Lords Sitting of 20 March 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Railways (Continuous Brakes)
(21); Pilotage Provisional Order (Tees)* (33).

PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to the Earl of REDESDALE,
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was proposed to move the adjournment of the House for the Easter Recess on Friday, the 31st March, and that the House should meet again on Thursday, the 20th of April.

RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL.—(No. 21.)
(The Earl De La Warr.)
RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL.—(No. 21.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the subject was one with which the House could not be wholly unacquainted. It had for some time past been periodically brought under the notice of Parliament. The Railway Accidents Commission in the year 1877, after hearing much evidence and as the result of many experiments, recommended in their Report the use of con-

  1255
  tinuous brakes. Shortly after this, the Board of Trade, in consequence of the inaction of Railway Companies in the matter, issued a Circular urging upon them the importance of the question, and pointing out what was deemed necessary for an efficient brake. Little, however, was done; and in 1878 a Return was ordered by Parliament from all Railway Companies to show what kind of brake was in use upon their lines, and the number of vehicles fitted with it. Since that time these Returns had been made, and the last, ending December, 1881, had just been laid upon the Table of the House. Not a few Members of the House were Directors of Railway Companies; some took an active part in the business of Railway Boards; and to them the question of continuous brakes must be one with which they were familiar. Therefore, their Lordships would receive all information which might be necessary for arriving at a fair and right conclusion upon an important matter which much concerned the public safety in railway travelling. In all questions relating to railways this should be considered—that for more than half-a-century railways had been extending their influence and their usefulness until they had become almost the only means of locomotion for the public generally; and it was important to remember that they were in the hands of private Companies who had had considerable powers granted to them by Parliament, and that with certain limitations the public were dependent upon them as regarded charges for conveyance of passengers and goods, convenience in travelling, and also as regarded safety and precaution, so far as possible, against accidents. Parliament, having conceded these powers to Railway Companies, was in a great measure responsible for the right use of them. It could not, therefore, be urged with any reason that Parliamentary supervision ought not to be employed. At the same time, it was far better that Railway Companies should move forward themselves without Parliamentary pressure. But there were occasions when pressure might be necessary, and where the public safety demanded it. By this Bill Parliament was not called upon to give an opinion upon a great engineering question, or to decide a controversy upon a subject with reference to which it could not be expected to be in possession of sufficient
  1256
  information to arrive at any conclusion, but only to insist upon such an amount of action on the part of Railway Companies as they were all agreed it would be necessary to make at some time or other. He believed that now there were really not two opinions as to the necessity of the adoption of continuous brakes. He did not think there was anyone who was conversant with railway management who would say that, safety in railway travelling being in question, it was not necessary to have an efficient continuous brake. But if they looked to what had been done by Railway Companies, did they find that such progress as might have been expected had been made? The last Return now showed that after nearly five years that the question had been before Parliament not so much as one-half of the vehicles and engines of passenger trains had been fitted with a continuous brake of any kind, and, as remarked by the Board of Trade, "some of the brakes so returned very imperfectly fulfil that designation." He was speaking of railways as a whole; but by referring to the Return it would be seen that some Companies were exceptions to the general inactivity which had prevailed. Seeing that, he had therefore brought forward this Bill, the object of which was to make it compulsory upon all Railway Companies to employ an efficient brake upon all passenger trains—not a particular brake, such as the Westinghouse, or Clark's, or Fay's, or Smith's, or any other, but only that it should be an efficient one and fulfil certain conditions which were considered necessary for efficiency. The conditions were those which, after mature consideration, had been adopted by the Board of Trade. The conditions were as follows:—(a) It must be efficient in stopping the train, instantaneous in action, and capable of being applied without difficulty by engine-drivers and guards; (b) in case of accident, it must be instantaneously self-acting; (c) it must be capable of being easily put on and taken off the engine and every vehicle of the train; (d) its materials must be of a durable character, so as to be easily maintained and kept in good order. Those were simple requirements; there was nothing in them which might not readily be carried out, and with reference to them he might quote the words of one of their greatest engineers, James

  1257
  Watt, that "in mechanism the supreme excellence is simplicity." But with reference to the second condition—"In case of accident it must be instantaneously self-acting," he had one observation to make. Some objection had been taken to this requirement of what was sometimes called automatic action. He could not, however, but think that this arose from a misunderstanding. The automatic or self-acting principle, as it was better called, was intended to apply chiefly to cases of accident, such as breakage of the train. No doubt, it was an objection that the self-acting principle should admit of the brake "creeping on," as it was termed, when not required, thus causing delay and perhaps accident, of which instances were recorded. But if care were taken that self-action should only operate in cases of accident, it would seem in a great measure to remove the objection. Clause 1 of the Bill contained the regulations he had referred to. Clause 2 made the Company liable on whose line a vehicle not properly fitted was running, whether such vehicle belonged to them or not. Clause 3 gave power to the Board of Trade to make certain exceptions. Clause 4 gave jurisdiction to the Railway Commissioners to enforce the Act. Clause 5 gave power to the Board of Trade to inspect the rolling stock of every Railway Company whenever it was thought fit. Such were the provisions of the Bill, and as three years were given for the completion of what was required, he did not think that Railway Companies would have any reasonable cause of complaint. At all events, he was sure that the Bill would receive the best consideration at their Lordships' hands, involving as it did questions of the public safety in travelling, the lives and injuries of railway servants and, at the same time, the interests of Railway Companies themselves. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Be La Warr.)
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, he did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, as with part of it he heartily concurred, believing that the time had come when it should be made compulsory on Railway Companies to employ continuous brakes with every passenger train. As to the part with
  1258
  which he could not agree, it referred to the automatic action of the brake, respecting which there had been many experimental trials, resulting in a great divergence of opinion among practical men. Some engineers approved of it, while others, men of great experience, did not, but, on the contrary, saw in it a new element of danger rather than of safety. Only recently a serious railway accident in America was attributed to the use of automatic brakes. He thought that legislation on so intricate and novel a matter ought rather to emanate from a Government Department than from an irresponsible Member of Parliament. It was only a few days ago that a very important meeting was hold of Railway Chairmen and Engineers on this very subject; and he believed that ere long communications would take place on the subject between the Railway Companies and the Board of Trade. He would, therefore, recommend his noble Friend, if he would not withdraw the automatic portion of the Bill—a step which he (Lord Colville of Culross) would ask him to take—that he should give time for the consideration of the whole measure, and to that end that he should postpone the Committee to a distant date.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he thought the object of this Bill was undoubtedly a very good one. On the whole, this system of brakes had been found desirable; but, at the same time, he could not agree with his noble Friend who introduced this Bill (Earl De La Warr), in what he rather gathered were his very sanguine expectations as to the results which would arise if the general adoption, or compulsory adoption, of continuous brakes was carried out. The noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Colville of Culross), and who was, of course, a very great authority on such subjects, stated that many engineers were not of opinion that the general adoption of such a brake would be a real benefit. The same difference of opinion was observed in the case of another railway invention—the block system—and his noble Friend, if he remembered rightly, introduced a Bill to render compulsory the block telegraph system. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, presided over by a noble Duke who sat near him (the Duke of Somerset), and they spent a great deal of time and at-

  1259
  tention on the subject; and the result was that the Committee did not recommend that the Bill should be made law. However, he observed that since that time the block system had, to a very large and increasing extent, been adopted by the various leading railways. There was nothing, so far as he could see, in this Bill which would check the railways in the efforts which they were now making to carry on experiments, and to increase the efficiency of those breaks; but, at the same time, he thought that if this Bill were read a second time, it would require considerable amendment in Committee—more especially with regard to the conditions as to the requirements of any brake. His noble Friend, no doubt, would affirm that these conditions were the same as had been put forward by the Board of Trade; but very little reflection would show that there was a very great difference between a Circular issued by a Department—a Circular which might be modified or recalled at any time—and such provisions embodied in an Act of Parliament. These remarks applied particularly to the provision as to self-acting brakes. It was quite obvious that if a brake was; self-acting in case of emergencies, it would be self-acting on other occasions. He had seen an express train on a steep gradient brought to a dead stop, contrary to the will of the driver, by an automatic brake, and unable to proceed down hill. Had it not been that such a situation involved danger, there would have been something ludicrous in the spectacle of an express train being brought to a dead stop in this way. His noble Friend had explained that that could be avoided in the future; but, at the same time, it illustrated the difficulty they must necessarily experience in laying down rules in a matter of this kind. He did not know whether the Board of Trade would be enthusiastic in their reception of the Bill, seeing that it would impose such a difficult task upon them; but if Parliament thought it necessary that this addition should be made to the duties of the Board of Trade, he had no doubt they would get a Vote of Supply for extra assistance. The whole question was much more difficult than at first appeared, because the Board of Trade had to strike the judicious mean between such interference with the Railway Companies and other great interests as would take away responsibilities from
  1260
  these bodies, and those regulations that would enable the Board of Trade to exercise that amount of control that would satisfy the country that they were fulfilling their duty as the guardians of the public safety in such matters. Therefore, he had no doubt their Lordships would feel that this Bill, if read a second time, would require very careful consideration in Committee, and in that expectation he was prepared to support the second reading. He would add that, on the whole, the Bill was looked on with favour by railway employés as calculated to enable them more safely to fulfil their duties. In the expectation that Amendments would be introduced into the Bill in Committee, more especially with regard to the automatic clauses, he should vote in favour of the second reading.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that, on the part of the Government, he did not propose to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill. Several experiments had lately been carried on by some of the largest Companies, and there was a general desire expressed by them to come to some definite solution of this question. No doubt there were several clauses which would require discussion and amendment; but these matters could be left for the Committee stage. He trusted that the noble Earl would postpone the Committee until as distant a date as possible, say, until the month of May, in order to enable the communications which were passing between the Board of Trade and the Railway Companies to be further advanced. The subject was one of great importance, and, from its peculiarly technical character, required great consideration in dealing with it.
  EARL DE LA WARE, in reply, said, he would postpone the Committee till after Easter, and then fix it at such a time as would be convenient to the noble Lord and the Department he represented.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

ARMY—GENERAL ANNUAL RETURN OF THE BRITISH ARMY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRURO, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, If it is not possible in future years to lay before Parliament at the commencement of or early in each Session the General An-

  1261
  nual Return of the British Army for the year immediately preceding it? said, it was not prudent to enter into any general discussion on simply putting a Question, and he did not wish to cast any censure upon Ministers on one side or the other. Neither should he attempt to enter at any length whatever upon the state of Her Majesty's Army; but he would as shortly as possible put before their Lordships a few figures from which they could draw their own conclusions as to its deplorable condition. In 1880 he found that the whole strength of the Army was 188,986 men—91,887 in England and the Channel Islands, 97,099 in India and the Colonies—a preponderance, therefore, of 5,212 in favour of the latter. Now, turning to the source from which that strength was derived—namely, recruiting, he found that there were 25,535 recruits. Of these men 4,833 were deserters, so that nearly one-fifth of that body of men were deserters. But not alone did they desert. They usually took their kits and uniforms with them, so that the pecuniary loss incurred by these desertions, according to the last Annual Return, amounted to no less than £21,748. But 1,557 of these men were recaptured and imprisoned, or punished otherwise, making the total number of bonâ fide deserters 3,276 men. There were figures still more unsatisfactory. Fraudulent enlistment largely prevailed. Over 1,021 recruits were enlisted at the age of 16, and 156 were recruited at 17, making 1,177 fraudulent enlistments, for which the country would have to pay, that being, with the deserters, a deduction of 4,453 men from the numerical strength of the Army; No wonder that of late there had been expressions of dissatisfaction throughout the country as to the progress of enlistment. Then, as regarded discipline, the number of courts martial in the Indian and Colonial Armies for the graver kind of offences was no fewer than 15,242, and the number of minor offences 216,033. In the Home Army the number of courts martial was 9,108, and of offences 13,109. In the Home Army there were 706 cases of assault upon superiors, and 3,256 of stealing necessaries. The reason why he asked that these Returns should be laid before Parliament at an earlier period of the year was, that it was only upon these Returns that legislation was based. These
  1262
  Returns alone gave to the country information which would enable constituents to give instructions to their Representatives. He would conclude by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, he must confess that the speech of his noble Friend (Lord Truro) had taken him by surprise. He was quite prepared to give an answer to the Question put on the Paper by his noble Friend; but when his noble Friend, without having given him the slightest Notice, either public or private, took advantage of that Question to go into the whole condition of the Army for the last two years, he thought his noble Friend had taken a course altogether unusual. Some of the figures quoted by his noble Friend required the best answer that could be given at so short a notice. The noble Lord called attention to certain figures from the Return of 1880, giving the number of desertions and fraudulent enlistments, and to the condition of the Army; and if his speech were left unanswered, an impression would be left on their Lordships and the country that the last Return showed that the Army was in a deplorable state—far worse than it was in former years. If the noble Lord had dealt fairly with the figures he would have quoted figures which he (the Earl of Morley) would quote, and which would show that the Army was not in so deplorable a state compared with previous years as the noble Lord described. In the first place, with regard to desertions, the figures showed that the number of desertions had not greatly increased during the last two years. In 1879 the proportion of desertions per 1,000 men was lower than it had been since the year 1868.
  LORD TRURO, interrupting, here said, the noble Lord was mistaken if he supposed that in calling attention to this matter he had any intention of inconveniencing the Government, or casting any reflection upon the Department. What he simply wanted was an answer to the Question, Whether the Government would furnish the General Annual Return of the Army earlier in the year; and whether the position of the Army, as described by him from the figures quoted from the Blue Books, was one in which it ought to be allowed to remain?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the figures quoted should have been compared with those of former years to be of real service to those who desired to consider this subject. He wished to correct an impression which might be created by the noble Lord's speech. He stated that last year the number of desertions was 4,833, which gave, on the whole, 26 per 1,000 men of the Force. This was the gross loss by desertion. The noble Lord then took the net loss by desertion, which was 3,276, or 18 per 1,000, and had made the mistake of adding the fraudulent enlistments, which very considerably increased the apparent number of desertions. But the men who rejoined after desertion had been already included in the gross number of men who had deserted, and to add them to the net number of desertions was to count them twice. The number of men entered as having rejoined after desertion was less in 1880 than in 1879, because fraudulent enlisters were now, under the Army Discipline Act, treated in a different way from deserters, and dealt with in the corps into which they had fraudulently enlisted, instead of being relegated to their former corps and then tried for desertion, in which case they would be deducted from the gross number of deserters as men who had rejoined. Coming next to the question of courts martial, he would show that the published figures did not indicate any such great deterioration in the Army as was imagined by his noble Friend. The proportion of courts martial per 1,000 men in 1865 was 109, but last year was only 84 per 1,000 men, being a reduction of nearly 25 per 1,000 men. In the same way the number of minor offences had decreased. In the year 1868—the earliest Year recorded in the last Returns—the number was 150,771, and in the year 1880 it was 127,176. The cases of insubordination were in 1866, 1,272, as against 639 last year. These figures were sufficient to Drove that there was no primâ facie case that the discipline of the Army was inferior in 1880 to what it had been in former years; though he would admit that with regard to certain offences matters were not as satisfactory as could be desired. As he said before, it was difficult at the moment to give the exact figures; but he thought that he had said sufficient to prove that the con-
  1264
  dition and discipline of the Army was improving. In answer to the Question of the noble Lord, he could assure him that the War Office authorities were most anxious that there should be no delay in presenting the Annual Returns to Parliament. These Returns were, however, of a very intricate and voluminous character, consisting of no less than 93 closely-printed pages, and of 91 tables, many of which had to be compiled from Returns from each individual battallion and depot in the Service. These Returns were made up to the 1st of January in each year. Some of the regiments were in Hong Kong, some were in India, America, and other Colonies. It took some weeks to receive these Returns, and in some cases it was necessary to refer them back to the regiments for correction. Then the compilation of tables required some time. Some of them were compiled from 30 or more pages of figures. Under these circumstances, he could not hold out a hope that the Returns, which were made up to the 1st of January every year, would be ready at the commencement of a Session, and he could not even promise that they would be ready during the Session. He would cause inquiries to be made in the Department, with a view of ascertaining whether they could not be presented at an earlier period of the year than they were at present.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that in his opinion, the statement made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) was highly satisfactory, inasmuch as it showed a decrease in the numbers both of desertions and of courts martial. But although the number of the latter had diminished, it was still unpleasantly, not to say alarmingly, large. He had heard that a considerable proportion of these trials were attributable to the fact that a certain number of men were annually released from prison before the expiration of their sentences and sent out to serve in India. These men having already committed offences deserving severe punishments were, of course, a constant source of disorder, insubordination, and crime in their respective corps. In order to put this matter before the country more clearly, he intended shortly to move for a Return of the number of released prisoners sent out in the last few years to serve with different regiments in India.

ENGLAND AND FRANCE—THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME,

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT BURY, who rose to ask a Question having reference to the proposed Tunnel between this country and France, said, that the Question was one of importance, not only with their Lordships' House, but to the country generally. The last time he had mentioned this subject he was told by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) that the matter was to be relegated for consideration to a Military Committee, which was to examine and report on the whole subject of the Channel Tunnel, and advise the Government as to the course it should pursue in order to assist them in making up their minds. He now understood, and thought he could say without contradiction as a matter of public notoriety, that the terms of reference to the Military Committee were so constructed that the Committee were prohibited from inquiring into the great, and indeed the only, point of real public interest—namely, whether the construction of the Channel Tunnel was advisable from a strategic point of view. He was told that the Committee had done what they were ordered to do—namely, to direct their attention to the question whether the mouth of the Tunnel would be defensible in case of its construction; but that was an after consideration and not of any great moment, and not nearly so important as the one which had previously been referred to. The country looked with great distrust upon the construction of the Tunnel, and those who agreed with him (Viscount Bury)—and they were very numerous both in the House and in the country—considered that the matter had been rather too much hurried over. There was a Committee appointed a little while ago by the Board of Trade on this matter. What had been done by that Committee? Where was its Report? Had it been dissolved? It was said out-of-doors—and he could be corrected, if he were wrong—that after examining one or two witnesses—two well-known military men of the highest possible reputation were under orders to attend before the Committee; but it was generally understood that those officers were entirely opposed to the construction of the Tun-
  1266
  nel, and suddenly their Lordships heard that the Committee itself was abandoned, and that the opinion of the officers was not taken. Now they heard that another Committee had been appointed, and they were told in the same breath that the new Committee were not to take cognizance of the only point of national interest in the whole inquiry. He hoped his noble Friend who was about to answer the Question (the Earl of Morley) would say something assuring to those who were afraid that the Tunnel was being allowed to slip out of the grasp, he would not say of the Government, but of the people of England, who had a right to a voice in the great national question as to whether or not the Tunnel should be constructed at all. If the noble Lord who usually sat on the Cross Benches (Lord Brabourne), and who had constituted himself in a special degree the spokesman of those who advocated the Tunnel, were in his place that day, he should have asked him whether he thought it consistent with the respect due to Parliament to pursue the somewhat extended system of puffing which had hitherto prevailed in connection with the subject before their Lordships? He (Viscount Bury) was told that in the other House there was a book, in which any Member of either House could inscribe his name as evidence of his desire to inspect the works of the Tunnel, and thereupon he was furnished with a free pass over the line to Dover, and a ticket for a champagne luncheon at the end of the journey. He did not mean to insinuate that that material form of advertisement would have much effect upon Members of Parliament; but he could not refrain from pointing out that in a contested election it would be considered as bribery by treating, and held to be illegal. The question of the construction of the Tunnel must be investigated in a judicial manner by both Houses, and to issue invitations to the judges in a cause was not exactly the course which ought to be pursued. He begged to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is true that the Military Committee now sitting for the purpose of advising the Government on the Channel Tunnel scheme are prohibited by the terms of the reference to them from inquiring whether the construction of the Tunnel is or is not advisable from a strategic point of view;

  1267
  and, whether the Government will lay the terms of reference to the said Committee on the Table of the House?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was rather surprised the noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) should express doubt as to the scope of inquiry of the Scientific, not Military, Committee which was now examining into the question of defending the mouth of the Tunnel, because his (the Earl of Morley's) noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), in an answer which he gave about a month ago, stated very distinctly that the inquiry would be confined to the defences of the mouth of the Tunnel, and that the national question as to the advisability or non-advisability of permitting the construction of the Tunnel would be left to the military authorities and the Government to discuss after they had received the Report of the Scientific Committee. He (the Earl of Morley) could only repeat, though at somewhat greater length, the answer then given by his noble Friend. The Committee was composed entirely of scientific men, military and civil. It was presided over by Major General Sir Archibald Alison. The other Members were Major General Gallwey, Inspector General of Fortifications; Colonel Sir John Stokes, R.A. D.A.G.; Colonel Sir Andrew Clarke, Commandant of the School of Military Engineering; Mr. E. Graves, Engineer-in-Chief to the General Post Office; Mr. C. H. Gregory, C.E.; Colonel Alderson, E.A., Assistant Director of Artillery Stores; Colonel Majendie, E.A., Inspector of Explosives, Home Office; and Professor Abel, Chemist to the War Department. When he mentioned those names, it would be seen at once that the Committee was of a purely scientific character. The Committee was to make a full and exhaustive investigation from a scientific point of view, and without reference to the ulterior object of national expediency into the practicability of closing effectually the mouth of the projected Tunnel.
  VISCOUNT BURY: Without reference to the expediency of constructing the tunnel?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: Distinctly, without reference to the larger question. They were to satisfy themselves whether it was possible beyond any reasonable doubt that in the event
  1268
  of war, or apprehended war, the Tunnel and its approaches could be actually closed to an enemy under the existing Acts of Parliament, or under the Bill which was now being promoted. The question was to be considered in great detail. The Committee were to consider by what means—whether by destruction or obstruction, or flooding, or by works of defence or offence, or any other means—the mouth of the Tunnel could be defended. The noble Viscount said that was a subject for after consideration; but he (the Earl of Morley), on the contrary, ventured to think it was a matter for previous consideration. As soon as the Committee had reported as to the practicability or not, and the best means, of defending the Tunnel, it would be referred to the Military Advisers of the Crown to advise whether the Tunnel should be constructed on strategic grounds. He did not wish to enter into that much wider question to which his noble Friend had referred. He did not propose to lay the terms of reference to the Committee on the Table of the House. He had, he thought, explained sufficiently and fully what those terms were. They had not the slightest wish to conceal anything in the matter, and as soon as Her Majesty's Government came to a decision as to the course which they would pursue with regard to the Bills now before Parliament, they would be prepared to lay such Papers as they prudently could—some of them being of a confidential character—before Parliament. He hoped his answer would be satisfactory to the noble Lord, who justly anticipated that the terms of reference did exclude the general national question as to the advisability of permitting the construction of the Tunnel or not from the consideration of the Committee, whose examinations were confined to the scientific question which the Government considered ought to be discussed before the general question was decided by the Military Advisers of the Crown.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not wish to express an opinion on what the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) has called "the national expediency of the matter." But as this question is undoubtedly one that does excite a good deal of feeling and speculation out-of-doors, I should wish to know more clearly what is the precise

  1269
  course of investigation that the noble Earl has shadowed forth? I understand that the Scientific Committee will determine, in the first place, whether the mouth of the Tunnel can be sealed or not to an enemy, and that, after that question is decided, then the military authorities of the Crown are to take the matter in hand. Is that to be in the form of a Military Committee, that will consider some ulterior question to be laid before them by the Government, or does that mean that the Military Advisers of the Crown will determine the matter in consultation with the Committee? I also desire to ask the noble Earl whether Parliament is to be called in, as a third party, to consult in respect to this matter of national expediency?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Most decidedly, Her Majesty's Government have no intention of excluding Parliament from the consideration of this very important subject.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: There is one other matter which should be mentioned in connection with the Report of the Scientific Committee, and it is this—I should like to know when we may look for the Report; and, whether the Bills introduced into the House of Commons will be deferred until that Report is laid before Parliament?
  EARL GRANVILLE: It is the intention of the Government, as far as lies in their power, to prevent the Bills being proceeded with until the Government is in a position to give an opinion of its own on that subject.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: When do they expect the Report?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I cannot answer as to that.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he was afraid he could hardly regard as satisfactory the answer of his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley). No one in his senses doubted that the Tunnel, if constructed, could be defended. The question was, whether it ought to be constructed? The danger they had to face was not the losing the Tunnel by a direct attack; but that a landing might on some occasion be effected elsewhere in the country—not near the Tunnel at all—that England might experience some reverse, and that the possession of the English side of the Tunnel might be obtained as a material guarantee from them. In that case they would be absolutely defenceless. The
  1270
  Scientific Committee might report that the mouth of the Tunnel would be defensible; but that would have nothing to do with the real question at issue. The main point was whether, from a military point of view, the Tunnel ought to be constructed; and that was a matter which ought to be discussed in Parliament, and ought not to be decided by the result of the inquiry now being held.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Viscount has asked a Question which I think has been fully answered. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), if I may say so, showed much greater discretion in saying that he did not wish to initiate any discussion as to the merits of the Tunnel schemes.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he had not entered into the merits of the Tunnel; and he intended his remarks to be taken as formal notice that he would raise the question again.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In what I said I only wished to guard myself from expressing any opinion on a matter of which I am ignorant.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.