§ 55. Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why a letter has been sent by the Deputy-Secretary to the Admiralty to certain persons regarding the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire," asking for further information, in view of the repeated official statements that a full inquiry had been held and that all available information had been published 10 years ago?
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman)If the letter referred to is the one published in the "Referee," of 27th June, it was addressed to one survivor only, in consequence of the publication of a narrative attributed to him by name, which contained a number of fresh assertions directly contrary to his evidence in 1916, including an assertion that "after the accident he saw Lord Kitchener leave the "Hampshire" in a boat. As a result the Admiralty have now satisfied themselves that this survivor did not see Lord Kitchener in a boat and has never either said or written that he saw him in a boat, but that this and the other fresh assertions have been interpolated in his narrative without his authority.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURMay I ask, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has enabled such in investigation to be made concerning this particular case, is it not a sufficient warrant for now pursuing the information which can be given by these survivors as asked for in that particular letter from the men, who are prepared to give evidence before a public inquiry?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANJudged by the result of the inquiry, I should have thought it better not to pursue it any more. If the hon. Gentleman will take the responsibility for the genuineness of this published statement, perhaps he will let me see the original. If not, of course he must accept the decision which we have arrived at after very careful consideration and investigation.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURIf, as I believe, the original letter can be produced signed by Sir Charles Walker—
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThat is not the original letter. There is no doubt about that.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURIf there is no doubt about the letter, I am asking, in view of what has been requested in that letter, of which there is no doubt, will the right hon. Gentleman now proceed with the public inquiry and investigate the situation as a whole?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANNo, Sir, that is not the letter to which I referred. There is no question about that letter. The question is about the genuineness of the 1338 letter for which I understand the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take the responsibility himself.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI am not evading responsibility for this letter. It is signed by Sir Charles Walker, which is the name I gave in my question, but it has been altered at the Table. I am still sticking to what I asked for, and I am asking, as you have acknowledged the originality of the letter, will you now proceed with a fuller investigation?
§ Commander BELLAIRSIs it the contention of the Admiralty, as stated in the answer, that all the available information was published 10 years ago?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANAll information on all important points Ms been already published.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURThat is an evasion again.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThere is no earthly reason why I should evade it, because I was not responsible. Lord Kitchener was a personal friend of mine, and anything that would help his memory in any way I should be only too glad to pursue. The publication to which the hon. Member refers contains a series of misrepresentations, and I am not prepared to have an inquiry into them.
§ Mr. KIRKW00D rose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member wishes to pursue this question further, he might do so on the Motion for the Adjournment.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI will give notice to that effect.