§ MR. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)(for Mr. J. W. LOWTHER) (Cumberland, Penrith) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the Admiralty has prohibited newspaper correspondents from accompanying the Fleet during its evolutions after its departure from Spithead at the conclusion of the Naval Review; if so, whether, considering the great and growing interest taken by the public in matters affecting the efficiency of the Navy, the Admiralty will re-consider a decision which will practically deprive the public of all information respecting the evolutions; and, whether it will be possible to permit newspaper corespondents to accompany the Fleet, on the condition that all their reports should be submitted to censorship before being despatched?
§ THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) (Middlesex, Ealing)The 1623 main object of the operations is to endeavour to represent, under the conditions which would be observed in time of war, such operations in connection with the attack of our coasts, commercial ports and commerce, as may be anticipated, and to provide as effectually as possible for their protection. It must be clear that if any really valuable experience is to be gained, every effort must be made to prevent the enemy from being able to ascertain the movements of the protecting force, and also the protecting force from knowing the plans of attack of the enemy. If newspaper correspondents were to be permitted to be on board the vessels of the enemy's ships as well as those of the protecting squadrons secrecy would be impossible, and the object of the operations entirely frustrated. The Board, therefore, regret that the decision arrived at not to permit newspaper correspondents to be on board the vessels engaged in these operations cannot be re-considered The nature of the operations which are to be carried out subsequent to the Review have already been sent to the Press and published; but it is, of course, impossible to enter into these details.