The Society held its first Hieetirsg this term On Saturday,
February 2nd' in the big School when the motion discussed
was: "That in opinion, of the House, the proposed Channel
Tunnel is undesirable."
Mr. J. M. Kobson, proposing, opened by giving a short
account of the history of (he Cbannol Tunnel. He pointed out
that as the proposal to build a Channel Tunnel hud been
rejected four times there must be flaws somewhere, After
remarking that tunnels were out of date, he went on bo deal
with the possibility of an invasion by France at short notice.
If they were Successful they would claim possession of the
English side of the tutaiel. He next proceeded to deal with
the costs of building and of upkeep. The proposer doubted
whether there would be sufficient traffic to make it a paying
concern. He concluded his speech by saying that work on the
tunnel would not relieve Unemployment.
Mr. E. H. Jerroaie led the opposition. He started his
speech by pointing out that it was not a question of possibility
but desirability. He explained that unemployment would be
relieved considerably. He suggested that some of the dole
money should be given towards the Cost of the tunnel, and that
the unemployed should be given employment in the construction
of the tunnel. He left the remarks on trade to his colleaguei
In reply to the proposer's remarks about invasion, the Opposed
said that the tunnel wad not a danger to England. We had
defended our shores against many inVaders and could easily look
after a few square yards of tunnel. He showed that the tunnel
could easily be flooded in the event of any army being sent
through. Also the tunnel would be useful if we were fighting
any country in Europe except France.
The third speaker (Mr. P. C. Feppiette) explained (hat
although the increase in trada seemed to be the chief advantage
of the tunnel, the Channel ports handled much less trade than
the North Sea, and Consequently it would have little effect on
the trade. He also weut into the matter of expenditure and
pointed out that the profits would not repay it. He Said thafc
a great deal of money would be Wasted if the tunnel were ruined
in the time of war. In the number of employed men working
on the tunnel, half would be French, so that we should not
benefit to a great deal in that respect. If sea travel was un-
satisfactory, the Solution df channel transport was by air travel.
He pointed out some of the advantages and was wound up in
technicalities when he was brought to an abrupt end by the call
of time.
The fourth speaker (Mr. 0. W. B. Winter) spent his allot-
ted time in treating the question of increased trade, brought
about by the congtfuotion of a tunnel. Be said that the
increased trade would more than cover the cost of building. In
answer to the third speaker's solution of channel transport he
pointed out that a channel railway would be able to carry much
more than tin aeroplane. It would al*o be quicker than a boat
crossing, and added to that it -would avoid the illness sometimes
developed during a rough crossing. He showed that the tunnel
would have suitable lighting and ventilation.
The opposser and proposer then summed up and the
motion was thrown open to the House.
Messrs. Eees, Jarmin, P.Gnrfcdn, Parminglon, E.B. Thomas,
and Murray, spoke for the motion, and Messrs. Gregory, Davey,
0. E. Crocker, Sweet, C. J. Christmas. Lisle, F. Adams, W. G.
Walker, Chard and G. Eichards, against the motion which was
finally lost by 32 votes to 25. Mr* E. G. N. AdfttnS was neutrni
and spoke to this effect.