§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the attention of the Admiralty has been called to the case of an able seaman named William Collision, who has been sentenced by a Court to nine months' imprisonment for striking a ship's corporal; whether, considering that the offence of Collision was analogous to those for which Endersby and Quinn have been sentenced to penal servitude, the Admiralty will remit a still further term of the punishment assigned to those men; and, whether, pending further legislation, the Admiralty will take steps to prevent sentences of penal servitude being passed by Naval Courts Martial for assaults on superiors committed without intention of or not involving grievous bodily harm or other circumstances of exceptional gravity?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANSir, the hon. Member speaks of the offences committed by the three seamen named in his Question as being "analogous" to each other. They were, no doubt, analogous in the sense that they were all cases of striking a superior officer; but I need hardly point out to my hon. Friend that offences so described may differ widely in their circumstances and in the degree of punishment they deserve. The court martial in Collision's case appear to have considered that for his offence he would be adequately punished by nine months' imprisonment. It is not the intention of the Admiralty to interfere with naval courts martial as suggested in the Question.
§ MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the Government would grant a Return of the number of officers in prison for in-subordination?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in reply, said, that he imagined there would be no objection to giving a Return, but as it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this year to amend the Naval Discipline Act, an opportunity would thereby be afforded of discussing the subject.