§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how far the Greenwich Pension Fund is available for the widows and orphans of those who were lost in H.M.S. Victoria?
§ MR. E. ROBERTSONThe funds of the Greenwich Hospital are bound to provide widows' pensions of from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. per week, and allowances to each child depending on the mother at the rate of 1s. 6d. per week. These rates were fixed as a result of the Report of the Pensions Committee, which expressly stated that the fixing of the rates was not intended to check the flow of public benevolence in this direction. Eventually, many of the orphans will be provided for in schools or homes at the expense of the Greenwich Hospital Fund.
§ LORD G. HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing)Can the Secretary to the Admiralty give any further information in regard to the disaster?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHI am afraid there is very little further information to give to the House. We have some reason to hope, from a telegram from Colonel Trotter, the Consul at Tripoli, and from some other information that we have, that the number of men drowned is considerably less than was at first anticipated. It is thought that a considerable number of men did not happen to be on board the Victoria when she went down, but that they had been lent to other ships. Colonel Trotter telegraphs that 22 officers and 58 338 men were drowned and 29 officers and 281 men were saved. We have two telegrams from Admiral Markham, in one of which he corrects a name which has previously appeared—
With reference to ray telegram No. 22, for Osborne substitute Osmond. Written report sent to Port Said for mail.The last telegram is with respect to the condition of the Camperdown. It says—All compartments dry abaft bulkhead A with exception of carpenters' store-room. Ship dry below armour.I am afraid that is all the information that we have.
§ MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)May I ask whether the Government intend to keep the sister ship of the Victoria, the Sanspareil, in commission, or whether they intend to have the vessel home, in order that a Committee of experts may consider the construction of the vessel to ascertain the causes of the disaster, so as to prevent anything of the kind recurring?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHPerhaps the House will allow me strongly to deprecate such questions. I would repeat what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, said on Friday night, that the time has scarcely come when these matters can be discussed.
§ MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONIs it the intention to keep the sister ship in commission?
§ [No answer was given to the question.]
ADMIRAL FIELDI desire to ask whether, as the allotments fall due, they will be paid to the seamen's widows and families, as was done in the case of the Captain, so that none should suffer?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHThat subject has already been before the Admiralty, and steps have been taken in that direction with the view to following, as far as possible, the precedent in the case of H.M.S. Serpent.
§ MR. KEARLEYMay I ask whether it is not the fact that the Admiralty may exceed the rates which have been mentioned in cases needing special relief?
§ MR. E. ROBERTSONYes; my hon. Friend is quite right.