HC Deb 07 June 1888 vol 326 cc1414-5
SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

asked, Whether the First Lord of the Admiralty would lay on the Table the Paper to which Viscount Wolseley referred when he stated that 150,000 tons of shipping would be sufficient to convey 100,000 men across the Channel, and that what the noble and gallant Viscount said the other night, that 480,000 tons would be required, was incorrect?

THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) (Middlesex, Ealing)

, in reply, said, that there was no such Paper—it was a calculation; and the statement he made himself he believed was correct.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

Will the noble Lord lay the Memorandum to which Viscount Wolseley refers on the Table?

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he did not understand Viscount Wolseley to say what the hon. Baronet had imputed. Viscount Wolseley said that in The Soldier's Pocket Book an estimate had been made of the minimum amount of tonnage required to convey individual soldiers or horses.

SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN (Wolverhampton, W.)

asked, whether, in the noble Lord's estimate, he took account of the guns without the ammunition?

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

Yes; the ammunition is included.

COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)

I should like to ask, whether these 100,000 men are supposed to be brought across the Channel in one trip?

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

The calculation which I laid before the House the other day was based upon the assumption that that was the amount of tonnage necessary to bring over an Army of 100,000 men, composed partly of Artillery and Cavalry, with a certain quantity of stores, packed as closely as possible for a short voyage.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

asked, whether it was true that there was no ammunition, except for experimental purposes?

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

No.