THE EARL OF ROSEBERYrose "To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any definite policy to announce with regard to the construction of the Channel Tunnel; and to move for Papers." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have to thank my noble friend, Lord Wemyss, for giving me priority for my Question, and I promise not to detain your Lordships a minute in asking it, as I propose only to ask it in the House of Commons fashion, without any comment on the subject-matter of it. My main difficulty has been, where I was to ask it from. I am afraid I am not in active communion with either of the Front Benches, and yet I am so accustomed to this Table that I am more than loath to leave it. My noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, under somewhat similar circumstances, addressed the House from the end of the Table on the other side, but I am given to understand that by the inscrutable provisions of this House that end of the Table is no more a part of the House than it is a part of Stonehenge; and therefore one must either address the House from one side of the Table or the other, and I must ask the courtesy of my noble friends behind me to allow me to speak here,†for it is more convenient to ask a Question face to face than by turning one's back to the questionee.
I put this Question down a long time ago at the opening of Parliament for this simple reason. I was not able to attend the sittings of Parliament, and it struck me that during the very interesting debates on the Address one of the most important topics which might have engaged the interest of His Majesty's Government was omitted—this topic of the Channel Tunnel. I therefore wrote to Lord Ripon to ask his permission to put it to him, but for divers reasons, some concerning him and some concerning me, I have not been able to put the Question until this moment. I do not know what the intentions of His Majesty's Govern-
†His Lordship was standing at the Opposition side of the Table.1208 ment are, but I do think it a matter of great importance that they should not keep the public any longer in ignorance of them. Whether they be opponents of the measure who consider it a vital matter of policy, or whether they be promoters of the measure to whom every day's delay means enormous expenditure, I think there is a claim on behalf of the public to know what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter. I will, therefore, simply ask the Question of which I have given notice, moving also for any Papers which may be pertinent to the matter and which may be presented to Parliament consistently with the public interest.
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe)My Lords, I desire to join my noble friend in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, for allowing this Question to be taken as the first Order to-day. It seems to me that his courtesy involves a corresponding obligation on our part not to stand longer than we can possibly help between him and the Motion which he has next on the Paper. That subject is one of great importance, it is one in which the noble Earl takes a keen interest, and I understand that there are many noble Lords who desire to say something upon it. In these circumstances, I venture to appeal to noble Lords in all parts of the House, whatever view they may take of the statement which I am about to make, and whether they approve or disapprove of it, that they should not attempt to institute anything like a debate on this occasion. From that point of view the matter cannot be regarded as urgent, and any noble Lord who wishes to raise the question again can easily find an opportunity of doing so after the Easter recess. With regard to what my noble friend on the Cross Benches said about the position from which be addressed the House, I can only say that, although we are always very glad to have him on our side, at the same time—and I am sure I am saying what is in the minds of everybody in the House—we are also always glad to hear him from whatever part of the House he may desire to speak.
I will simply confine myself to making a statement similar to that which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister 1209 either has made, or is about to make, in another place; and I have to say that His Majesty's Government fully recognise the deep concern felt in this matter, and they have no other desire than to take Parliament fully into their confidence even in anticipation of the early stages of a Bill which has been introduced in another place. I may say, briefly, that our view of the public interest leads us to be opposed to the project of the Channel Tunnel. Even supposing that the military dangers involved were to be amply guarded against, there would, in our opinion, exist throughout the country a feeling of insecurity which might lead to constant demands for increased expenditure, both naval and military, and a continual condition of unrest, and possibly even of alarm, which, however unfounded, would be most injurious in its effects, both political and commercial. On the other hand, there has not been disclosed any such prospect of advantage to the trade and industry of this country as would compensate for these evils.
As to the personal convenience of passengers and the transit of light articles, it seems well that further consideration should be given to other means of conveyance, such as are used, for instance, in ferries across great channels of the sea in other parts of the world. These considerations lead us, while rejoicing in anything that facilitates freer communication with our neighbours, to view the project with disfavour. In reply to my noble friend's Motion for Papers, I have to say that I regret we are not able to lay any Papers on the Table. Practically the only documents which would be of interest in the matter are memoranda of the Defence Committee, which, as the House will fully understand, are of a parely confidential character, and cannot therefore be produced.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I shall certainly be guided by the advice of the noble Earl who has just addressed you, and stand for as short a time as possible between the House and the interesting debate in which we shall presently take part; but I think it would be scarcely decent that this subject should be passed by without a word from these Benches, and I have, as the House is perhaps aware, a particular reason for taking on interest in it.
1210 I had the honour twenty-four years ago of presiding over the Joint Committee of the two Houses upon this subject, and I plead guilty to having been the author of a Report in which the construction of the tunnel was favoured. I was supported by the late Lord Aberdare, the late Mr. Baxter, and my noble friend Lord Peel, who is, I think, not in his place this evening. I am bound to say that the arguments which convinced me in 1883 do not appear to me nearly so convincing at the present moment. I remain of opinion that the tunnel would be of very great convenience to that portion of the public which desires to cross the Channel, and I certainly should not speak slightingly of the sufferings which a portion of that public has to undergo. I am reminded of a saying of a gifted Irish authoress, who once said that she wondered why people were so apt to ridicule those who suffered from seasickness. She said that to her seasickness always presented itself in one of two lights. It was either pathetic or disgusting—pathetic if she was seasick herself, disgusting if anybody else was. Nor do I think we ought to put on one side too hastily the commercial advantages of such means of communication. And, besides that, I am attracted, as I think everybody must be, by the prospect of an addition to the many great triumphs over natural obstacles which our engineers are able to achieve, and which, I have no doubt, they would achieve in the present instance.
Passing from that to other considerations I still believe that it should be possible, humanly speaking, to render almost certain the denial of the tunnel to a foreign adversary. But I am bound to say that if the chances of its being used against us were only as one in a hundred, or one in a thousand, I do not think that the people of this country would tolerate an operation which would oblige us to run that hundredth or that thousandth chance. That is the real question. We may be able to convince ourselves that we should run no risk, but I do not believe that we shall ever convince the public that that is so. And if that is true it follows that we should, by allowing this tunnel to be built, occasion not only a new source of anxiety in time of peace, but a grave additional cause of anxiety when war was going on, or when war 1211 was imminent. We can picture to ourselves, without very much difficulty, the condition of things which would arise if we were engaged in war with a great Power, or if such a war were imminent, We can think of disturbed trade, of rising prices, of interrupted communications—perhaps in the absence of the Fleet engaged in another part of the world; of the terror of invasion, of the prospect of raids, of the clamour for measures of protection. Well, my Lords, if to all these causes of anxiety we were to super-add the apprehension which I have no doubt would be created by the presence of this tunnel, we should make the position, already grave and anxious enough, doubly grave and doubly anxious.
It is upon these grounds, which I am almost inclined to describe as of a sentimental character, that I base my conclusion, rather than upon strategical or historical considerations. I am inclined to think that we have rather wasted our time in the examination of historical precedents. It does not seem to me that it would at all follow that because in the past war has been waged according to certain rules, that the rules of the game should necessarily be observed in the future. I know that I have myself been taken to task lately on account of a statement made in the Report of the Committee to which I referred just now—a statement which was alluded to the other evening by my noble friend Lord Lovat—I mean, a statement in which we referred to the seizure of the Danish Fleet by this country in the year 1807. That occurrence was put on one side by us upon the ground that it was justified by the discovery by the English Government of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit, by which the Navy of Denmark had been put at the disposal of France. It has been represented to me that on that point our history was incorrect, and there is, perhaps, some truth in that, because, I believe, the secret Articles of the Treaty of Tilsit were not known to the Government of this country until many years afterwards. But what the Government of the day did know was that the condition of Europe was extremely disturbed, that the minor Powers were threatened and would, in all probability, be drawn into the vortex of war. We believed that Denmark would be 1212 unable to maintain her neutrality, and accordingly—resorting, no doubt, to rough and ready methods—we sent an ultimatum to Denmark, and, as that ultimatum did not produce the desired effect, we seized her fleet.
But, as I said just now, the question of precedents does not seem to me very greatly to matter. To my mind we are concerned not with the past, but with the present; and so far as the present is concerned I am bound to say that, having regard to the state of public opinion on the subject of the Channel Tunnel, having regard to the fact that its construction would create something like general dismay in this country, I do not think the noble Earl opposite could have given any Answer other than that which he has just addressed to the House.