tradition the licence seems to be seldom invoked—there would have been no point in Gilbert's familiar lines :— ‘‘ Bad language or abuse I never, never use,
Whatever the emergency ; Though Bother it ! ' I may Occasionally say, I never use a big, big D."
There was much indeed that would have delighted Gilbert. If anyone had been trying to stage, a new 'Pinafore,' or for that matter, to write a new novel- in the manner of Marryat, he could not have invented a more satisfactory name than Bandmaster Barnacle, whose righteously indignant evidence revealed to the world the fact that having clung to the Navy for seventeen years he at last desired to be detached.
It is difficult to know exactly how to distribute the blame. The Press has been active in distributing a good deal of it, but seems to have forgotten itself. It was the Press that abused Mr. Bridgeman for his reticence and demanded full publicity. "Why this secrecy ? Has not the nationn right to know ? " Now that the nation knnWs the Preis says, ." Why this publicity ? " As regards the blame attributable to the authorities in the Mediterranean it seems to us that it must be confined to blame for referring the social storms in the Royal Oak' to the Admiralty. Not that it is quite enough to say that the application of some cooling draughts of common sense from the local authorities to nerves that were on edge would have spared the Navy the indignity of the Court Martial. As we read the evidence, Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel had made up their minds that a patched-up peace would not serve. They thought, rightly or wrongly, that the conduct, of Rear-Admiral Collard had gone too far for a compromise based on extorted apologies. No one can doubt the zeal of these two officers ; they convinced themselves after due deliberation that they must denounce Admiral Collard's actions and habitual bearing as detri- mental to the efficiency of the ship's company, and they reached the conclusion (which was logical in the circum- stances) that if their dennnciation led to a Court Martial they must bear the brunt of it and submit to a personal sacrifice if necessary. All this does not, however, dispose, so far as we can see, of the possibility of a local inquiry without reference to the Admiralty. If that was possible surely it would have been immensely preferable.
Precisely what the prisoners expected at the worst actually happened. Although public sympathy is strongly with Captain Dewar. and Commander Daniel, the emphasis, the details, the condemnatory adjectives used by Commander Daniel in his letter, and approved .by Captain Dewar obviously exposed them to con- demnation under the King's Regulations. On technical grounds no other result could have been expected, the Regulations being what they are. It must be added, however, that though everyone hopes that the dismissal of Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel from their ship will be succeeded quickly by reappointments, the heaviest penalty of all has fallen upon Rear-Admiral Collard. He was ordered before the_ Court Martial opened to haul down his flag—in other words, he was suspended. The Admiralty has not for many years, we should think, acted so severely withcait a Court Martial, and yet many com- mentators upon the 'Royal Oak' affair have omitted this fact.
Whatever may be thought of the equity of the sentences of the Court Martial the Admiralty is always in reserve as a Court of Appeal. Certainly it does not rehear the evidence but acts secretly; still it can, and often does, drastically correct what it considers to be a miscarriage of justice.
The famous phrase, "a happy ship," connotes unusual difficulties to be overcome. Indeed, there is no possible comparison between life in a regiment and life in a ship. The soldier can escape sometimes from a mess, can dine elsewhere; can visit outside friends, can let off his feelings in hunting or at polo. The sailor is confined for consider- able periods within steel walls. A -code of behaviour, of professional alertness, of interests, even of humour, is insensibly drawn up. Those who are loyal to it make for happiness, and those who are not for disharmony. Even the position of a Captain on board ship is quite unlike that of a Colonel. If all the members of a ship's company are in a way prisoners for long spells he is the chief prisoner. Custom prevents him from mingling with his junior officers in the Ward Room unless he is invited. . If loneliness is distasteful to him he can avoid it only by entertaining officers in his cabin. As for an Admiral in a flagship he strictly has nothing to do with the conduct of the ship. If he tried to " run " the ship he would be guilty , of interference. The wonder is that in social cominunities of such artificial construction the outbreaks of strife are rare. The explanation is that pride in the smooth working of the Service and the high quality of comradeship are usually enough. And this explanation in itself is one of the reasons why we are all proud of the Navy.
If the trial indicates anything .necessary to be done it indicates a rewriting of some of the Regulations. .Article VII. warns officers against the offence of abusive and irritating. language, especially to inferiors. Article IX. says that if an officer suffers oppression or other ill- treatment from a senior he may ,state his case to the Captain of the ship, or subsequently, if necessary, to the commanding officer of the squadron or the Commander- in-Chief, and finally, even to the Secretary of the Admiralty. This article, however, goes on to say that frivolous complaints, and such as are contrary to the Regulations or subversive to discipline, are to be checked." Article X. says that if a letter of complaint is received by a Captain with a request that he will forward it to a superior the Captain is to deal with the letter as seems best in the interests of the Service. Article XI. says that every officer is" to refrain from making remarks or passing criticisms on the conduct or orders, of his superiors which may tend to bring them into contempt."
It will be seen that on a literal interpretation of these Regulations permission to make a complaint about any- thing but the -most serious kind of offence is no sooner -given than it is' withdrawn. When Commander Daniel read his letter to the officers of the Ward Room (in order, as he says, merely' to have it verified and to collect 'witnesses who would swear that what he said was true) he Was technically guilty of bringing 'the Rear-Admiral into contempt." There is contradiction and Confusion there: •So again in the case of Captain: Dewar. He was held guilty of having forwarded a letter, the terms of which were " subversive to discipline," and yet he was acquitted on the second charge of having accepted and forwarded a letter contrary to the King's Regulations and Admiralty -Instructions in that it contained "remarks and criticisms on the conduct of a• superior officer." Contradiction and confusion again ! The right of officers to complain of -Admiral Collard was never in dispute. The trial turned upon -whether their procedure was the proper one. It -seems to us that the Regulations give very poor guidance indeed as to the proper procedure;' and if the House of Commons carries the subject further it would do well to 'concentrate upon the desirability of rewriting the Articles 'from which we have quoted.
Previous page
