The Atherstone, Nuneaton, and Warwickshire Times. — 1889-08-24 (Atherstone, Warwickshire, England)

THE LOSS OF H.M.S. SULTAN.  Mr. Ballantine (Covet ;try), in the House of Commons on Tursday lab, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why a court-martial was not held to inquire into the cause of the loss of H.M.S. Sultan, in accordance with sections 91 and 92 of the Naval Discipline Act, and why a court of inquiry was appointed to investigate the question of the responsibility of the commander-in-chief for the loss of the vessel after she had stranded, whereas a court-martial was held to try the captain of the vessel for stranding her; whether it was the fact that naval courts of inquiry had no power either to examine witnesses upon oath or to determine judicially the questions submitted to them, but solely ths power of making a report to' he Admiralty; and whether in the case of the Sultan the report of the court of inquiry concluded the matter.  Mr. Cobb asked whether at the time of the actual loss of the Sultan the officer in command was uot the Duke of Edinburgh, and whether the effect of what bad been done had not been to screen His Royal Highness? Mr. Cossham asked whether it would not be well to put the papers relating to the loss of the Sultan on the table of the House.  Lord G. Hamilton, in reply, said it was not intended to lay the papers on the table, as they had all been already published in the public press. It was not true that any attempt had been made to screen the commander-in-chief, who could not be tried for the loss of the Sultan. The court martial was held upon the captain of the Sultan for the stranding of the ship, and it was therefore not necessary to hold another court martial for the loss of the vessel, the loss being the result of the stranding. The court of inquiry was not held to inquire into the conduct of the commander-in-chief, but to ascertain if every endeavour bad been made to save the ship after che stranded.  Mr. Ballantine asked whether the commanderin-chief was not in command of the Sultan after she stranded.  Lord G. Hamilton : Certainly not. Captain Rice was in command, and the only persons who could be made responsible for the loss were the captain and those on board. Mr. Ballantine : The president of the court said to the captain, " It is necessary to examine into what occurred up to the time when you were relieved by your senior officer, who took charge of the ship" (Hear, hear.) Lord G. Hamilton: That meant that the commander-in-chief superintended the operations, but it would be contrary to precedent to make one man responsible for the acts of another. It is not possible for an admiral to take command of a ship and supersede her captain. In reply to questions from other members, the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Smith) said there had not been a departure from established precedent in communicating to the press reports from the Government which had not been taken by press reporteos in the ordinary way.  Rtn.w.ey ACC/DENTS ni 1888. The general report to the Board of Trade on accidents and collisions on railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1888, shows that the total number killed from all causes was 905, and the total number injured 3,826. Of these, 107 killed and 1,408 injured were passengers, and 396 killed and 2,193 injured were railway officers or servants. Of the passengers only 11 were killed and 594 injured in consequence of accidents to or collisions between trains; the other casualties being attributed to various other causes, and especially to want of caution on the part of the individuals themselves. Of suicides there were 65; trespassers, 230 killed and 114 injured. Fiftythree were killed at level crossings and 24 injured; while from various other causes 54 persons were killed and 87 injured. The proportion of passengers killed was 1 in 6,942,336, and of injured lin 527,577. In 1887 the proportions were 1 in 6,064,000 killed and 1 in 565,667 injured.