§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ * SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND (Yorkshire, W.R., Rotherham)said on behalf of the 346 promoters that the prospects of the measure were so seriously impaired by the hostile attitude of the Government that under the circumstances the conclusion they had come to was that it was better not to proceed further at present. He was, however, authorised to say that the promoters regretted they had been denied the opportunity of laying their case fully before a competent Parliamentary Committee in order to demonstrate the enormous advantage that would accrue from their proposal, and also its absolute freedom from risk. The promoters were convinced that if this measure had been sent to a Committee they would have been able to show the most sceptical that substantial trade advantages would have inevitably ensued from the more rapid transit of goods and the diminished amount of handling required. It was very long since that important question had been gone into. Much had transpired in the interval, and in the opinion of the promoters the time was ripe for further consideration of the subject. A quarter of a century had elapsed since it cams up before a Parliamentary Committee, when it was rejected by a majority of one. But the world had moved on since then. Engineering science had made great, strides. The requirements of a growing population had increased. And happily the walls of jealousy between the two nations had been lowered. But they had to deal with facts as they found them. And he, for one, must admit that he hardly remembered a Bill which had aroused such keen susceptibilities as this. Feelings of that kind, however, when honestly entertained, were entitled to careful and respectful consideration. Under the circumstances it would have been folly for the promoters to have attempted to force; the Bill through the House at the present time. They must wait until the public mind was less sensitive on the subject. They quite recognised that there was a large body of opinion which was jealous lest a finger should be lifted to weaken the defences of this country, and with that body of opinion he himself was in the most hearty agreement and sympathy. There was absolutely no difference of opinion whatever between the pro- 347 moters of the Bill and its opponents as to the question of national safety. That was a question of paramount importance. The promoters firmly believed that if the Bill had been sent to a Committee upstairs the national safety would have been proved to be absolutely safeguarded down to the minutest details. What the promoters wanted was that, the question should have been calmly and dispassionately considered, on its merits—neither rushing it through hurriedly on the one hand, nor rejecting it unceremoniously on the other—and if it was found that the good outweighed the evil the Bill should be allowed to pass. If, on the other hand, it was found that the evil outweighed the good then its promoters would have joined hands with the opponents of the measure and refused to go forward mother step. He begged to move that the order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn."
§ MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)said he thought no other course was open to the promoters. Many years ago it was his fortune to be closely associated with this very important international project. More than thirty years ago he was engaged by the Channel Tunnel Company of those days to endeavour to help to pass the Bill through Parliament, and it was then only rejected by a majority of five to four in the Select Committee of the House. He would remind the promoters of the Bill that the necessity for this great work was not so great to-day as it was thirty years ago. One reason was that there had been an enormous growth in the cross-Channel traffic, owing to the large size of the steamers and the more rapid handling of passengers. He thought the Government had been very well advised in indicating at a very early stage their views on the project. It was a remarkable thing that the cost of the project to-day was estimated to be just twice as much as it was twenty five years ago. It was now £16,000,000 as against £8,000,000 at that time. The project was certainly of a prodigious 348 nature, and he very greatly doubted whether the cross-Channel traffic justified it. When the Bill was before the House previously it was thrown out for precisely the same reasons as those advanced at present. It had been said that the construction of the tunnel would promote still more friendly relations between the French and ourselves, but it did not always follow that the friendship of people or of nations was always promoted by too close contact. He had been a shareholder in the company for twenty-five years, but since the country was strongly against the enterprise, and since it would have the effect of involving us in possibly vast military expenditure, he did not think the commercial advantages it would afford would justify it. He therefore thought the promoters had been well advised in withdrawing the Bill.
§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)said he was in favour of the tunnel, which would have promoted the trade of this country, and afforded an easy means of getting into the delightful country of France. He could not but remember the words of John Blight, that this country undertook to rule half the world, to dominate in the east and in the west, and yet it could not defend a rat-hole in its own territory. For his part he paid not the slightest attention, to the alarmist Jingoes, who would spend all the money they could get, tunnel or no tunnel. When this Bill was brought forward nearly thirty years ago it was very nearly carried. We had increased since then, and had become immensely more powerful in every respect, yet the Bill did not get a look in. Judging by that experience, thirty years hence, when no doubt we should be still more powerful, nobody would ever dare to promote a Bill, because presumably we should be more nervous than we were now. That was international cowardice. Why should they give way to the Jingoes? Did they think that the Germans were going to smash our Fleet, and that the French were going to rush through the tunnel? Why, if the Germans smashed our Fleet the French would come to our aid through the tunnel. Opponents of the Bill would prevent that being done by hindering the construction of the tunnel. It was matter of great 349 regret that His Majesty's Government, whom he entirely respected in every way, had not been a little courageous and assisted the Bill. It would have been a great honour and credit to them if they had helped this country to shake hands with France.
§ Bill withdrawn.