§ 7. Mr. PRINGLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the findings in the inquiries into the losses of convoys in the North Sea?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWith regard to the attack which was made by the enemy on the Scandinavian convoy on the 12th December, 1917, when His Majesty's ship "Partridge" was sunk, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the First Lord gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone yesterday.
As regards the previous attack made by the enemy on the Scandinavian convoy on the 17th October, 1917, when His Majesty's ship "Mary Rose" and His Majesty's ship "Strongbow" were sunk, the position is as follows:—
A court-martial has been held to inquire into the loss of His Majesty's ship "Mary Rose," and the proceedings are now before the Board of Admiralty. The court-martial in the case of His Majesty's ship "Strongbow" was delayed in the hope that the commanding officer would be sufficiently recovered from his wounds to attend. As, however, he is still unable to attend, the court-martial has now been held, and the proceedings have just reached the Admiralty. Until they have been considered, I do not think it would be right to make any further statement, seeing that the two separate courts-martial are so intimately connected and that the evidence of the commanding officer, His Majesty's ship "Strongbow," has not yet been taken. When the pro- 142 ceedings have been considered by the Board in conjunction with the court-martial in the case of His Majesty's ship "Mary Rose," my right hon. Friend will see whether any further statement can be made. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend wishes me to amplify what he said in his statement of the 1st November about the circumstances in which His Majesty's snip "Mary Rose" (the late Lieutenant-Commander Charles L. Fox, R.N., in command) was sunk. The conduct of her officers and crew ware in accordance with the highest traditions of the Service, and they fought a very gallant action.