§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £147,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for additional Expenditure arising out of Military Operations in Egypt.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the Government would now consent to report Progress. ["Oh!"] He spoke, he thought, with reason. He had been sitting in the House more attentively than many Members of the Government since 4 o'clock. He hoped they would not now, at 1 o'clock in the morning, be required to enter into a debate upon questions which were of the very gravest importance. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had informed the Committee that the littoral of the Red Sea, which was 2,200 miles in extent, would be held by Her Majesty's Forces. Was that the case or not? ["No!"] The noble Marquess said Her Majesty's Forces were to occupy the littoral of the Red Sea, and it was intimated the other evening that the Navy was to be employed for that purpose. If it was the intention of the Government to employ the Navy in order to hold the littoral of the Bed Sea, much more explanation ought to be given to the Committee than could be given at this hour of the morning. Individually, he would be prepared to protest against the landing of blue-jackets and Marines to garrison any of the ports on the coast of the Red Sea. The duties of the Navy were confined to duties afloat, except under circumstances of great emergency and difficulty. The Navy deserved the highest possible credit for the services they had rendered in the course of the operations at Suakin during the last few weeks; they had done their work nobly and well; if the Army had done well, certainly the Navy, under Admiral Hewett, had done equally well. But it was a totally different thing to call upon the Navy to furnish blue-jackets and Marines for garrison duties on the Bed Sea Coast. Whether the Naval Forces were to be so employed or not, there had undoubtedly been a declaration of policy this evening to the country and 1166 to Parliament which involved very serious and very grave responsibilities. They were told that the whole coast of the Bed Sea was to be held by Her Majesty's Forces or by some civilized Power. As he understood that to be a declaration that, directly or indirectly, England was to hold the waters of the Bed Sea, time ought to be allowed to the Committee to ascertain by what means and in what way this very large addition to our responsibilities was to be carried out. He begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. W. M. Smith.)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI do not know whether, on this Motion, I may be allowed to make an explanation. I was extremely unwilling to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote), who, I think, made use of a similar expression to that which has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. W. H. Smith). I do not think I made any such declaration as has been referred to—namely, that the Bed Sea ports are to be held by British Forces, either naval or military. What has been announced is, that Her Majesty's Government would assist in defending the ports of the Bed Sea. I stated the reason which, in my opinion, rendered it imperative that that policy should be pursued by Her Majesty's Government. There is no intention, and I trust there will be no intention, of holding any ports on the Bed Sea except Suakin, or of remaining there any longer than is necessary. I never used the expression that the Bed Sea ports were to be held by this country; therefore I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press his Motion. He cannot desire that, on the proposal before the Committee, there should be a further discussion of the policy that has been so much debated.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI think the Motion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) is perfectly justified by the speech of the noble Marquess. What did the noble Marquess say? I quite admit that he did not dwell upon our holding, or any other civilized Power 1167 holding, the whole of the Red Sea Coast; but he did declare that certain places on that coast should be held by this country—he said some "civilized Power," which, practically, means this country.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI said not by any other European Power. I said that it is necessary that we should take care that these ports are held by a civilized Power, or a Power under the influence of a civilized Power.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHYes, by a civilized Power, or a Power under the influence of a civilized Power; in other words, either by England, or a Power under the influence of England. Very well, let us see what additional light the speech of the noble Marquess this evening has thrown upon this matter. Only on Thursday last, the Prime Minister used the strongest words he could to express the urgency of an immediate withdrawal of Her Majesty'3 Forces from these very ports in the Red Sea, including, of course, Suakin, that being the chief of them. This evening the noble Marquess has told us, for the first time, of the doubts Her Majesty's Government entertain as to the efficiency of the Egyptian Army to hold Suakin. I should like to know, and I think the Committee are entitled to know before they vote this sum, how Her Majesty's Government propose that Suakin should be held, if Her Majesty's Forces are to be withdrawn from it as a matter of urgency, and if the Forces of the Egyptian Government, to which the noble Marquess has alluded, are not to be relied upon? It must be, if English soldiers are to go, and Egyptian soldiers cannot be sent, because they cannot be trusted, that the blue jackets, to whom reference has been made, are to take their place. If that is so, I do think we are entitled to some further discussion of this new phase of the policy of the Government, which has been suggested by the speech of the noble Marquess to-night. I trust, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will persevere with his Motion.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 114: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 30.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ SIR JOHN HAYI rise to move that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair. 1168 On the statement we have heard from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government, questions will arise affecting this Naval Vote which, at this hour of the night, it would be impossible to deal with satisfactorily. With this observation I beg to submit my Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Sir John Hay.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 113: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 31.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that earlier in the evening he had given Notice that he should call attention to a matter of great importance as to the embarkation of the Marines in a certain ship for Egypt. It was quite impossible that he could go into the matter at that hour of the night. He could not attempt to do justice to it; therefore he would move that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Captain Price.)
MR. ACLANDsaid, he hoped the Government would not yield to this appeal. He had observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had been in his place up to half-past 12 o'clock on Government nights lately, on purpose to bring in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. They had been told, and he believed the statement had been accepted, that it was impossible for the Bill to be brought in until the Supplementary Estimates were disposed of. He failed to see how it was that hon. Members could not give their attention to Business now, as they had constantly to do so on other occasions, instead of spending night after night in fighting over Business that they all knew would have to be done, especially when they had been told, two or three night ago, that cattle were dying by hundreds and thousands in the country of foot-and-mouth disease.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to point out to the Government that there really was a great reason why they should adjourn. At 1169 the end of the debate, the noble Marquess made a new departure in the policy, in the absence of the Prime Minister, who was, unfortunately, detained elsewhere—probably in consequence of the declaration the noble Marquess was going to make. Such being the case, he really did not think they ought to continue the discussion on Egyptian matters without the presence of the Prime Minister. His hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price) was perfectly justified in the proposal he had made, and it was to be hoped he would persevere in it.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had heard two reasons given for the postponement of the Vote. One, which he would notice first, was given by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Captain Price), who had alluded to a very small point—namely, whether certain Marines ought or ought not to have been sent in a certain ship from Malta to Alexandria. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) ventured to say that five minutes would exhaust all that it was possible to say on that subject on one side or the other. Then the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) said the Vote ought to be postponed, because it was announced that they had undertaken certain responsibilities with regard to what was called the littoral of the Red Sea, to which the right hon. Gentleman ascribed a number of miles. [Cries of "Order!"] He was quite in Order, as he was stating the reasons which had been given for the adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman ascribed an exaggerated number of miles to the littoral of the Red Sea, which he had said the Government had undertaken to defend. As a matter of fact, the Vote before the Committee was of this nature—it was an Estimate of additional expenditure during the present year arising out of military operations in Egypt; it was an Estimate for money which was to be expended within the current financial year; and, therefore, the task, whatever might be its importance, of protecting any ports in the littoral of the Red Sea, was one which could only be undertaken and accomplished, so far as this Estimate affected it, during the remaining three weeks of the financial year. The question raised by the right hon. Gentleman was really one more affecting the Naval Estimates for next year, than this Supplementary Estimate. 1170 If the question was raised at all, the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman had used were arguments against proceeding with the last Vote for Army Expenditure quite as much as against proceeding with the present Vote. This was merely a Vote to cover the expenditure which had been incurred, and would be incurred during the rest of the financial year in connection with the present military operations in Egypt, and he saw no reason why it should be treated in such a way that questions raised upon it would not be identical with those raised upon the Vote which had been already discussed.
§ MR. GIBSONOnly one word to clear up a point. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Acland) stated that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) has been down here on several Government nights waiting until half-past 12 for the purpose of introducing the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. There is no foundation whatever for that statement. Although this may not be the first day the Bill has appeared on the Paper, the Government must have put it down knowing perfectly well there was no real chance or intention to introduce it.
§ MR. DODSONI must take leave to correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) as to a matter of fact. The Bill has been the second Order of the Day for several Government nights now in succession, and we have been waiting here to-night, as on former nights, in the hope of being able to bring it on before balf-past 12. I do not wish to raise a discussion, therefore I will not say how it has happened that it has never been reached; but this I will say, that we are most sincerely anxious to take the Bill on Thursday next. If we dispose of the Vote before the House, we shall only have some short Civil Service Estimates to dispose of as the first Order on Thursday, and we may, therefore, hope to be able to reach the Bill in good time on that day.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that they had been told that this Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill was an extremely important measure, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) would bring it on after other Business had been disposed of—probably somewhere about 1171 12 o'clock at night. Well, it appeared to him (Mr. Biggar) that the Bill was far too important to be brought in at such an hour as that. He was inclined to think it a Bill which ought to be taken as the first Order of the Day. If he was rightly informed, he believed that a great many borough Members were likely to speak on one side, and a great many county Members on the other. Two nights, therefore, would very likely be occupied with the discussion on the introduction. As to the statement that there were only some small Civil Service Supplementary Estimates down for Thursday as the first Order, and that this important Bill could come after, he was informed that it was extremely doubtful whether those Civil Service Estimates would be got through in one evening. He was inclined to think they would occupy at least two Sittings—Thursday and Friday, he thought, would be much nearer the mark than the present calculation, and it was preposterous that a question of this kind should be pushed on by a tyrannical majority. It was an unreasonable majority, because the arguments were entirely in favour of an adjournment, and there was no argument worthy of any consideration in favour of voting this money at so early an hour.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was much more reason and sense in the action of the Opposition that night than usual, and he should support them in the course they were taking, because there was undoubtedly a wide distinction between the statements made at the commencement of the Sitting by the Prime Minister, and those made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War that night. When a sum of £140,000 was asked for, even if there was only a small minority opposed to it, it was reasonable that it should be taken at an earlier hour. He did not intend to take a Division; but after the speech of the noble Marquess, and after the desire shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite to discuss this question, the Motion ought to be agreed to. But he hoped the Opposition would not act as they had on the last Vote—that was, after talking for two nights, run away without voting. He hoped they would, in this instance, give their votes if necessary, and that the Government would accept the protest not only from Gentle- 1172 men on the other side, but from Gentlemen on this side of the House, and allow this Vote to be discussed at an earlier hour.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he certainly was surprised that the Government had not thought it right to allow another opportunity of discussing this Vote. What was the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty? What they desired was to discuss the question of the way in which the Navy was to contribute its assistance to these operations on the Navy Estimates—that was to say, instead of settling that matter now they should have another debate next week, or the week after. This present proposal on the part of the Government was distinctly a waste of public time, a distinct invitation for a further debate. The Committee were at this moment fresh to the consideration of this question. A great deal of what had been said in the last two or three nights would probably be repeated; events and circumstances would occur which would compel the repetition of warnings and protests which had occupied the attention of the House during the last two nights of the debate. The Government now refused to allow a reasonable opportunity for the consideration of their naval policy, and they asked that that naval policy should be considered a fortnight hence, when the discussion of the Naval Estimates came on. He ventured to say that that was a mode of procedure which would not conduce to the rapid transaction of Business, nor to the settlement of the gravest and most important questions. The Committee had a right to know how it was proposed to furnish ships for this additional service which the Government contemplated. There was a Vote for the Naval Services in the war in Egypt on the Red Sea; and, of course, there was the Report stage when this question might be discussed. The Government might put the Vote down so that a debate of reasonable length might be taken on the Report. Upon that understanding he would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his opposition, and permit the Vote to be taken that night.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI am not without a hope of our arriving at some practical settlement of this question. I should like, however, to re- 1173 peat that I am perfectly unaware of having made any such declaration as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has referred to. What I think I did was, in reply to speeches that had been made in this debate, to state, perhaps more fully than we had previously done, the grounds which justified Her Majesty's Government in their policy with regard to the defence of the Red Sea ports. I do not question the undertaking of Her Majesty's Government in any manner, and I should like also to point out that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) and his Friends are a little too much in haste for any statement on the subject on which they desire information. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to events which have necessitated the protection of these ports by the Naval and Military Forces; but it is a little too premature to ask Her Majesty's Government to make a declaration as to the future arrangements for a state of things which has not yet come into existence. And if such a statement could be made, it would hardly be advantageous, at this moment, to the protection of these ports. I hope some arrangement can be come to. Her Majesty's Government desire to give every opportunity of bringing on a discussion of this matter, if necessary, on Report; but this must be the first Order on Thursday, and I should think it would be the general wish of the House that, if there should be any time available before half-past 12, an attempt should be made to take the second reading of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. However, all I can say is, that the Government will put this question down on Report in as good a position as is in their power, with the general desire, as I believe, that the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill should be proceeded with.
§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he understood the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) to say that the occupation was to be of short duration; but he (Mr. Wyndham) thought that before Parliament was called upon to spend any more money, or endanger any more lives, they ought to hear from the Government what reasons they had for hoping that the Egyptians would be able to hold the Red Sea ports after we evacuated them. The Egyptians possessed no Army; it 1174 was destroyed a year and a-half ago by operations which we were not allowed to call a war.
THE CHAIRMANThe Question is that I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again, and on that Motion it is not in order to discuss these points.
§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he was endeavouring humbly to give arguments in favour of reporting Progress. If the Government intended we should retain the possession of these ports, let them say so, and there would be some reason in voting the money. Egyptian troops could not hold them against the vast hordes of brave Soudanese who had beaten them before and would defeat them again.
§ MR. HEALYasked whether it was not the fact that the noble Marquess the Secretary for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had discussed these questions on the Motion for Adjournment?
THE CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member had considered that the noble Marquess was out of Order, he should have risen at once. There must be some latitude given in respect to explanations of statements previously made.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he hoped to be able to do something to arrange this matter. He certainly had voted on two former occasions in favour of reporting Progress; but he felt now that the noble Marquess had offered a fair compromise—namely, that there should be an opportunity of discussing this question on the Report.
An hon. MEMBERsaid, he did not think there had been anything like a definite intimation from the noble Marquess in response to hon. Gentlemen as to when Report was likely to come on, or anything approaching that; while, on the other hand, several hon. Members opposite agreed with hon. Members on this side about the new departure taken by the Government on this question. With regard to the Navy, there were several hon. Gentlemen who wished to say something on questions which were not such small matters as the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Banner-man) suggested. At all events, the speech of the noble Marquess, ready as he always was to meet hon. Members in a fair spirit, had given no guarantee that 1175 there would be an opportunity for discussion at a reasonable hour.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished to make an observation in the same spirit as that of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). The noble Marquess opposite had stated that it was the intention of the Government to place the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill as the first Order of the Day, after the Supplementary Estimates, on Thursday. If the noble Marquess would only use the great influence he possessed with the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to induce that hon. Gentleman to withdraw his block against that Bill, that measure might be taken at any hour and read a second time without opposition. Then the noble Marquess would be able to redeem his promise to fix the Report of these Estimates at such an hour as would ensure a fair discussion. If the noble Marquess would do that, the House would be well-advised in accepting the arrangement.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONDoes the right hon. Baronet suggest that the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill should not be the second Order?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHNo; I suggest that the noble Marquess should induce the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to withdraw his block.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI shall be glad to use any influence I have to induce the hon. Member to withdraw his block; but do I understand the right hon. Baronet to suggest that the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill should not be the second Order?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHIt might then be taken after half-past 12.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI will see what can be done. If the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) withdraws his block, so that the discussion might take place, I believe it would be convenient to make that Bill the second Order; but that must be provided that the block be removed.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he should be disposed to prophesy that it would be half-past 12 before Supply was finished on the Supplementary Estimates on Thursday next, so that unless this question was discussed now, it never would be discussed, and, in point of fact, there would be no real oppor- 1176 tunity; and even if the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) with drew his block, it was not certain that some other hon. Member would not block the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, so that it would be in the same position and could not come on before half-past 12. The Government would occupy all the time till then, and no substantial progress would be made. This simple arrangement for saving time would end in an absolute waste of time. The Navy Estimates would come on next week, and all this discussion about Egypt would be repeated. If the Government wished to save time, they had better allow all the speeches that had been prepared to be delivered now.
§ CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he should like to ask the Government whether the Report of the Army and Navy Estimates could be taken on Thursday, before the Civil Service Estimates were taken?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member cannot require the Government to fix a time for taking the Report.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThat would not be possible. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side are aware that if Supply is not the first Order on Thursday, the Rule which precludes our going into Supply will come into force, and it will be absolutely necessary to make Supply the first Order.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 111: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 32.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he could not think of entering upon the question he had to raise with reference to the Royal Marines at that hour. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty thought that five minutes would be sufficient for his purpose, he (Captain Price) was of a different opinion; and, under the circumstances, he should reserve the observations he had to make until another time.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he did not in the least doubt the good intentions, or the bona fides, of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. He should have no objection to the discussion taking place on Report, provided it was brought on at a reason- 1177 able hour, and he would, therefore, suggest that the Government should fix a time after which they would not take the Report. It was quite evident that there were a number of important subjects to be considered in connection with this Vote; but the convenience of hon. Gentlemen on these Benches would be met by an assurance that the Report would not be taken after 10 o'clock. That would afford a more suitable opportunity for the discussion of the important points to be raised, which would otherwise have to be taken at that unreasonable hour (2 A.M.). He was sorry to see several hon. Members leave their places when this Vote was put from the Chair, and it was much to be regretted that some hon. Members knew so little of the important questions which were involved in the Navy Estimates.
§ SIR JOHN HAYasked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the cost of the transport ships lost in the Red 'Sea fell upon the country or was covered by insurance? He would also be glad to know whether there had been any loss of life?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in reply, said, that only one transport had been wrecked in the Bed Sea, the loss of which did not fall on the Estimates.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFEsaid, he wished to draw attention to a paragraph which appeared in The Standard newspaper, to the effect that the ships of war belonging to Russia and other Foreign Powers were furnished with the electric light; whereas, of the English ships in the East of a certain size, not one had any electric light apparatus, and that all were deficient in the scientific appliances with which the foreign ships were supplied. He asked, if this statement were true, whether the Admiralty intended to take any steps in the matter?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in reply, said, this question had been asked and replied to on a former occasion. The only ship belonging to the East India Station of the size to which the electric light was usually applied was the Euryalus, and that ship loft England in the year 1878, before the system of electric lighting was adopted in the Navy. It was not usual, and he did not think it would ever be the custom, to fit the smaller class of gunboats with the electric-light 1178 apparatus. There was, at all events, a strong opinion against this; and in order to remove the idea that the absence of electric lighting was any loss to the Force on the Red Sea, he might say that it was the opinion of many competent authorities that the use of the electric light for the purposes of war was not of the importance which some persons imagined.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had not answered the question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). The hon. Member asked why it was that vessels smaller than the Euryalus were not furnished with the electric light? The statement was that all the foreign vessels much smaller than the Euryalus were furnished with the electric light; but what was more serious, in his opinion, was that those foreign gunboats were also supplied with machine shell guns, while our ships were not. It was the universal testimony of all who had seen the Russian, Italian, and French gunboats now in the Red Sea, that, in every single respect, with the exception of their crews, they were superior to the English vessels of the same class. That was a serious state of things, because England depended for its security on her Fleet, and it was evident that this must not be allowed to fall behind the Fleets of other Powers. It was a question with many authorities whether it had not already done so. He did not propose to go into the question of the size and construction of our ships, on which point, however, a great deal might be said; but he would like to have a distinct reply from the Secretary to the Admiralty, as to why the machine shell guns promised some time ago for ships on foreign stations had not been furnished, and why our gunboats were not furnished with the electric light?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in reply, said, he thought he had dealt with the question of electric lighting as applied to gunboats. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) that he should not believe everything he might read in the newspapers. However, it was quite possible that some of the foreign vessels at Suakin were furnished with more modern appliances than our own. There were gunboats and gunboats; and a 1179 vessel recently fitted out would probably have all the newest appliances of maritime warfare, and he thought the hon. Member would find that any new vessels which the Admiralty might fit out would be furnished with those appliances. But it was impossible that either the electric light or quick-firing shell guns could be fitted into ships which were already in commission on the East India Station.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he should not have risen again but for the unnecessary impeachment by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty of the report referred to by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). The authority in this case was the Correspondent of The Standard, Captain Cameron, a gentleman remarkable for his experience and ability. He passed from the newspaper report which the hon. Gentleman had so summarily disposed of to the statement of no less an authority than Lord Charles Beresford, who had pointed out some time ago, in an interesting article, that all our ships of war were inferior to those of foreign nations in the matter of machine shell guns.
An hon. MEMBERasked whether the practice in the British Navy was different from that in Foreign Navies with regard to scientific appliances; and whether the Committee were to understand that the gunboats in question were of a different size to that of the Euryalus?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in reply, said, he was not aware what was the practice of Foreign Navies with regard to electric lighting; but he had stated the practice in the British Navy adopted on the advice of the highest authorities—that was to say, the system of lighting by electricity was not considered suitable for the smaller class of vessels.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday.
§ Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.