§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has given any intimation to the French Government that this country does not wish for the construction of a submarine tunnel between France and England, with a view to prevent the possibility of disappointment, or of claims arising in France for money expended in that country in attempts to construct a submarine tunnel under the misapprehensions caused by the fact of a Lord of the Treasury being the chairman of one of the tunnel companies? said, that to the Question which stood on the Notice Paper he had only to add that, notwithstanding that the works for the construction of a tunnel had been stopped on this side of the Channel, it was said they were still proceeding on the French side. He would like to point out that there appeared to be some inconsistency between taking out an injunction against one Channel Tunnel Company and not offering to the Chairman of the other Company the option of resigning the Lordship of the Treasury or the Chairmanship of the Tunnel Company.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that it is proposed that a Joint Committee of the 814 two Houses shall be appointed to consider this subject, and that a proposal to that effect will shortly be made in the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, until the matter shall have been considered by the Committee, we think it undesirable that any progress should be made with the two Bills, or that any communication should be made to the French Government on the subject.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I feel bound to say that I am considerably surprised to hear it stated by the noble Earl that the Government intend to refer this subject to a joint or any other Committee. I dare say that a Joint Committee would be as suitable an instrument as any other for conducting an inquiry; but, surely, the question as to whether it is expedient to make a junction between the two countries below the Channel is one which belongs to that class of political questions which, hitherto, the Government have always been held competent and been obliged to decide upon their own responsibility. It is impossible that any Committee can have all the considerations before them which should govern the decision to which this country ought to come. There are considerations which are present, no doubt, to the minds of the Foreign Secretary and the Cabinet—considerations which depend upon the knowledge which the Foreign Office possesses of the condition, of the intentions, and of the policy of the various States of Europe, but which it is impossible to produce in evidence, and which, therefore, cannot assist in the guidance of any Committee, however able or well-chosen. I do not wish to discuss the matter at length; but the course proposed is a Constitutional precedent of no little magnitude, and, therefore, I do not like to allow even a mention of it to pass by without entering a protest.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI think, my Lords, it will be better to defer any discussion until the proposal is made to the House. As to the knowledge which the Foreign Office may possess with regard to the state of Europe at any particular time, I may say that it appears to me that this is a question which must be decided very much upon its general merits, and not in regard to the particular policy of any foreign country at this particular moment.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he did not consider a Joint Committee a desirable method of settling the question, for this among other reasons—that it was impossible to say how such a Committee was to be formed which would be free from objections. The responsibility ought to rest with the Government. He trusted that when the proposal was made the noble Earl would tell them that the Members of their Lordships' House who were to be appointed to the Joint Committee would be named by the Government.