§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ (3.10.) SIR E. WATKIN (Hythe)I rise for the purpose of moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and I propose to do so with the utmost brevity. I think that the general question of the construction of the Channel Tunnel has now been reduced to certain principles on which it is not necessary to detain the House save in outline; and I believe I shall be able to show, in a few words, that the Bill has been drawn with a view to meet as far as possible the views—I was almost going 26 to say the prejudices—of the Government. The Bill proposes simply to continue certain experiments which have been conducted with no inconsiderable success, and then to give to the Government for the time being the power of saying, should those experiments prove to be complete, whether the Tunnel should be made or not. The whole of the question of the Channel Tunnel is by that means taken out of the sphere of private enterprise, and the responsibility is placed on the shoulders of the Government of saying whether a work of this kind should be carried out in the interests of the public at large or not. For my part, I have always declared my opinion that an extension of the Empire such as the Tunnel would involve ought to be the property of the people of this country, and ought not to be regulated by a Joint Stock Company, who may be Englishmen one day, Frenchmenanother, and American or anybody else afterwards. But as the Governments of both political. Parties have stated that they were in favour of the construction of the Tunnel, but that it ought to be constructed by private enterprise, private enterprise has gallantly stepped in and offered to do the work and to supply the means of carrying it out. So far, every bit of the experimental work has been initiated under the eye, if not under the sanction and approval, of the Board of Trade, and I, for one, think it would be idle for any combination of men desirous of performing the work to run their heads against the Government of the day, whether the views of the Government are right or wrong. If the promoters of this scheme have a grievance, it is that if they were making a proposal against the interests and liberty of the country, they ought to have been stopped at once and prevented from expending their money fruitlessly; but they were deliberately encouraged to go on, and were told by the President of the Board of Trade of the day that the Government approved of the work. The experiments, so far as they have been made, have shown that the work can be done easily, cheaply, and rapidly. The promoters contend that uninterrupted communication between the 17,000 miles of railway in this country and the 120,000 miles of 27 railway of the same gauge on the Continent would tend largely to facilitate the interchange of persons and commodities between our country and the various countries of Europe and Asia, and would be of vast benefit to industry, and of equal, if not greater, benefit to commerce. Again, they contend that this country requires a second line of supply for its food and the other necessities of its existence. To be without such a second line of supply is not a safe position for a great country to be in, while it is no phantom of the imagination to believe that the larger interchange of ideas of friendship and of trade which would result from the construction of a Channel Tunnel would likewise tend to promote peace and do away with the jealousies and misunderstandings which are so often the origin of wars. They say, further, and it is a point to which I wish to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, that the experimental works as far as they have gone have been carried out in obedience to pledges given to France by the Government presided over by the late Lord Beacons-field. They believe that they are carrying out the work of that statesman. They submit that the honour of every friend of Lord Beaconsfield demands that the agreement which his Government made with the Government of the people of France should be observed and carried out. There is not the excuse that the agreement was made with the late Imperial Government of France, because it was made with the Republican Government of that country. There is, again, as the Board of Trade ought to know, a gradual isolation going on with regard to commercial and other interchanges between England and the nations of the Continent, and a greater union with regard to the whole of Europe. England, day by day, is becoming more and more isolated: while Europe, where mountain ranges have been pierced, great harbours made, and barriers broken down, is becoming, for purposes of unbroken interchange, more and more one. If the Channel Tunnel were made, only 2,000 miles of railway are required to connect England with her great dependency of India. That railway will soon be made; and then 28 are you prepared to say that for all time to come you will preserve a barrier of sea to thwart and hinder through an unbroken access to and from the 300,000,000 of people in Her Majesty's Indian Empire; while every other country in Europe may send commodities right through in the same carriage? On the other side, there are the military objections. It is said that all is well. Now, I think that all is not well between England and France. I can tell the Government, if they do not know it, that there is a very deep and widespread feeling in France at the way in which the French people have been treated in this matter by this English Government. Every reasonable person in France is in favour of closer communication between the two countries. As President Grévy said to our English workmen, every one in France is in favour of closer union with England; and if the English Government prefer a policy of separation and isolation we can only deplore it. There would be more trade, less suspicion, and England and France would be better able from time to time to stand together in all questions affecting freedom and the civilisation of mankind. Therefore, I say all is not well. Is Newfoundland well? Are Chinese and African relations well? Is it well that the commercial classes of France can charge you with the repudiation of your Convention of 1876? Then, of course, there is our old friend—the silver streak. The only advantage of being tolerably old is that one can remember things which younger men are not likely to know. In 1847 a very distinguished soldier said in respect of this silver streak—
You are aware that I have for years been sensible of the alteration produced in maritime warfare and operations by the application of steam to the propelling of ships. The application of steam has exposed all parts of the coast of these islands, to be approached at all times of the tide and in all seasons by vessels so propelled from all quarters. We are, in fact, assailable, and, at least, liable to insult, and to have contributions levied upon us on all parts of the coast, including the Channel Islands, although down to this time since the Norman Conquest we have never been successfully invaded.The writer of that letter was the great Duke of Wellington, and he dated it from Strathfieldsaye in 1847. Every sensible man will, I think, agree with his Grace 29 that steam has bridged the Channel, and that every advantage which we formerly derived from the silver streak has gone. The Duke of Wellington, although he was 76 at the time, undertook, with an additional force of 150,000 Militiamen, to make the country invulnerable. The hon. Member for Swansea (Sir H. Vivian) had told them that he was in favour of the construction of the Tunnel, provided we increased our forces. Other objectors had talked of a levy en masse. But if any such need would exist when the Tunnel was made, it was just as much a need now. If these are really the views of hon. Members, why do they not have the courage of their opinions and come down here with the measures they think necessary for the protection of Great Britain against everybody, under all circumstances? If they are really patriotic men, and believe that the country requires an unlimited supply of soldiers, no matter where they are to come from, they are bound to come down here and say so. But how is it that the country, notwithstanding the £35,000,000 spent annually upon the Army and Navy, is so weak; and why should this idea and apprehension of being ridden over and subjugated only just have dawned upon us? I entertain no fear of the kind; and I repeat that there is an obligation on the part of the Conservative Party to support the policy and proceedings of their great leader, Lord Beacons-field. In November, 1874, Lord Derby, then Minister for Foreign Affairs in Lord Beaconsfield's Government, in transmitting a Despatch to the French Ambassador, expressed the opinion that—It is very desirable to support any well-considered scheme, the result of which may be to increase the facilities of communication between the two countries.That was a proposition endorsed by Lord Beaconsfield and his Government. Later. On the 24th of December in the same year, Lord Derby wrote to the French Ambassador in London stating that the Government admitted the utility of the scheme and had no objection to it provided they had no pecuniary responsibility, and generally acquiesced in the views embodied in the Report which had been forwarded by the French Ambassador. On March 18, 1875, Sir Henry Tyler, a Member of this House, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Watson 30 were solemnly appointed Commissioners to negotiate a Protocol which should be the foundation of a definite Treaty between England and France. In fact, the whole principle of the wisdom and usefulness of the proposed improvement in the means of intercourse with France was acquiesced in by the Government, details only remained. They agreed to the Protocol, and signed it; the French Commissioners signed it, and when the document was laid on the Table of the House of Commons, the Government thanked the Commissioners for the able way in which they had drawn up the preliminary Memorandum for a Treaty. Then how is it that these scares come so late in the day? The whole military question was considered by these Commissioners, in consultation with the War Department at home. It was agreed that either country, of its own volition, without giving reasons, might stop the working of the Tunnel, or impede it, or destroy it entirely. It was also provided that either country might make such fortifications in connection with the construction of the Tunnel as they might think desirable. I assume the Ministers of Lord Beaconsfield agreed with Lord Beaconsfield. That noble Lord was his own shepherd, and generally kept his sheep in tolerable subjection. But who formed the Government of Lord Beaconsfield at that time? First of all there was the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. Whether his contact with ideas of Irish government made him an enemy to improved communication between England and France I do not know, but at all events the right hon. Gentleman shared the responsibility.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)I was not a member of the Cabinet at the time, and had no responsibility whatever in the matter.
§ SIR E. WATKINThen, so far, I release the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman did not know at the time, but when a week or a month afterwards he did know, surely his duty was to have gone to Lord Beaconsfield to tender his resignation. There was another Gentleman who cannot plead the same excuse, the right hon. Gentleman who acts as Leader of this House. The 31 right hon. Gentleman was Secretary to the Treasury, and it was through his executive action that all the instructions were given to our delegates in Paris. There was also the Earl of Derby, who wrote the despatches at the Foreign Office. He, however, has not changed his views since he held a strong opinion and he still adheres to it. Nor did he form it hurriedly, or in any nonchalent kind of way; on the contrary, it was the result of firm conviction. I do not know whether the Marquess of Salisbury was in the Cabinet at the time, but I cannot believe that Lord Beaconsfield concealed from him his views and desires in reference to a closer alliance between England and France. Among the other Ministers of Lord Beaconsfield were Lord Cadogan, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Right Hon. Edward Stanhope, now, happily for the country, Minister for War. If these Gentlemen have changed their views, it is their duty to get up to-night and tell us why they have done so. Always remember that France is our best and largest customer in interchange of commodities, save only our own India. Contrast the position of France with this country in regard to communication with other parts of Europe. While the communication with England is simply and solely by sea, France has 14 separate railway communications with Belgium, eight with Germany, seven with Switzerland, two with Italy, and two with Spain, while a third is now being constructed under the highest portion of the Pyrenees. What people are asked to believe by the opponents of the tunnel is that a frontier, which would be no larger than the entrance door of this House, could not be defended by all the power of England. I do not pretend to believe that. All the House is asked to do is to permit the experiments to go on. Am I to be told, with regard to one great discovery made by the men employed in the tunnel in the time they were unoccupied for Channel purposes—namely, the discovery of coal under the Channel—that that experimental work is to stop? Are we to be compelled to allow our works, made on and under our own property, and with our own money, to fall into desuetude, and to be prevented from utilising one of the greatest discoveries of modern times? All I ask the 32 right hon. Gentlemen is to give us fair play. Many things have happened since this question came up two years ago. Among them is the proposal of different means of crossing the Channel. There has been a proposal to bridge the Channel, a proposed combined arrangement of bridge and tunnel, the idea of a tube in Mid-Channel, suggested by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. Reed), and, in addition to that, there is a proposal to render nugatory the possibility of loss, surprise, or damage, by the erection of forts designed by Mr. Heenan, C.E.—a proposal which we have been told met the objections of many eminent military men. I do not believe in forts myself, but would be prepared to accept them if they would satisfy the Military Authorities. Then there is the remarkable admission of Lord Wolseley in reference to a bridge which seems to me to make what is called the military objection vanish altogether. Under these altered circumstances I hope the Government will take a broader view of the situation. We are now simply discussing the Second Reading of the Bill, which simply means that the allegations contained in it shall be inquired into upstairs, and the whole question thoroughly ventilated, criticised, and thrashed out. I ask the House, without pronouncing a definite opinion upon the scheme, to allow the Bill to be read a second time, and fairly considered. When objections to the construction of a tunnel were raised in England on the only ground of objection, the scare of some leading military men, they created surprise and regret in France. France equally, or I should say more in danger, if there be danger; but through a sentiment of reciprocal national respect met our refusals with calm and dignity. The desire for continuous communication by railway between the two countries is so great in France, that I am assured in the highest quarters that in the final agreement to be concluded France would willingly grant every guarantee and every reasonable precaution which England could demand. Why do not our Government tell that of France what they really want? Why do they not negotiate with the Great Powers of Europe for the neutralisation of the Tunnel? I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir E. Watkin.)
§ (3.40.) SIR M. HICKS BEACHMr. Speaker, I confess I had anticipated that a larger portion of the hon. Member's speech would have been occupied with some valid arguments for troubling the House upon this subject. This is no new matter. The present Bill has been rejected four times by the House of Commons, and in 1888 it was rejected by no less a majority than 142 votes, by no Party Division, for many of the staunchest supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite voted against the Bill after ample Debate, and after the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir E. Watkin) had obtained the powerful support of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). I suppose I must not say there was any change of opinion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman—not the least, although it emanated in a change of vote, for I have no doubt the Channel Tunnel has always been dear to the heart of the right hon. Gentleman, even in the days when adverse circumstances compelled him to vote against it. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Hythe in the hope that I should discover some reasons for his again pressing this matter on the consideration of the House of Commons. What were his reasons? He dwelt at some length on an alleged pledge of Lord Beaconsfield in 1874. By the hon. Member's own statement, what happened amounted to no pledge at all. It simply amounted to a promise to give consideration to the subject—I admit favourable consideration to it—in principle at a time when it had really not been discussed by the country or the military experts at all, and to the appointment of the hon. Member for Yarmouth as a Commissioner to consult with Commissioners of the French Government upon the International arrangements which would become necessary if the Tunnel should ever be constructed. There was absolutely no pledge given by Lord Beaconsfield and his Colleagues which could possibly bind this country to any future support of the Channel Tunnel: and the best proof of that is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, when he succeeded to the responsibilities of office 34 as Prime Minister, felt it his duty absolutely to ignore any pledges of the kind, and to oppose the project. Then the hon. Member for Hythe told us something about the discovery of coal. That was, no doubt, a very remarkable discovery. I am not aware that it has been laid open quite so completely and so agreeably to public inspection as the commencement of the workings of the Channel Tunnel; but he did not allege that, even if that discovery should prove to be a practical reality, that any large quantity of coal found under the cliffs at Dover could by any possibility be sent to France through the couple of lines of Channel Tunnel he desires to construct. Another argument used by the hon. Member was that since 1888 several other schemes had been proposed for crossing the Channel, in competition with his own proposal. I do not see how that fact, if it be a fact, tends to recommend his tunnel to the more favourable consideration of the House. The hon. Member has thrown out a challenge to me which I do not shrink from accepting. During the past year the hon. Member has endeavoured to extract from me, on behalf of the Government, a declaration that it is our determination to refuse to permit any other means of communication between England and France except on the surface of the sea. All I can say is that I hope that I shall never be guilty of making so absurd a statement. We do not know what the future may bring forth. In the future there may be methods proposed for crossing the Channel, which are at unknown and which might appear as impossible to us now as the construction of the Forth Bridge would have seemed to our ancestors. Those proposals when they come to be made will have to be considered on their own particular merits. At the present moment we are not called upon to deal with the possible schemes of the future, but with the proposal of the hon. Member for constructing the Channel Tunnel. I should wish, in the first place, before I deal with this thoroughly threshed out subject, to make a remark upon the mode in which this matter has been presented to the House to-day. I suppose that those who were present in the House during the speech of the hon. Member for Hythe heard him say something about the small and inno- 35 cent character of the proposal which the House is asked to sanction, and that view of the subject is enlarged upon in the Paper which was circulated among hon. Members this morning by the promoters of the Bill. I think that I never read a more audacious document. It states:—
This Bill, while relating to a subject of national importance and interest, is yet in itself of a most innocent character. It in no sense whatever authorises the construction of the Tunnel, but simply enables the Channel Tunnel Company 1o continue experimental borings and works for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether or not a permanent tunnel for railway purposes beneath the Channel be practicable. So far from the Bill authorising the construction and maintenance of the Channel Tunnel, the Bill, by Clause 5, expressly reserves to the Lords of the Treasury the power of authorising its construction in the event of the experimental works proving its practicability. The Bill also, by Clause 6, provides that, should the Tunnel hereafter be constructed, the Lords of the Treasury may, at any time within five years after its opening for traffic, require it, and all power over it, to be transferred to the Lords of the Treasury, or to such other Department of the Government as they may direct, who would thenceforth be the sole owners thereof. From the foregoing statement of the provisions of the Bill, it will be seen how completely the public interests are protected in the event of the construction of the Tunnel being found practicable, and of its being hereafter constructed, as that cannot be done without the formal consent and concurrence of the Government of the day, and, in the event of such consent being given and the Tunnel being constructed, the Government will have the full power of taking and retaining possession of the works. Seeing, therefore, how entirely the public interests are protected by the terms of the present Bill, the promoters respectfully ask the House to pass its Second Reading in order that the Bill may be considered in its details by a Select Committee.That appears to contain a proposition which I do not think that the hon. Member himself will defend, because, under the guise of asking for the sanction of the House to the continuation of an experiment, it proposes to leave the determination of the question, which is one of great national importance, whether the Channel Tunnel shall or shall not be constructed in the hands of the Government of the day, and not in those of Parliament. Surely the hon. Member himself will not call that a very small matter. In reference to this point, I contend now, as I have contended before, that this question as to whether the Channel Tunnel shall be constructed or not, is one which 36 it is absolutely impossible can be satisfactorily determined by one of the. Committees of this House, to which we entrust the consideration of ordinary private business. What would be the value of a decision of such a Committee, before whom, according to our rules, no opponent to this Bill could have a locus standi, because there are no private interests affected? No lesser tribunal than Parliament itself is qualified to deal with a question of such great national importance as this. The question, therefore, that we now have to consider is whether this Tunnel shall be made or not. The grounds upon which I object to the formation of the Tunnel are—first, that its construction will create a new source of danger to this country. That is a proposition! which is universally admitted by all the highest Parliamentary, military, and scientific authorities, and, indeed, it is admitted by the promoters of the Bill themselves, because they have confessed that if the Tunnel is constructed it will be necessary to construct fortifications at the British end of the Tunnel and to provide means of flooding or destroying it if need should arise. But how are the means of guarding it to be provided? How are these fortifications to be paid for? It has never been suggested that any company formed to make the Channel Tunnel could possibly take upon itself, in addition to the cost of constructing the Tunnel, the extra liability of providing for the cost of these fortifications and of the consequential increase in our Military Force. Certainly no company could obtain shareholders, which undertook such a liability; and, therefore, those extra expenses must fall, upon the taxpayers of the country. And what would the latter get in return for bearing that expense? We have heard a, great deal of the commercial advantages which would accrue to the country from the construction of the Tunnel. But although vague anticipations of this kind have always been put forward by the hon. Member and his friends, they have never condescended to detailed argument upon the point, and I therefore venture to assert that they are unable to support their statements by proofs. In the next place, when all the expense of constructing the necessary fortifications has been incurred and our Military Forces have been 37 increased, there will still remain a risk which could not be got rid of by any means in our power. In these circumstances, I ask, had we not better leave well alone, and thus avoid all, need for the precautions which the hon. Member himself admits would have to be taken if the Tunnel were to be constructed? It is admitted by the highest authorities who have considered the subject that the risk to which I have referred would be incurred if we were to consent to the Tunnel being made. In 1883 the minority of the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, who reported in favour of the construction of the Tunnel, admitted that the making of the Tunnel would, in some respects, modify the conditions under which the defences of this country would have to be considered, and that special precautions would be necessary to prevent it from falling into the hands of an enemy; and they admitted, further, that its possession either during the progress of operations or an occupation of English soil would be highly advantageous to the invading force and injurious to the nation; and they conceded that, if it could be shown that no means could be devised to prevent the Tunnel when once made from passing into the hands of the enemy, its formation would be in the highest degree objectionable. The question was, could such means be devised? That was referred to a scientific Committee of Military and Engineering Authorities, who made numerous recommendations for the security of the Tunnel of a very complicated and costly character. But the Scientific Committee reported that while, by the means they recommended, the Tunnel might be made absolutely useless to an enemy, it would be presumptuous to place absolute confidence in the most complete arrangements for preventing it from falling into the hands of an enemy, thus absolutely rejecting the presumption on which the Minority Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee in favour of this Tunnel was based. The fact is, that the risk could not be absolutely obviated, because there can be no perfect certainty in human affairs. But what would the risk be? In the first place, there is the chance of surprise at this end of the Tunnel, either with or without the previous declaration 38 of war. There is the chance of the Tunnel falling into the hands of the enemy by treason; there is a very great chance of hesitation at the supreme moment on the part of those who would be charged with the tremendous responsibility of deciding, when our relations with France were very much strained, whether such a great work should be destroyed, or Hooded, or not; and then there is the chance, finally, of the failure of the machinery which might be devised for flooding or mining the Tunnel: machinery which could never be tested to see if it was in working order. It is all very well for speakers to say, as was said in 1888, that these chances are so improbable that they could not happen; but I venture to say that they have happened in other countries in past times, and that there is no reason why they should not happen again. But what is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian? He asked the House in 1888 why we were to be fearful of an invasion by Franco when in past history England had invaded France more often than France had invaded England, and even the great Napoleon had been unable to invade us, now that the numbers of our population have, comparatively, so much increased that we have less reason to fear invasion from the French than they have to fear invasion from us. Well, I should like to say that, in my humble judgment, it is not a question of the number of the population of either country, or of the wealth of either country, except so far as greater wealth offers greater temptation, or even of the ultimate resources of either country; it is a question of the military power which the organisation of either country enables it to place on a given spot at very short notice indeed. Will anyone pretend that our military organisation, as it exists at present, can be compared with the military organisation of France? Of course it cannot. I do not doubt if we had, as the hon. Member for Hythe suggested in his speech, conscription in this country, the most timid of our Military Authorities would be ready enough to sanction the making of a Channel Tunnel; but we have no conscription in this country; and if there is one subject on which I believe the House and the country would be more unanimous than any other it would 39 be in the feeling that we should never have it. We do not want to make it the first object of our national life, as Continental nations unfortunately make it now, to establish this nation as a great Military Power. We have refrained from doing so, confident in the strength of our natural defences, and we do not want to be driven to take such a course by the breach which would be made in those defences by such schemes as those of the hon. Member for Hythe.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe only opinion, I believe, Lord Beaconsfield over expressed, or that the hon. Member for Hythe could quote him as expressing, on the scheme, was that he had doubt, and grave doubt, whether, if the Channel Tunnel wore constructed, it would ever pay a farthing of dividend. Those are the objections I would urge against the proposal of the hon. Member. They stand on the debit side of the account; what can be put on the credit side of the account? He has told us, in the first place, that the Tunnel would be a new route for bringing food, merchandise, and raw material to England in the event of the sea being closed against us, just as if that route would be available if France were hostile to us, and if it is at all probable that any combination of Powers against us, with France still friendly to us, could close the sea to the commerce of England. Then the hon. Member has told us that the Tunnel would be a great guarantee of peace with France, forgetting that the relations between some of those very Continental countries which he named, whoso railway communications are numerous, while the possibilities of their land communication are unbounded, are infinitely more strained, and have been more strained for many years than, I am happy to say, have been and are the relations between England and France. Then it is said that the Tunnel is to be a great artery of commercial intercourse between England and the Continent. The hon. Member has not said it would be possible that any amount of heavy snoods should be taken through the Tunnel; there would be no time for such traffic, nor could the Tunnel, as a means of conveyance for heavy goods, compete with the sea he looks to it 40 mainly as a means of increasing the amount of passenger traffic between England and the Continent—the accommodation of the class of passengers who can afford to pay for the luxury of greater speed and escape from the discomforts of a sea voyage—and also, to some extent, for the transit of light and expansive merchandise. On the last point I would say that any benefit this country might derive from the construction of the Tunnel as a means of transit for light and expensive merchandise, would, I believe, be far outweighed by the loss our shipping interests might sustain from the change that would be effected in the trade between England and the East. A large part of the trade between Europe and the East is now distributed over Europe from London and Liverpool, but if there were railway communication with the Continent, that trade would be much more likely to break bulk at Marseilles or even at Brindisi than to come to England at all. I contend, therefore, that there is nothing in the benefits which could be derived from this scheme which should outweigh the objections to it. I would remind the House that they have against it all the highest Parliamentary, military, and scientific authorities, that on four previous occasions they have rejected it by a large majority, and that it is defended to-day by no better arguments than those which were adduced in its favour before. I ask them again to reject it as unhesitatingly as it was rejected in 1888 and I move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
§ Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," in order to add at the end of the Question the words "on this day six months."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ (4.10.) MR. W.E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)I shall be sorry if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government should be disposed to complain of my contributing to the prolongation of a Debate which they think unnecessary, and against which they urge the rejection of this Bill by the House of Commons on four previous occasions. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he has himself to blame for imposing on me that necessity, because he has 41 found it needful for the purposes of his own argument to refer to what he considers, or his friends consider, inconsistency on my part in respect to this important question. The right hon. Gentleman and every speaker on the Front Bench know that there are certain subjects on which they are perfectly safe in making references to me. Any references to my inconsistency or to my capacity to express myself in the English language are certain to draw forth cheers from the forces marshalled on the Ministerial Benches. I only refer to this matter of consistency because it almost makes it necessary for me to mention that on all occasions I have held that this plan or project ought not to be opposed; and further than that, I have deemed opposition to it on the merits, and particularly on the score of danger, to be not only unnecessary, not only unwarrantable, but even, if I may so speak, ridiculous. It must not be supposed that I am claiming any credit to myself as a friend of this undertaking. I have never given to this undertaking any further support than justice and honesty demanded on its behalf in the House of Commons. Beyond this, I have given to it no sort of countenance or patronage further than that of having travelled in a special train, not at my own expense, to the Tunnel works some years ago, and having been hospitably entertained and partaken of excellent champagne at the English end of the proposed Tunnel. With regard to the champagne, so far as my recollection goes, that kind of countenance was very liberally and largely conceded to this project by Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. I admit, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that the Government of which I was a Member voted against a Channel Tunnel Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) on that occasion expressed the mind of the Government, but there was not a word spoken on behalf of the Government adverse to the principle of a tunnel. Undoubtedly, this is not a Party question, and there are some who have changed their minds upon it, including one or two of my oldest, best, and nearest friends. At the time referred to, the Government then in Office found themselves in extreme difficulties in carrying on public 42 business, and they thought, rightly or wrongly, that these difficulties were mainly owing to systematic obstruction carried on in the main by the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. On that account we felt we could not give up the time necessary for the consideration of a question of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman is right in speaking and voting against this Bill if he believes the plan is a bad plan, and if he thinks it is impossible for the Government to be neutral upon this question. We considered at the time it was not compatible with our duty to press forward an important Bill which would have required that extraordinary facilities should be provided for the discussion of the subject. I claim no credit as an active promoter of this project. The warmth of my promotion consists simply in the warmth of disapproval and condemnation of the arguments of opponents. The right hon. Gentleman says there has been unanimity on the part of all the highest Parliamentary, scientific, and military authorities in condemning this plan. I do not know where he draws his line. This is a line by which, together with most of my hon. Friends sitting near me, I am entirely excluded as not being entitled to give any opinion of weight on a question of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends alone are entitled to reckon among the highest Parliamentary authorities. We have no title to be heard, though one of us, at least, was serving his country in Parliament before the human race was enriched by the birth of the right hon. Gentleman. I have no objection to that line of defence; but it should be understood that when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the highest authorities of any kind, it means those who agree with him and entertain his opinions. I think the best argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that this Bill had been four times rejected by the House of Commons. But it would be very difficult to mention any great and important project of law, whether in this region of public works or in any other region, that is now upon the Statute Book, and that now forms a valuable part of the commercial arrangements or political liberties of the people, with respect to which it may not be stated that it was rejected four 43 times, or more than four times. Notwithstanding, I admit chat the argument is not without force. But permit me to observe that it is quite fair on my part to allege that there is a counter argument, which is this. My hon. Friend the Member for Hythe, Lord Stalbridge, and others who have been concerned in projects of this kind, prosecuted those projects anterior to the present state of feeling, and with the universal favour of the country. We may here retort the epithet of the right hon. Gentleman. The first proposal I heard for a Channel Tunnel was that of Mr. Ward Hunt, a most distinguished member of the Party opposite, who waited upon me, when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the time of Lord Palmerston's Government, as head of a deputation proceeding from the main promoters of the Tunnel. I quote him, but it is useless to quote individuals. I know of one single exception, and with that exception I do not believe that the name of a man can be quoted among the highest authorities, the middling authorities, or the lowest authorities, who at that time raised his voice against the Channel Tunnel. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government of Lord Beaconsfield did nothing to pledge themselves to the Channel Tunnel. The question is, did the Government pursue a course of action which pledged that Government? Most certainly they did. They appointed Commissioners to communicate with the French Government upon the subject, to examine and inquire into all the details of an International proceeding. I do not say that it amounted to an engagement, but it amounted to the expectation of an engagement, and a just expectation. I may also add that whilst I chink that our position in respect to the Government of France on this question of the Channel Tunnel is a humiliating position, on the other hand, the Government of France deserves, in ray opinion—and I am glad to take this opportunity of declaring it in this House—the highest credit and the warmest acknowledgment on our part for never having made our altered position a subject of complaint. That International proceeding was taken; the Report of the Commission was made by the Joint Commission on the part of the two countries, assuming the principle of 44 the Tunnel, and pointing out in what way all the multitudinous arrangements in detail were to be made. That Report was quite as valid and important a document as any other International Report. I do not recollect that the Commissioners were made Privy Councillors, but in every other particular the Commission had all the importance of an engagement having the highest sanction. I say, then, that the promoters of this Tunnel, when they are told that the Bill has been rejected four times, are perfectly justified in saying, "Yes; but recollect that it was a Bill which, for many years, had received the unquestioning assent and approbation of all classes of this country, which had the distinct countenance and approval of successive Governments, and with respect to which, as we think, an unreasoning panic has been raised. Therefore, we are justified in again and again questioning, at proper intervals, that which we know to be a thoroughly unreasonable decision." I must admit that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified in stating that my hon. Friend the Mover of the Motion is not entitled to say that the House will not commit itself by its vote. I regard the Second Reading of this Bill, if it be carried, as a Vote completely giving sanction to the Channel Tunnel in principle. The right hon. Gentleman says that the expectation of commercial advantages are vague expectations, and are reduced to a minimum by the estimates of adverse critics. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever read any examinations of the witnesses for the first projects of railways in this country? Does he know that George Stephenson was challenged boldly and most confidently to say whether he would undertake to give his judgment that the steam engine would be able to drag a train of carriages at 10 miles an hour? And, further, he was pressed as to the possibility of eight miles an hour; and, finally, I think, whether he would guarantee that the train would go at four miles an hour. In all these questions, where strong interests are excited, the precise amount of commercial benefit to be expected will be the subject of great differences of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Let well alone." Those words are not so musical to me as they may be to younger men; because I 45 remember the time when, under a Conservative Government, the defence Estimates of this country for the Army and Navy, which have now reached £35,000,000, stood at £11,000,000 a year. Do not let it be supposed that I am unaware that some portion of that expense has been most warrantably and justly incurred for effecting essential improvements in the Army. But I have known more panics and alarms a great deal in the days of high Estimates than in the days of low Estimates. It is only a very few years since that we had a very extraordinary panic raised on the subject of the Navy, in days of high Estimates. So I am quite prepared for a continuance and recurrence of these panics. I believe they are states of feeling which thrive by what they feed on; and that what is true of the love of money is also true of the love of panic, sufficiently to invalidate the argument, "Let well alone." The right hon. Gentleman dwells, and I do not wonder at it, upon a Report of a distinguished Committee of Military Officers and Engineers. I think the right hon. Gentleman pushes the matter too far in saying that no distinguished Military Authorities are friendly to the project.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHI did not say that.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI believe, then, that the right hon. Gentleman said a very small minority. I am sceptical about these Reports of great Military and Engineering Authorities on subjects of this kind. I am sceptical as to what they condemn from the recollection of what they have approved. There was never a more complete concurrence of Military Authorities, as far as I know, than in those Reports of great officers and engineers which led up to an expenditure of £2,000,000 at Alderney, on the most confident assurances ever delivered by man— before we ever came near the £2,000,000, and were lingering among the hundred thousands—that after we had spent that money we should close up Cherbourg, and never hear of it again as a port for military expeditions. These are not professional questions. On professional questions I have a great respect for Professional Authorities, but with regard to the amount of danger—and that distant danger—to be incurred, I do not think 46 that they are in any degree to be considered as the best authorities. At this moment my belief is that the people of England are not opposed to this tunnel. The question is one which does not enter into the motives and considerations of elections; but if you could get at the feelings of the sensible population of this country—and by that I do not mean only the people who agree with me, but the mass of the working population—I believe that it would be found that they look upon the opposition to the Channel Tunnel on the ground of danger as an almost preposterous opposition, and share none of those apprehensions which perplex the right hon. Gentleman. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that this a question of military power. No, Sir, it would be a question of military power if we had a land frontier with France. But we have a sea frontier with France, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot suppose, or venture to assert, that naval power does not enter into this question more largely than military power. The right hon. Gentleman points out that we have no conscription in this country. I did not expect to hear a Minister of the Crown in this country easting a longing eye on that system.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHI denounced the system of conscription as strongly as any Member of this House could do. What I said was that the Military Authorities now opposed to the Channel Tunnel might, if we had the conscription, view the project without apprehension.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI regret to have misunderstood the right hon. gentleman. However, Sir, I was not aware that it was admitted in this country that the conscription was a better, a sounder, and a more solid ground for military defence than the system under which our Army is recruited. The right hon. Gentleman drew forth a lively cheer by his reference to a doubt expressed by Lord Beacons-field whether this Channel Tunnel would ever pay 1 per cent. dividend. Why, Sir, I recollect the judgment delivered by the best authorities in the world on the question of the Suez Canal. A Commission was appointed of Dutch engineers, who, from their practice in their own country, are the greatest authority on all great hydraulic questions and their results. They said that the Suez Canal 47 was possible, and would be useful, but it was hopeless to expect that it would ever pay 1 per cent. That is not the question. I do not ask myself what dividend the Manchester Ship Canal will pay. Some say it will pay a good dividend, while others maintain that it will not pay at all. I am not bound to protect the purse and the pocket of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir E. Watkin), who in these matters is perfectly competent to take care of himself. The whole question for us is whether a solvent person is ready to undertake the scheme. Then the right hon. Gentleman said no arguments had been adduced in favour of the Tunnel. I think the Member for Hythe may have felt that the general arguments in this case had been pretty well exhausted on former occasions, and I should be very sorry to repeat them. I did not understand, however, that there ever was a period when the power of military concentration on the part of France in reference to England was so great as it was in the time of Napoleon, and then it proved utterly abortive. I hold my old opinion with reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, and I believe that we have invaded France ten times for once that France has invaded us. We have held the capital of France alone once, and we have entered it in conjunction with other Powers, and if there is a country which would be justified in feeling sore and apprehensive on the subject of the Channel Tunnel it is the French nation. In France there has been no apprehension. The French know that we are mainly the masters of the sea, and if we were to cease to have a prevailing command of the Channel that would, for the purpose of invasion, be fatal to our position. The question does not turn upon the Channel Tunnel in the slightest degree. The right hon. Gentleman has laboured to prove that for the transport of heavy goods, the Tunnel would only be available to a very limited extent. If so, how is it to carry the enormous heavy stores required by an invading army? The case of those who promote this project is a case resting upon general considerations which are pretty generally understood. We wish to promote the intercourse of nations. We have seen 48 that enormous advantage has been produced by everything which increases that intercourse. No doubt it may be true that railway communications are not sufficient to abate and neutralise active and powerful causes of hostility; but, fortunately, we have no powerful and active causes of hostility to France. We have seen the immense effects which have been produced by the Commercial Treaties with France. We see that France, although, nearly the most protective Power in the world, is almost the only country in Europe which has not during the last few years been reactionary. Whether she will always continue so I cannot undertake to prophesy. That she has not been reactionary is owing to this augmentation of intercourse. It is often said that we wish to see this intercourse augmented, and that we wish to see an unbounded number of great steamers, and the largest possible intercourse carried on. But there is a great deal more military danger in the multiplication of fast steamers and of harbours than there is in the creation of this Tunnel. I am ashamed of the attitude of this country in the face of France. I am obliged, if I meet a Frenchman, to say something of the conduct of recent Parliaments of this country in regard to the Channel Tunnel which I should be very unwilling to say in this House. I feel that we are in a position to say to France what 2,000 years ago the Spartan warrior said to the Athenian. The Athenian, referring to the frequent invasions of Attica by the Spartans, said, "Many of your dead sleep by the side of the Ilissus," and the Spartan replied, "And not one of your dead sleeps by the side of the Eurotas." There have been a, hundred Englishmen who sleep among the dead in France for one Frenchman who sleeps among the dead in England. Now, Sir, I wish to bring about a recurrence of that sound and healthy state of things between England and France which existed as to this subject 20 years ago. I admit that there has been a tremendous reaction. I admit that we have travelled some stages towards barbarism in this matter through the change of opinion that has taken place. I admit that that change is not confined to one Party or the other although the Party opposite have the, honour of claiming much the larger part 49 of it. I feel convinced that it will pass away. We are not in such a hurry as to think that the welfare of the country depends upon the Tunnel, and we can accordingly afford to wait. Being' asked by the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir E. Watkin) to give my opinion on the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman having forced mo into the field, I must repeat the sentiment which on every occasion I have been ready to express, and say that I believe this to be a considerable measure and a useful measure, and that the arguments opposed to it deserve neither acceptance nor respect.
§ (4.40.) The House divided: Ayes 153; Noes 234.—(Div. List, No. 116.)
§ Words added.
§ Alain Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
§ Second Reading put off for three months.