Hello HMSVF and P Gollin,
To answer Phil's question: because the 1913 version is published online and easily accessible. If you have found a later one please nominate.
Article 703 says a Court (Board) of Inquiry merely allows "a senior officer to reach a correct conclusion about any matter on which he requires to be thoroughly informed,"
going on to say "
OR upon which they may be a question whether it should form the subject of a Court Martial."
So a Court(Board) of Enquiry is not a disciplinary matter as I pointed out above, merely an information gathering exercise.
To HMSVF: Well done in finding the A V Alexander HMS Glorious reference. In fact the matter of whether a Court Martial was required every time a ship was lost was discussed in the House of Lords in 1915 when certain parts of the NDA were being changed. Someone went back through the previous century to show that it was not a requirement. Further, this was pointed out:
It will be remembered that with the exception of the case of the "Oceanic" there have, in fact, been no Courts-Martial in respect of the losses of ships. I am not making and do not intend to make any complaint of that. I think that every one in the country is prepared to support the Admiralty to the utmost, and I can assure the noble Lord that I speak to-night in no spirit of criticism.
Even the idea that a Court Martial was a prosecution of named officers was challenged. Although unlike a Court of Inquiry, it has legal powers to inflict punishment, there is no automatic assumption of
guilt as opposed to ill-fortune in the convening of a Court Martial.
A couple of sentences from this 1915 debate, are most illuminating in the matter of personal courage and willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice. This debate on this website has been couched in terms of comic-book heroic cliches or the ancient "Articles or Warre" in which officers far back in history, living in a different society, had complete disregard for the lives of their crews and were expected by the authorities to expend them with no consideration as to whether results might justify casualties. The same men they might have flogged to death for minor infringement. In 1941 attitudes were different even if a few archaic phrases remained in the revised NDS. A WWII fighter pilot like Sgt Ray Holmes who, after expending his ammunition, deliberately crashed his Hurricane into a Dornier, was bravely risking his own life. But his life only, not hundreds. This is what was said in that 1915 debate:
Another reason that I have seen alleged seems to me also a most inconclusive one. I have seen it said that the apprehension of a Court-Martial would lead officers to "play for safety" and not take risks when in the interests of the Service they ought to take them. I believe that to be a profound misconception. Let us take the case of an officer who is hesitating whether he shall take a risk or not. What is it that makes him hesitate to take it? Not because he is thinking of a Court-Martial when he comes home, but because he is thinking of the precious lives on board his ship, of the value of the ship itself, of the injury to the defences of the Empire if that ship should be lost. Those are the things, if anything, that would make him think twice, and not the fear of being tried by Court-Martial.
This is pointing out that the legal practice of a Court Martial follows the presumption of innocence and therefore should allow an officer to justify his actions. This is a protection against any unfair disciplinary actions which the Board of Admiralty or its officers might undertake at its discretion. Admiral North wanted a Court Martial so the reasons for his dismissal might be examined, but was denied one. As has been pointed out many times if there was even a grain of real suspicion about Wake-Walker or Leach they would have been quietly re-assigned with no need for publicity.
HMSVF you are absolutely correct that the last thing Churchill would have actually wanted was a Court Martial, since its legal status meant keeping things under wraps would be impossible, as it proved eventually in Troubridge's case. The evidence got out and showed his exoneration was warranted, his orders were imprecise, his chance of success minimal and Battenberg's determination to scapegoat him unreasonable. Within months Battenberg was forced to retire (for being German) and Churchill followed (Gallipoli), but Troubridge served on with distinction in Serbia.
HMSVF be aware that A V Alexander was only First Lord of the Admiralty, not First Sea Lord- that was Dudley Pound. He was a Labour (Socialist) politician brought into a Government of national unity replacing WSC when he moved on to PM of that government. As I pointed out in another thread, AVA was not even security cleared to see the contents of the Operations Intelligence Centre at the Admiralty. In the same job before him, Winston interfered with operations over Pound's head, appointed his old WW I cronies like Roger Keyes into positions where they caused mayhem, and generally made a lovable, inspiring, maddening, nuisance of himself. Pound didn't let Alexander go that far, but he couldn't stop PM Winston sticking his nose in and causing trouble, as is clear in this case.
All the best
wadinga