The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle. — 1882-07-29 (Stourbridge, West Midlands, England)

THE VOTE OF CREDIT.  The House having gone into Committee of Supply. Mr. Shield resumed the debate on the Vote of Credit. He strongly defendei the conduct of the Government in reference to the bombardment of Alexandria. Sir H. D. Wolff, in the course of some remarks said he should like to see the Suez Canal placed under European guarantees; and order in Egypt could only be restored on the basis of popular content. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, who praised the conduct of the officers and marines at Alexandria, contended that the ships sent there wet., the very best for the purpose intended to be achievel. The Admiralty had no information to show that the Sultan did not hit the forts till she was hit herself thirty times. As to the allegation that Admiral Seymour had not a sufficient force of marines on the 11th June, he denied that the statements made on that point were true. Sir B. Seymour afterwards wrote that if a force had been landed on the 11th of June it would have failed in its object, and would have been followed by the most fatal consequences. It was contrary to the purpose of the Government to laud a force after the bombardment, and he contended that it would have been difficult to do so without causing Arabi to spread the devastation and murder beyond Alexandria. He had observed that it had been widely stated that the Orontes had arrived at Alexandria without any troops, and that the marines in the Tamar had been sent out without any ammunition. Those two statements had gone the circle of the papers, and it would, therefore, be right that the Government should state what they knew of the facts. With regard to the Tamar, the explanation was that she was sent out with a number of marines to strengthen those who were on board the ships of the Mediterranean fleet. Those ships were full of ammunition, and therefore there was no reason that the men should receive ammunition until they reached the fleet. The marines had, however, been used as a separate force, and had been supplied with ammunition at Alexandria in the ordinary way. With regard to the Orontes, that vessel was at Malta, at the disposal of the Admiral Commauding•in•Chlef. He (the Admiral) was aware that she was empty, and it had been by h orders that she had been sent first to Cyprus, and then to Alexandria, and he (the hon. gentleman) had no doubt that Sir B. Seymour had excellent reasons for so doing. Ile would conjecture—(hear, hear)—what his reason was. There were two ironclads at Cyprus, each of them with a bittalion on board the Agincourt and the Northumberland. Sir B. Seymour had perhaps ordered the Orontes to Cyprus first to take the troops out of those ships and was to have them at his disposal for general naval purposes. Instead of that, however, the two ships had gone to Alexandria with the troops on board, and the Orontes had accompanied them. The debate was continued by Mr. T. C. Bruce, Mr. Rath. bone, Baron H. De Worms, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. Bourke. The debate was adjourned at 6.45.  In reply to Lord Colin Campbell, Mr. Childers read a telegram received this afternoon from Alexandria to the effect that General Alison had ascertained there was no foundation for the assertion that English soldiers had looted property at Ramleh. The House adjourned at six o'clock.