LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE."

HC Deb 19 July 1926 vol 198 cc994-1010

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Bowyer.]

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

in accordance with arrangements made with the First Lord of the Admiralty, I propose to raise to-night the question of the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire." In answer to a question in this house On 1st July by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that information on all important points concerning the "Hampshire" had already been published. I wish to quote a letter which was referred to on that occasion. It is a letter dated 17th June, and addressed to Stoker F. Lot Sims, of London: The Admiralty are inquiring into the circumstances connected with the loss of H.M.S. "Hampshire" in June, 1916, and desire to avail themselves of your recollection of such facts as Came within your experience. 2. Their Lordships would he glad, therefore, if you would attend at the Admiralty (Naval Law Branch), Whitehall, at an early date. in order that this matter may he discussed with y011. It would be of advantage if, in replying to this letter, you could suggest a time. convenient to yourself. By command of their Lordships, CHARLES WALKER. On the 14th May, Mr. W. Wesson, of Portsmouth, was written to: The attention of the Admiralty has been called to an article which appeared in a newspaper called the 'Referee' on Sunday, 22nd November last, in regard to the loss of H.M.S. 'Hampshire,' and which included a description referred to as the personal story of one of the survivors.' (See extract enclosed.) It appears from the wording of this personal story that it is based on an account you gave in June, 1916, of your experiences on the occasion of the wreck, and of which the Admiralty received a copy at the time, but that the account has been altered and garbled to suit the purposes of the newspaper. In particular the last sentence in the version printed in the 'Referee,' viz.: At least 200 men must have got safely off the vessel and reached the shore, and I fully expected Lord Kitchener to have been among them,' does not appear at all in the account you gave in 1916, and the Admiralty would be glad to know whether this particular sentence is based on any statement that you have since made to the Referee ' or to any other person. That is signed by "0. Murray." Both these letters are proofs of the fact that the Admiralty, as represented by the right hon. Gentleman, has been pursuing investigations, although it was definitely stated on the 1st of July that all important information had been given. Both those letters prove that this quesion, instead of being set aside as something of no consequence, was being followed up in the way I have shown. The reason the Admiralty did not receive the answers that might have been expected was clue to the fact that the letter was addressed to the party named on the assumption that they were particulars of survivors who had given records of their knowledge and who, if they were provided with the opportunity we have been asking for along with other survivors of appearing in a public inquiry would have been able to present substantial evidence bearing on most important points, some of which I will enumerate. First of all there were the points: (1) What was the course of action taken by Colonel Harris, who was commander of the troops in Orkney on the night of the wreck, and what orders were given with a view to rescue operations? (2) Was the Colonel before leaving questioned on above point and with what result? (3) Why has Lieutenant Vance of the Glasgow Police Force riot been questioned as to his reports expressing dissatisfaction with the orders given in the matter of rescue operations?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman)

Would the hon. Member mind saying what that report is, and what is the date of it?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I have not the date, and we want to find out.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman what is this report he is quoting, and will he give the date of it?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I am not quoting from it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Then what the hon. Member is saying now is not a quotation, but an idea out of his own head.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I am asking why was Lieutenant Vance not consulted on these reports. The Admiralty have disputed any knowledge of these reports, but evidence will be brought before the inquiry we are urging in the public interest to show that Lieutenant Vance did submit such reports, and that such reports had in them a reference to dissatisfaction with the rescue operations. (4) Why have the messages sent between the shore and Flag-Captain Allen not been published: (5) There should be made known the exact number and class of vessel which the Parliamentary Secretary stated were seat out from Stromness within half-an-hour of the wreck. He mentioned a destroyer and other craft. One yacht was observed 24 hours there after eight miles away from the shore. (6) Why was the rocket apparatus not used, and what were the provisions for medical attendance? (7) Was there no evidence of internal treachery? The "Daily Express" of 17th April reported that In view of recent statements regarding circumstances in which Lord Kitchener lost his life, the Government have decided to prepare a full statement of official information on the subject. The task is already in hand at the Admiralty, and Members of Parliament, including Sir Newton Moore, who have been pressing for a full narrative have been asked to take no further steps for the time being in view of this decision. This is confirmed by Mr. le Maitre, Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty. We have a further confirmation of these facts in the statements which have been presented not only through the columns of that particular paper, but also from public platforms all over the country, and particularly in the City of London, when several Members of the House of Commons were present, and where the survivors themselves put in an appearance, those survivors being invited to come forward under the conditions of a public inquiry to give every information available concerning those important points. The First Lord of the Admiralty, after some of the questions had been put in the House, had indicated to him personally that he did not put any particular stress upon those contributions because of the feeling that they were more drawn up upon imaginative statements or exaggerated statements by those who had some direct connection therewith. So far as I am concerned, as a public representative, I am satisfied that there are due grounds for urging this matter upon the Admiralty, and some of the relatives of the late Lord Kitchener himself are taking a particular interest in having this matter pushed. I have the signature of one of those relatives to the effect that he himself is perfectly satisfied that the evidence that is forthcoming is of the greatest importance.

My submission is—not simply an account of the pausing of that distinguished soldier, but on account of the other live, that were involved in the great disaster and the accumulation of evidence that has been forthcoming—that we are in duty bound to urge the Admiralty to take this matter in hand and give the fullest opportunity for every statement that can be substantiated. The First Lord, on the 1st July, when we were putting questions to him, defended himself on the ground that he had no interest personally in obviating any investigation that could stand the test. I accept that so far as He personally is concerned, but I do submit that the Admiralty, of which he is the distinguished head under the present Government, are adopting a patchwork procedure, a guessing procedure, an altogether unsatisfactory procedure. If the statements produced are in any degree whatever entitled to recognition, I submit that there is only one course to take, and that is the course that has been urged by hon. Members of this House. Instead, they have written the letters to which I have referred, and then, of course, the men not wishing to make in a detailed fashion their own deliverances which would be available, the idea is to frame up a sort of ground for not pursuing the inquiry any further.

In all the circumstances of that great tragedy, and when it is stated, as we are stating with such grounds, that there are substantial facts which can be submitted by those who were survivors of that great disaster, I say that the Admiralty, and particularly the First Lord of the Admiralty, for the very reason that he has no personal ground for evasion, in view of such appeals, with such indications as we have given here to-night, ought, in the public interest to take this step. It is not sufficient to say that it is 10 years since the event took place. It is sufficient for us to know that it did take place, and, in view of what we have found, and of the fact that relatives of the late Lord Kitchener say that they themselves are satisfied that justice was not done concerning these rescue operations, and that there were most unsatisfactory conditions prevailing in connection with the disaster, it is our bounden duty to call upon the Admiralty now to institute a public inquiry to enable us to gain the fullest information on the subject.

Mr. HANNON

This question is one with which I have had some association sine this deplorable disaster took place. When the "Hampshire" went down, I was Secretary of the Navy League, and, while I was acting in that capacity, a great deal of correspondence came into my office on the subject of this very terrible incident, which disturbed the mind of the whole community at the time. Since that time, I have, under pressure of the excited imaginations of many correspondents, had to examine for myself, as far as I could, through the Admiralty and otherwise, whether there was any ground whatever for the variegated statements which from time to time have been given to the public on this subject. I am perfectly satisfied that, throughout the whole of the discussion which has taken place during the past 10 years on the subject of the loss of the "Hampshire" and the lives that were sacrificed at the time, the Admiralty has acted with entire propriety, and has endeavoured to give the public the fullest satisfaction within the limits of the information at its disposal. For a considerable period a correspondence has been maintained in one of our Sunday papers on this subject, and I had an opportunity, a short time ago, of putting a question to my right lion. Friend the First Lord, because of a letter which appeared in the "Times" over the signature of Sir George Arthur. As my right hon. Friend will remember, Sir George Arthur, who was the biographer of Lord Kitchener, addressed a letter to the "Times" on a certain statement made to him by the late Lord Long of Wraxall, who at the time was occupying the position which is now occupied by my right hon. Friend. The reply that my right hon. Friend gave to me on the occasion, when I put a question to him in this House, seemed to me to be perfectly satisfactory, and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), in the whole of the statement he has made to the House this evening, has not, in my judgment, submitted one single cogent, helpful, constructice piece of evidence upon which the Admiralty could be asked to undertake a roving examination of this long past question. I venture to suggest that it is not fair of hon. Members, on correspondence in newspapers and wild statements of persons who arc sometimes led far beyond their judgment on incidents of this kind, to ask the First. Lord to establish an inquiry. I know that a meeting was held at the Cannon Street Hotel, which I was asked to attend, but I was so satisfied in my own mind that the whole of this agitation had no real substance behind it that I could not consent to have any part in the demonstration, which, in my judgment, was wholly unjustified.

We know that the hon. Member for Dundee has great enthusiasm, and always displays the greatest sincerity and honesty every time he addresses this Assembly. We have the greatest respect for his attachment to ideals and to the views which he holds, but he has not given to the House to-night one single item of evidence that he has any real background whatever for this demand that the Admiralty should institute an inquiry, in the wild statements made by a number of people who allege that they have some knowledge of the circumstances in which the "Hampshire" was lost. I think that the whole of this terrible tragedy has been analysed to its very roots so far as the Admiralty could possibly do so, and I sincerely hope, in the public interest, that the First Lord will not consent to an inquiry of this kind, but will be satisfied with the statements that he has already made public on the subject. The suggestion that the relatives of Lord Kitchener entertain the view that the " Hampshire " was lost in circumstances which involved grave neglect on the part of His Majesty's Government at the time has no substance in fact, and we ought not to be invited to undertake a roving mission of inquiry without much more substantial evidence than has been shown in the arguments in this House to-night of the hon. Member for Dundee.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

The hon. Gentleman who has raised this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House is, I am sure, actuated merely by a desire to arrive at the truth, but, for some reason or other, he seems to think that it cannot be arrived at by getting answers from me. He continues to pin his faith to the unsubstantiated attacks made in a certain newspaper, and entirely refuses to accept as truth what I submit in answer to his questions. He accuses me to-night of two contradictory actions. He complains that those who work at the Admiralty under me had asked for information on certain points which have been raised in questions in this House. On the other hand he accuses me of not being anxious to produce any information. They cannot both be true. He has referred to a certain man of the name of Sims who was quoted in the newspaper referred to as one of the survivors. When he asked a question I asked him if he would take the responsibility for the authenticity of the letter that was quoted over the signature of Mr. Sims. I think he misunderstood my reply and kept on talking about a letter from Sir Charles Walker, the authenticity of which 1 have never denied. Obviously it was only my duty to try to find out the truth. My desire from start to finish has been to find out all the truth I can, not to believe unsupported evidence published in a newspaper, a great deal of which I know-to be untrue, but to see how far the information the Admiralty have published from time to time is either corroborated or refuted by anything of more modern date. I do not see why the hon. Member or the House should blame me for doing my best to give a truthful answer to the questions they raised. One of the accusations against me in this campaign, which has been carried on in a most scurrilous way against me personally, has been that I have attempted to have questions put off which Members of the House have desired to ask. I have never attempted anything of the kind, as you, Sir, know, and it is not for me to do so. The censorship of questions lies entirely in your hands, and to say that I am trying to evade a quetsion because certain questions that Members have wished to ask have been declined by you is not a very fair way of dealing with me. I might add—it is a sign of your impartiality—that when I tried to get a question asked on this very subject myself in order to elucidate a point which I thought required elucidation, again you ruled that it was not a proper question to put, so I cannot be accused of seeking to avoid giving information or asking any questions that were put.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has been dealing with him scurrilously?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

No, I did not say anything of the kind. I said the paper from which he gets all his information has treated me as one of the most evasive, shifty and lying individuals that could have been found in the Admiralty Office.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now come to business and answer the questions I have put to him.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I am not precluded from pointing out the source of the supposed information, which, so far as I have been able to investigate it, is almost invariably wrong. Let us realise what the hon. Member is asking me to do. He has not produced a single point of valuable evidence here. He seemed to be about to do so when he appeared to begin to quote something that Inspector Vance said. I asked him where he got the quotation, and he did not know.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

That is what we are asking you.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Anyone can read a newspaper and bring forward any pre- posterous statement and say, "Why do you not answer it?" If the hon. Member comes here with any substantial case" he ought to be able to prove it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

We want the publication of the report. The First Lord has continually endeavoured to state that there is no trace of the report. It was submitted to the representatives of the Admiralty at the time.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I say perfectly plainly that it was not. Let the hon. Member show me the report. Let him give me any proof that there was such a report. Inspector Vance is not an official of the Admiralty but of the Home Office.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

You tried that before.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Again it is suggested that I am trying to evade it. If I say I asked Inspector Vance what happened, I shall be accused of having done something I ought not to have done. But I have taken the trouble to ask about Inspector Vance and he made no such report on the "Hampshire."

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

Has he made the statement?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

He has.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

When?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

He made it to the Admiralty.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

When?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I cannot give the exact date, but quite recently.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

Let us have the date,

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Before I give any date, let the hon. Member give me the date of this report.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I am here not putting forward the charges. I am putting forward the statement that information of the most reliable character has been given concerning the various points I have submitted The evidence will be forthcoming in due course when you give us the opportunity. I am asking you to answer why these particular things that I have put here to-night have not been published.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I ant not going to have any inquiry until some prima facie evidence is produced. I asked for the report of Inspector Vance. Inspector Vance, according to his own statement, has made no report on the loss of the "Hampshire." it is no use my talking if the hon. Member chooses to believe this newspaper instead of me. I do not ask him to believe me, but I think hon. Members in the House—

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I take that for the moment, but let us have the other points.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

One at a time. I have done my best to find out the truth, and my evidence is that Inspector Vance made no such report. That deals with him. Then the hon. Member said Colonel Harris had made some statement in corroboration of other vague charges. After some difficulty I got into communication with Colonel Harris, who declared that he had no recollection of any such report. That confirms what I had from Inspector Vance himself, that he made no report.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

Did he make no report on the question of the rescue operations?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

The accusation was that there was unimpeachable evidence that this report was made. 1 say show me the unimpeachable evidence. It is said that Colonel Harris, who was in command of the troops in Orkney, sent for Inspector Vance and questioned him as to the report he made in regard to the "Hampshire," and that this interview took place in the presence of two officials. I have inquired of Inspector Vance and Colonel Harris, and neither of them know anything of any report of the kind. I am not going to encourage the slinging of mud at those who at the time were responsible for what happened in Orkney. I am not going to open an inquiry until they produce some evidence which would give me at any rate a prima facie case for putting this country to the trouble and expense of such a proceeding. All the evidence that I have goes to show that these statements are wrong. The hon. Member asked me what vessels went to the rescue. The first message received was 'Vessel down.' A telegram from Birsay reached the Commander of the Western Patrol at Stromness at 8.31 p.m. The captain of 'Jason II' and the skipper of 'Cambodia' were actually in the office of the Commander waiting to hear whether their vessels were required, and they left on the instant. Captain Walker then, without a moment's delay, got into touch with the Vice-Admiral by telephone, and received orders to send out every available vessel and to go out with them himself, and to make arrangements for motor cars for a shore rescue party. Captain Walker quickly put that business in hand, and then put to sea in the ocean-going tug 'Flying Kestrel.' Four destroyers of the Grand Fleet were always at short notice for dealing with emergencies. These four vessels, 'Owl.' 'Unity,' 'Victor,' and 'Lucifer,' were at once ordered out by the Commander-in-Chief. Their logs show that the three latter left between 9 p.m. and 9.10 p.m., and 'Owl' at 9.20 p.m., steaming 20 knots. The Vice-Admiral also ordered the yacht 'Zaza' and the trawler City of Selby,' then at the North of the Orkneys, to proceed southward to the scene of the accident, Five other destroyers from the Grand Fleet, 'Oak,' 'Opal,' Munster,' 'Menace' and 'Napier' got up steam and left, 'Oak' at 2.30 a.m., and the others at 3 a.m. to search for survivors. That disposes of the statement made by the hon. Member that, no efforts were made to send help.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

How did these destroyers manage it when the destroyers attending the "Hampshire" had to withdraw?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

The reason why the destroyers attending the "Hampshire" had to withdraw was that they could not against the wind keep up the same speed as the "Hampshire." Therefore, either the "Hampshire" had to slow down, which would have been a very dangerous course to take, owing to the possibility of there being submarines about, or the destroyers had to go back. The "Hampshire" signalled to the destroyers that she must go on and that they had better not try to keep up with her. That is a very simple explanation. I wish the hon. Member would not surround the whole thing with such an extraordinary atmosphere of suspicion. He suspects that someone at the Admiralty has something to conceal, and he suspects that everything that was done was badly clone. I wish he would clear his mind and get it into his head that there was a great storm going on at the time.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I understand all about the storm. It was the trouble behind the storm.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Neither the hon. Member nor myself can guide a storm. I have read enough in regard to the vessels that put out to the rescue to prove that there is not a vestige of truth in the accusation that sufficient efforts were not made to reach the "Hampshire," and to get on to the scene of disaster in time to rescue, if possible, those who might have been saved. Another statement made by the hon. Member is that there was internal treachery.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

Yes. Was there any internal treachery?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I am satisfied that there was not. I have made every inquiry. There was an old story about the "Hampshire" to the effect that an infernal machine was found on board and that two men had been shot in consequence of that discovery. That story was very often told. There is no truth whatever in the story.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I have not heard of it before.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Then I do not know what my hon. Friend means about internal treachery.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

Were not two aliens on board the ship?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

No, Sir, not according to my information.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I suppose they are both drowned?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Of course, if they are both drowned it is not possible to find out whether the hon. Member is correct in his statement. I think the story that he has in his mind is the story that did go about at one time, and which has been proved to be untrue, that an infernal machine was found at Belfast in the "Hampshire."

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

indicated dissent.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Perhaps my hon. Friend does not know, but his friends who give him this information have built all this charge on that foundation.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

No.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

That foundation as it turned out is quite untrue. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Admiralty would not know if two spies had been shot on the "Hampshire" a short time before. I take full responsibility for saying that there is no truth whatever in that statement. The hon. Member put a number of minor questions, which was not able to put down, Some of them were new to me. I was not able to follow them. One was as to certain dates. He said that Lord Kitchener's relatives were very anxious to have a public inquiry.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

Yes.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

It is a very odd thing, if that be so, that I have never heard from them to that effect. One would have thought that if they felt so very anxious to have an inquiry that they would have written to me or taken some means of communicating with me on the subject.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

Perhaps they may do it now?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I should be very glad to receive any information which they have. I ask the House to realise that I am only too anxious to find out exactly what happened. It is very odd that after ten years this great agitation which has made such an impression on the hon. Member's mind should take place. The hon. Member has referred to an answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that all the information that we have has been given

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

It is your own statement.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I agree with the statement. It was actually given by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

It was your own statement on the 1st July, in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). It appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

That may be so, but the question was put at an earlier date, and an answer was given by the Parliamentary Secretary. That answer was right. All the information of any consequence at all has been given. It has not been given, perhaps, all at once, but it has from time to time since the event occurred been published in one way or another. Since this agitation has been raised, it has been my endeavour to try to find out whether any of that information is wrong or whether there is anything to add to it. The result of my inquiries is, that that evidence and that information has been corroborated by a few other facts that have come to light since, but that nothing new of any importance has come to light since the time when those statements were made and published by the Admiralty. A public inquiry on evidence like that would be .n outrage on the procedure to which we arc accustomed in this House. I am very sorry that the hon. Member should have allowed himself to be so entirely credulous about the things he reads in the public Press, and I regret that he prefers to believe them rather than believe me. I cannot help that. He is a free man and entitled to his opinions. But I ask him to consider what would be the effect if every time some newspaper started a earn paign of this kind, without any evidence, the House of Commons were to demand that the taxpayers should be put to the expense of an inquiry in the hope that it would result in somebody being found to blame.

Does he really think he has done his duty sufficiently by raking up these totally unsupported statements? He says, "Hold a public inquiry, and I will give you all the evidence I have." Let him produce the evidence, or prove that any information which has been published by the Admiralty is wrong, or anything I have said is wrong, and if he can I shall be the first to acknowledge it. But do not let him pursue a policy which really would be fatal to our interest Is a House, and fatal to the interests of any Government Department, and take the responsibility for statements about which he knows nothing, which have never been proved either to himself or to me, or to anybody else, and in this way raise questions which can serve no useful object but which are extremely painful to those who are concerned and which, I think, might in the interest of good feeling be left where they are until, or unless, some real, substantial evidence is produced. If it can I shall not hesitate to investigate whether there is any truth in it. I hope the hon. Member will acquit me of any desire to avoid this question. I have answered every question that has been put to me perfectly frankly and plainly, and I am ready to answer more, but I am not ready to put the officials of the Admiralty to the pain and trouble of an inquiry unless something more substantial than anything I have heard to-day can be produced to justify such a course.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I have had some considerable experience—

Hon. MEMBERS

Order, order!

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to speak again except by leave of the House.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I wish to accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I—

Mr. SPEAKER >

The hon. Member must ask leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. HANNON

The hon. Member has already made a very exhaustive speech, during which he has produced a whole series of questions for the consideration of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I submit that it would be trifling with the House to allow him to embark on another speech.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Surely it is very ungracious on the part of the hon. Member to refuse the hon. Member who raised this question the right of making a few observations which might settle all this trouble.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I have no objection.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I know, but I am putting it to the House that it is ungracious on the part of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) to object to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) making a few observations on the statement which the First Lord has just made.

Mr. SPEAKER

It is only by leave of the House, and the hon. Member must ask leave.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I ask leave of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed!"]—to make a few observations on the statement which the First Lord has just made. I have no desire to trifle with the House. I have undertaken a serious responsibility in this connection. I have had experience of this kind of thing on public boards and I quite understand the difficulty of those who represent official departments. All I am going to say now is that I am still satisfied that there is a. very substantial portion of evidence that. could be submitted, and that it should be given in the proper form; that the men who have been pensioned by this Department should stand secure in their pensions while they state the facts. Surely any man representing the Admiralty would want to see that done. That is the proper course. How. ever, it is refused. I leave it there. I have done my duty.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Perhaps I may be allowed to speak also by leave of the House. I could not make my answer any plainer. The hon. Member has produced none of the evidence upon which he relies for accusing members of the Admiralty, dead or living, of misconduct in their duty many years ago. I never expected to convince the hon. Member. He does not believe me.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

When you have received the evidence I will be convinced.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

When I ask the hon. Member to give me the evidence he will not do so. The suggestion is that the survivors -of the "Hampshire," who gave their evidence before the Court of Inquiry, gave false evidence.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

No, not false evidence.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

If it was not false evidence, what is there to inquire about?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

There is additional evidence on the points you have not answered to-night.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I do not want to keep the House any longer, but quite plainly the only inference of the last words of the hon. Member is that those who gave evidence before the Court of Inquiry gave false evidence.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I never said that, and you must not put words into my mouth.

Mr. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member is altogether too effervescent.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

That is natural if you get words put into your mouth.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must listen to the reply.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

It is most extraordinary that hon. Members opposite think they can accuse us and those whom we support of any sort of misconduct, but if we defend them we are said to be aggressors and provokers, and are constantly interrupted when we are replying to the case that is made. The obvious inference of the last words of the hon. Member is that those who did give evidence before the Court of Inquiry gave false evidence.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

Nothing of the sort.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

And that if they were asked again they Would give something different. They gave their evidence immediately after the event. Lots of things have happened since then, and it is not likely their memory would he better now than it was then. I still say the hon. Member must produce proof that misconduct can be properly charged against any official at the time. I have been quite prepared to inquire into all charges, and I have found there is no truth in any of them, but. I am not going. to have an inquiry on statements, unsupported by evidence, such as the hon. Gentleman has made.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes past Nine o'Clock.