SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 July 1883)

§ SIR CHARLES FORSTER
said, he had to move, on behalf of the promoters, that the second reading of this Bill be postponed until Friday, the 27th instant.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he objected to the proposal. This was a matter of great interest throughout the whole country, and everyone supposed it was coming on for discussion to-day. He understood that the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), who was in charge of the Bill, was not present, because he was attending a meeting of his own Railway Company. He could not imagine what that had to do with the Business of the House of Commons. If anything ought to have been put off, it ought to have been the meeting of the Railway Company, and not the Business of the House of Commons. The Motion to postpone consideration of this Bill until 2 o'clock on Friday ought not to be entertained for one moment. It was very possible 282 that many Members would be put to great inconvenience to attend at that time on Friday to discuss this matter. All hon. Gentlemen had perpetual calls upon them, many of the calls being of a public nature. The Business of the House of Commons, however, was never postponed for the convenience of any single Member. It was quite time they should discuss the Bill. If it were put off now, it could not come on for some weeks, when, in all probability, many Members would have left for the country. He should certainly vote against the present proposal.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, he came down to the House to-day with the full understanding that this Bill and the South Eastern and Channel Tunnel Railways Bill wore to be brought on; and he could not help reminding the House that on the last occasion that the Bill was down upon the Paper, the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), who was in charge of one of the Bills, expressed a strong opinion that to-day the Government ought to come down and state their views upon the expediency of constructing the proposed Tunnel. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was disappointed to find they were now asked to postpone the Bill again. The question of postponement was really one for the House to decide; and the only thing he could say in favour of a postponement was that, inasmuch as at the instance of the Government on many previous occasions the Bill had been postponed, the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe was, perhaps, to some extent, justified in supposing it was not a matter of great consequence that the second reading of the Bill might be taken to-day, and that he might, therefore, attend to the important business which he had in hand.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
said, he hoped the House would not assent to the Motion for postponement. The Bill had been postponed many times already. All hon. Members had made up their minds; they had all heard what could be said pro and con, and they were perfectly ready to-day to dispose of the Bill.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, there was another reason why the second reading of this Bill should not be taken on the 27th instant. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board 283 of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) remembered that the Prime Minister had given up Friday next for the discussion of a very important Indian subject indeed; and if the question involved in this Bill was to come on at the Morning Sitting, the House would not probably have more than an hour for the discussion of the proposal that India should not be called upon to contribute in any way towards the expenses of the Egyptian Expedition. Under the circumstances, it appeared to him a monstrous proposition that this important Business should be taken on Friday; and he hoped the House would unanimously reject the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Forster).

§ MR. MONK
said, he thought that if any postponement of this discussion was to take place, it ought to be until tomorrow. He would not be favourable to a postponement except for one single reason. The country desired to have a discussion upon the merits of the Channel Tunnel scheme; and though he had no doubt what the result of the discussion would be, still he thought great disappointment would be felt in the country if the Bill was simply thrown out this afternoon, in the absence of the promoters of the Channel Tunnel scheme. He (Mr. Monk) would be in favour of the postponement, but a postponement only until to-morrow. It was unreasonable, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had said, that the second reading of this Bill should be postponed until the day which had been given up by the Prime Minister for another most important discussion.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, it seemed to him that the best way of raising this question would be to move to leave out of the Motion the word "Friday," and substitute for it the words "this day three months." At this period of the Session the House ought to be very careful how it allocated any portion of the few days which remained to them, especially as this must be a purely academical discussion. Everyone knew perfectly well that, for all practical purposes, the Channel Tunnel Railway Bill was dead for this Session, and he personally hoped for a great deal longer. But they were now asked, first of all, to hypothecate a portion by anticipation of this afternoon; and then they were asked 284 to give up a portion of next Friday, a day which had already been handed over by the Prime Minister for the consideration of an important question, or to take to-morrow, on which day they hoped to dispose of important Government Business. He thought it was very unreasonable that on the threshold of the month of August the House of Commons should be asked to give up day after day for purely academical discussions of this kind. He did not wish to enter into the merits of the question; but he should be glad if they bad an opportunity of repudiating the objects of this Bill. But that, however, at the present moment, was a secondary consideration. They ought to be careful of the expenditure of time now remaining to them; and, therefore, he begged to move the substitution of the words "this day three months "for "Friday."

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, it was perfectly evident the feeling of the House was against any postponement, and under the circumstances he would appeal to his right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Bill to be called on, in which case he (Mr. Chamberlain) would have a Motion to make as a satisfactory substitute for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther).

§ SIR CHARLES FORSTER
said, he had no instructions from the promoters, except to ask that the second reading should be further postponed.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
suggested that the Orders should be discharged.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he understood that the Bill they were now discussing was the Bill in which the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) was interested, and not the Bill which was promoted by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). As a matter of fact, the South Eastern and Channel Tunnel Railways Bill stood third upon the Paper. The Bill which was now before the House was the Channel Tunnel Railway Bill; and that, he believed, was the Bill which was promoted by the Company of 285 which the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor) was Chairman. If the noble Lord were to suggest that the Bill should be withdrawn, it would possibly relieve the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Forster) of any responsibility in the matter.

§ LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR
said, that, having been appealed to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), he had only this to say—that he should acquiesce willingly and freely in any course which seemed necessary to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He (Lord Richard Grosvenor) believed the present feeling of the House and the country was such that it would be impossible to go on with the Channel Tunnel scheme this year; and, though it was with deep regret the promoters had to drop it even for this year, he thought he should be only doing what was right in acquiescing in the Motion which had been made.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he should be quite ready to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that a Motion would be made that the Order be discharged.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, the House would recollect that the Orders for the Channel Tunnel Railway Bill and the South Eastern and Channel Tunnel Railways Bill had been postponed from time to time at the instance of the Government. It was thought desirable that some further evidence should be taken in the matter; and, at the suggestion of the Government, a Committee of both Houses was appointed. That Committee had now concluded its labours; and although the Members of the Committee had been unable to agree upon any detailed Report, they had made a Report to the House to the effect that the majority of the Committee were of opinion that Parliamentary sanction should not be given to a submarine communication between England and France, and that Resolution of the Committee was arrived at by a majority of 6 to 4. The Government, having considered both the Report of the Committee, and also the state of circumstances which it disclosed, had decided to adopt their decision. Under these circumstances, they could not give any assistance 286 to the further progress of these measures; and he should, consequently, move that the Order be discharged.