§ 5. Sir R. COOPERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say what circumstances determined him not to hold a public inquiry into the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire"?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAAs the matter was fully investigated by the Court of Inquiry, no sufficient reason existed for holding a second inquiry.
§ Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUXIs it not the case that when a naval Court of Inquiry is held that the witnesses are never put on oath?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat is, I believe, the case.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWould only naval witnesses attend this inquiry; was there any evidence taken from civilians?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe inquiry took place under circumstances which I have already described.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI could not say offhand.
§ 6. Sir R. COOPERasked if a properly constituted inquiry into the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire" was held; and, if so, was evidence taken on oath?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
§ 7. Sir R. COOPERasked whether the official announcement on the part of the Admiralty, that it had now been established that the "Hampshire" struck a mine, was intended to convey the information that the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet endorsed this belief, seeing that the announcement referred to a further Report from the Commander-in-Chief?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes, Sir.
§ Sir R. COOPERCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commander-in-Chief, at the time he expressed his opinion, was aware of the condition of the bodies that had been recovered?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI cannot say.
§ Sir R. COOPERWill the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and let us know?