§ Captain WATERHOUSEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is now in a position to give any fresh information as to the circumstances in which the loss of the "Hampshire" occurred?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN(1) My attention has been drawn to certain articles recently published in the Press.
(2) It is not the fact that the sailing of the "Hampshire" was an open secret. She was not in fact selected by the Commander-in-Chief for this service until the 27th of May, 10 days before she sailed for Russia. She was engaged in the Battle of Jutland from 30th May to 2nd June.
(3) There is no foundation for the statement that the refitting of this vessel had not been properly carried out. The refit was completed in February, 1916, and the " Hampshire '' attained a speed of 21 knots in the Battle of Jutland, five days before Lord Kitchener embarked.
(4) The course fixed for His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire" was selected at the last moment for reasons of wind and weather. Owing to bad weather mine-sweeping on both sides of the Orkneys had been impossible for some days previous to the date of sailing, but the shortness of the summer night in these latitudes was considered to make minelaying by surface vessels, impossible, and no minelaying by submarines had previously been discovered anywhere near the Orkneys.
(5) There is no evidence that any signals were made by "Hampshire" after the explosion; she appears to have sunkin a period variously estimated as be- 2181W tween 10 and 20 minutes from the time of striking the mine.
(6) As has been previously explained in this House, the Admiralty have followed their usual course of not publishing court of inquiry proceedings, but the statements issued giving the cause of the disaster as a moored mine are the considered view of the Admiralty based on all the evidence. It is absolutely untrue that the Admiralty have held back important papers that would throw a new light upon this disaster, and I may add that the allegation that spies had on a former occasion been found in the "Hampshire" and shot, is a ridiculous and wicked fabrication.
(7) The Admiralty have no doubt whatever that H.M.R. "Hampshire" struck a German mine laid by the U.75, a mine-laying submarine, which had been sent out to watch the Orkneys and to lay mines in preparation for the German naval sortie which resulted in the Battle of Jutland.
The despatch of submarines to various points is mentioned in Admiral Scheer's Jutland Report, and his " Plan No. 2 " published with the Blue Book relating to the Battle of Jutland (Command Paper 1068/1920) shows the track of the U.75 to and from this very area between the 26th May and the 1st June, 1916. Fifteen mines of a type evidently laid by a German submarine were swept up in the vicinity as soon as the weather made sweeping possible, and the information as to minelaying furnished by Germany at the end of the War to facilitate the work of mine clearance, as well as the German Official History of the War at sea, confirm the fact that they laid these mines.