§ 5. Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain the discrepancies between the official Return published on 17th January of British vessels sunk during the week ending midnight 12th January, namely, six vessels of 1,600 tons gross register or over, including one vessel sunk during the week ending 22nd December and one during the weak ending 5th January, and the much larger number of vessels sunk reported to underwriters during the week ending midnight 12th January?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe official Weekly Return is made up on Wednesday morning, and includes reports received up to that time of ships actually sunk during the week ending midnight on the previous Saturday. It is understood that reports are entered in Lloyd's Loss Book under the date of their receipt and not under the actual date of loss.
During the week ending midnight 12th January twelve ships over 1,600 gross tons were reported to Lloyd's by the Admiralty as sunk by submarine or mine, and these would appear on the Loss Book at Lloyd's during that week. Six of these ships were actually sunk during the week ending midnight 5th January, and were included in that week's official Return. The remaining six were included in the Return for the week ending midnight 12th January.
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs my right hon. Friend aware that sixteen and not twelve ships were reported; and, in this connection, may I ask whether it is the Admiralty who has inspired or is responsible for the attempt by certain authorities to suppress the sources of my information?
§ Sir CHARLES HENRYWould my right hon. Friend make arrangements so that the reports issued on Thursday morning and those issued by Lloyd's may be in agreement?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI will have the last-mentioned point looked into. If my hon. Friend will give me the facts concerning his last statement, I will investigate the matter. As regards the hon. Gentleman's former statement, he says the number is not twelve but sixteen. That may very well be the case, and this may be the explanation. Lloyd's is closed, I understand, from midday on Saturday to 10 a.m. on Monday, so that additional ships reported to Lloyd's on the afternoon of Saturday, 960 5th January, would not appear in the list until Monday, 7th January, but those ships would be in the current return of the Admiralty. My hon. Friend, seeing them in the Monday list of Lloyd's, would expect to find them in the list, but they had already appeared.
§ Mr. HOUSTONMy right hon. Friend is quite aware that I cannot at this time discuss the modus operandi in connection with his invitation, but as regards the other part of my question I propose to deal directly with the Prime Minister.
§ Dr. MACNAMARACertainly.
§ Mr. HOGGEWill my right hon. Friend not deal with the public directly instead of with people who have special information? If it is true that sixteen vessels were sunk in that week why were we told officially that there were only six?
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo, no. With great respect I submit that my hon. Friend is quite wrong. I explained that sixteen may have appeared in Lloyd's List, but if we sent them down on Saturday they would not get them till the following Monday, and my hon. Friend would not be aware that they had been in our Return for the previous week.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIf they have not already been in they will be, but a number of those of which my hon. Friend speaks have been in the week before, and my hon. Friend is dealing with those which have been in the week before, and he is not aware of it.
§ 6. Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a refrigerated steamer was torpedoed in the early morning of the 20th instant at about the same place and about the same hour as a steamer belonging to the same owner was torpedoed on Christmas Day; whether the first of these steamers was under escort or Admiralty protection at the time she was torpedoed; and, if so, what was the nature or description of the protection?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." The vessel was not under escort.
§ Mr. HOUSTONSeeing that during the last month a large number of ships have been sunk at this spot will the Admiralty consider the alteration of their policy of 961 instructing shipmasters from various ports to converge on this spot and thus fall right into the submarine, and can the right hon. Gentleman explain why that submarine has not been dealt with during the last few weeks?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI cannot explain why a submarine has not been dealt with. As regards the former point, I have already invited my hon. Friend, if he has information about the convoys or any views on that question, to be so good as to place it before the Admiralty.
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have complied with that invitation in a communication in which I filled about ten pages of letter paper?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am very glad to hear it and to know that my hon. Friend did accept my invitation.
§ 7. Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to the loss of a steamer which sailed from Liverpool on or about 15th December for Waterford and the loss of a steamer which sailed from Waterford on or about 17th December for Liverpool, together with the loss of all lives on board both ships; whether these vessels were escorted or in any way protected by the Admiralty; if so, what was the nature and description of the protection; and will he state the total number of lives lost on both vessels?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWe have no information respecting the loss of these ships, except this, that one of the boats and part of another of the boats of one of the ships in question have been washed ashore. My hon. Friend is probably aware that the weather about that time off that coast was very bad. The vessels were not under escort. We have no information as to the numbers forming the crews of these vessels.
§ Mr. HOUSTONDo not you know the number of lives lost? Cannot you communicate with the owners and make inquiries?
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo; I can make inquiries, as my hon. Friend can.
§ Mr. HOUSTONI know them.
§ Mr. HOGGEMay I ask whether it is a fact that a large number of children were lost by the sinking of these vessels?
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo; I cannot say. I should require notice of that question.
§ 8. Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the official lists giving the sinkings by the enemy of British vessels of 1,600 tons gross register and over, regularly published by the Press Bureau weekly, after readjustment or correction, show a total number of sinkings for the twenty weeks ending 12th January substantially less than those reported sunk in the underwriters' room during the same period; and whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIf in this question my hon. Friend refers to submarine sinkings, he will see that I have already answered it in anticipation in the reply I gave to his question No. 5.
§ Mr. HOUSTONCannot the right hon. Gentleman account for the discrepancy?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have tried to explain that, looking at Lloyd's List for a particular week and comparing it with our Return, proves nothing at all, because some of the ships in the list have already been in our Return.
§ Mr. HOUSTONDoes not the right hon. Gentleman grasp the question? Does he recognise that it refers to the total for twenty weeks?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWhat is true of one week would probably be true of twenty weeks.. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
§ 9. Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make any statement regarding the sinking by enemy operation of a steamship in the mouth of the Mersey on the morning of 28th December, with the loss of forty-two lives out of the forty-three on hoard, including some nineteen pilots and a number of apprentices?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThis vessel, I regret to say, struck a mine which, no doubt, was laid on the same night a few hours prior to the loss. Our record shows that two were saved out of forty-three, which included sixteen pilots.
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the evidence of men who were in a vessel close alongside is that it was torpedoed and not mined; and, in this connection, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that one of these pilots, 963 Mr. Alfred Davies, was rescued and died in hospital and had a military funeral accorded to him so as to suppress—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must give notice of that question.
§ 10. Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the three large steamers, the names of which have been given to him, have been included in the official list of sinkings; and, if so, on what date?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes, Sir. The vessels were included in the Return for the week in which these ships were sunk, the week ending 5th January, 1918.
§ Mr. HOUSTONHas not the hon. Gentleman already informed us in this House that this class of vessel is not included in the sinkings?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThese vessels were sunk.
§ 11. Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total number of lives lost on the two steamers sunk by enemy operation in the Mediterranean on or about 31st December last?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI greatly regret to say that in one case the losses are approximately 484; in the other case, approximately 224. I should explain to my hon. Friend that the public notification of the losses of these vessels is being delayed until all the relatives have been notified. This course has been adopted because we found that notification in the Press immediately upon the loss gave rise to the greatest anxiety amongst members of the community who, from the area in which their relatives were serving, were left in doubt as to whether members of their family circle might not be amongst those lost.