would appeal to his right hon. Friend | very sorry to countenance any hurried the Chairman of Committees whether it or hasty legislation upon important queswas right that these Amendments, which tions of this kind; but really he had the House had barely had time to look listened with surprise to the speech of through, and which it was impossible his hon. Friend, who was not only an they could properly consider, should be old Member of the House, but a Memhurried through almost on the last day ber well acquainted with the Forms of of the Session? He would ask his right the House; nevertheless, his hon. Friend hon. Friend whether it was not possible had failed altogether to dig out of this to refer the Bill back to the same Com- large mass of additional clauses and exmittee which had already considered tended clauses a single ground, as far as the measure, or to another Select Com- he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) could gather, or mittee when the House re-assembled on the slightest substantial reason why the the 24th of October? He believed that House on this occasion should depart such a course would be perfectly in con- from its usual course. He would remind sonance with the intimation conveyed by the Speaker that from that Chair he had the Prime Minister as to the character twice already in the course of the preof the Business they would be called sent Session called upon the House to upon to transact when the House re-record its opinion in regard to the obassembled after the adjournment. Hejections of his hon. Friend. When the understood his right hon. Friend to say Bill was before the House for a second that he did not intend to interfere at all reading, on the 2nd of March, his hon. with private legislation; but he did not Friend objected altogether to its being accurately gather whether the right hon. allowed to proceed, and upon an AmendGentleman referred only to Bills intro- ment moved by the hon. Member for duced by private Members, or whether Warwick (Mr. A. Peel) the measure was he referred to Private Bill legislation. discussed for an hour or more. At the He would, however, put it to the right end of that time the House divided, hon. Gentleman and to the Chairman of and, by a majority of 5 to 1, declared Committees whether there was not a that the Bill ought to be allowed to go very strong case for referring these 85 on. He (Mr. W. M. Torrens) on that pages of Amendments to the same Se- occasion made a proposal of a special lect Committee which considered the nature-namely, that the Bill should be Bill when it was first introduced, or to referred to a Hybrid Committee, and he another Select Committee to consider had the honour to be supported in that the measure in its altered form, and in- proposition by Her Majesty's Governform the House whether it was right ment. The House deliberately affirmed that it should pass into law or not? He the recommendation of the right hon. should not propose, at the present moGentleman the President of the Board ment, to move the rejection of the Bill. of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) that the He had no desire to take that extreme Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Comcourse; but he was certainly of opinion mittee, and a Hybrid Committee was acthat it was most desirable the Bill cordingly appointed. That Committee should be reconsidered by a Select Com- sat for 17 days to consider the Preamble mittee, and reported upon at a later of the Bill, and examined 75 witnesses. period of the Session. No fewer than 10,000 questions were put MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gen- to the witnesses, and at the end of the tleman make no Motion?

MR. MONK: No, Sir; I do not make any Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the Question I have to put to the House is that the Lords Amendments be taken into consideration.

MR. W. M. TORRENS said, that, before his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees answered the appeal of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he should like to say a few words upon the subject. He should be Mr. Monk

In

evidence the Committee decided that the
Preamble had been proved. After that
the Committee proceeded to consider and
discuss the clauses, and some more days
were occupied in the consideration.
the end the Bill came back again to the
House, and after the Report of the Com-
mittee was agreed to, it was submitted
for a third reading. What happened
then? The late opponents of the mea-
sure, who had stoutly resisted its pro-
gress, upon the ground of jealousy of
the Railway interest, objected to the

In

third reading of the Bill. Another de- | for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) was that the bate took place, and another division, transfer of the Canal to a Railway Comwhen, by a majority of 4 to 1, the pany would result in the shutting up of House decided that the Bill ought to be the Canal and the removal of all comread a third time. It could not, there- petition, so that the whole of the traffic fore, be said that the merits of the Bill would in future fall into the hands of in every essential particular had not been the Railway Company. The object of thoroughly discussed. The measure then some of the Amendments introduced by went up to the other House. What took the House of Lords was to prevent the place there? The Chairman there-he possibility of such a condition of things; (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had no delicacy in and he would put the question plainly stating what was notoriously the fact- and candidly to every hon. Member who the Chairman of Committees in the House had considered the Amendments inof Lords (the Earl of Redesdale), seeing serted by the Lords, whether they did the importance of the Bill, hesitated to not effect a great improvement of the appoint a Committee to inquire into it Bill as it originally stood? The Lords until he could secure the nomination Committee, in his opinion, had fully upon it of noble Lords who were well carried out, he contended, the prinacquainted with such matters. Some ciples and intentions of the House of delay occurred in consequence; but, Commons when that House passed, by eventually, Earl Beauchamp was ap- such an overwhelming majority, the pointed Chairman, with four other Mem- second reading of the Bill. Among bers of the House of Lords to act with other things, the Committee of the him, one of them being a noble Lord House of Lords required the promoters (Lord Derwent) well known to hon. of the Bill-of whom he wished the Members as a former Representative of House clearly to understand that he Scarborough in that House. The Select was not one-to widen the Canal. Committee of their Lordships spent a point of fact, they had placed upon whole week of working days in inquiring them the obligation of increasing the into the matter, and discussing the merits width of the Canal from 35 feet to 40 of the Bill de novo, and at the end of feet. They had also inserted in the Bill that time the Committee, without a a clause which he would venture to say division, decided in favour of the Pre- was unexampled in the whole history of amble of the Bill. They then proceeded Private Bill legislation-namely, a clause to discuss the clauses which had been giving power to the Canal Company to fully considered by the Commons Com- come in after the Railway was made, mittee. They introduced a variety of and be in the position of being able to new clauses, and amended many of the buy the Railway if they were not satisexisting clauses. He held in his hand fied with the arrangements made. He the Amendments inserted by their Lord- would put it to the House whether, ships, and he challenged his hon. Friend without destruction of class interests the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), or locality, it would be a light matter or any other hon. Member, to point out to throw out this Bill at the eleventh any new matter introduced by the hour, and after the labours of the Select House of Lords which was not in Committee which had been sitting upthe direction of securing the advan- stairs during a considerable period of tage of the general public. He ven- the Session to improve the facilities to tured to say that any hon. Member, enable the working classes to obtain looking at the Amendments with impar- dwellings out of town? His right hon. tiality and without prejudice, would see Friend-who was not at that moment that they were extremely developing present-the late Home Secretary (Sir clauses, expanding in certain particu- R. Assheton Cross) was Chairman of the lars, in the interests of the public, the Artizans' Dwellings Committee, and if clauses passed by the House of Com- the right hon. Gentleman had been premons, and introducing others which sent he would doubtless have borne teswere rather protective than otherwise of timony to the accuracy of what he (Mr. the Canal as against the Railway in- W. M. Torrens) was about to say. After a terest. One of the allegations made by careful investigation which had extended those who took the same view of the over two Sessions, the Committee had question as his hon. Friend the Member agreed to a Resolution that everything

No

that had hitherto been done, or could be | course; but it is a very unusual one to done, either by the Bill of the late Home take, and the nature of these AmendSecretary or in any other way, to pro- ments does not appear to me to be such vide healthy and comfortable dwellings as to require any further examination in the Metropolis for the working by a Committee of this House. classes, would be insufficient unless Par- doubt, the Amendments inserted by the liament was able by some means to in- Lords are exceedingly bulky; but they crease the facilities of exit into the mainly consist of clauses for the protecsuburban districts. Now, he ventured tion of private rights, the rights of the to say that that was entirely a railway Crown, of various Railways and Canals, question. It was not a class question; and of the Victoria Docks. All the but a question of the health and respec- other Amendments are in the interests tability and the good order of this great of the public. One of them requires Metropolis. After long consideration, the width of the Canal to be increased the Committee upstairs had recom- from 35 feet to 40 feet, another has remended in the strongest terms that en- ference to the running of cheap trains, couragement should be given to every and there are others of a minor chascheme which would afford facilities for racter, but all of them introduced in the the working classes in living out of interests of the public. Therefore, town, and they were anxiously looking although the Amendments are bulky, around to see what would best aid the they are not of a nature to require rerunning of cheap trains to bring people examination by a Select Committee of in and take them out of town. Surely, this House, as they are mainly in the then, the House of Commons would not interests of the public; and I hope my at this eleventh hour throw out a Bill hon. Friend will be satisfied with pointwhich afforded these advantages in a ing out the great care the Lords, as well hitherto unexampled manner. The Bill, as the House of Commons, have taken as it now stood, provided, for the first in considering and amending the protime, that a working man and his family, visions of the Bill, and will allow the before 7 o'clock in the morning and after Bill to be proceeded with without fur6 o'clock in the evening, should have ther delay. It would be a great inthe privilege of travelling four miles for justice to the promotors of the Bill, if, 1d., six miles for 1d., and eight miles after the lengthened examination the for 2d. Was this a moment at which measure has received from both Houses the House, at the last moment, should of Parliament, they should now lose the be asked to reject a measure which made Bill. so great a concession to the working classes, who were panting for better and more healthy dwellings? What was the House asked to do? Were they to constitute themselves a Court of Appeal upon the details of every Private Bill, how was the private legislation of the House to be conducted? He trusted that the House would ratify the wise improvements which had been introduced into the Bill, and he believed that the advantages conceded by the promoters of the Bill should not be passed by and ignored except for more weighty reasons than had been adduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk).

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) desires that the Lords Amendments should be submitted to the same Committee which considered the Bill when before the House of Commons. Now, I do not say there is no precedent for such a

Mr. W. M. Torrens

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to. [Special Entries.]

CHANNEL TUNNEL RAILWAY
BILL (by Order).

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be in the recollection of the House that the Government have pledged themselves to lay Papers on the Table upon this subject, and that they would at a later stage make a recommendation to the House as to the course it ought to take with respect to these Bills. I have this day presented to the House the Papers in question. They are very voluminous, and they will be found to contain a full history of the Channel Tunnel project, commencing from 1867, and including the communications which have passed

of the late lamented Lord Frederick Cavendish, was mislaid; but he (Sir Edward Watkin) knew that there had been such a letter in existence, and it contained the views of the Liberal Go

between the English and the French Governments, the evidence taken by a Departmental Committee appointed at the instance of the Board of Trade, and the Report of the evidence of the Scientific Committee, appointed by the Secre-vernment of that day, and of the pretary of State for War, to inquire into the practicability of rendering a tunnel, if constructed, absolutely useless to an enemy in case of war. It also contains the Reports of the Surveyor General of Ordnance, the Adjutant General, and His Royal Highness the Commanderin-Chief. Another set of Papers will be presented, containing all the Correspondence between the Submarine Railway Company and the Board of Trade, with respect to the experimental borings carried out by the Company, the further progress of which has now been prohibited by the Board of Trade. The Government have carefully considered all these Papers, and, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, they have come distinctly to the conclusion that they cannot advise that the two Bills now before the House should, at all events in their present form, be allowed to proceed any further; and, consequently, I propose to move that both of the Orders now on the Paper should be discharged. The Government have also come to the conclusion that it will be their duty, early next Session, to propose a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the whole matter, and to this Committee they propose to refer all the Correspondence on the subject. I beg to move that the Order in the case of the Channel Tunnel Bill be discharged.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

sent Prime Minister. He should like to ask whether it was included in the Correspondence to be produced, as showing what the opinion of a Liberal Ministry was in that day as to the question of a Channel Tunnel? There was another letter, which at present was in private hands, but which seemed to him to be a public document, and ought to be in the possession of the Board of Trade. It was a letter written by the late Lord Derby to the late Lord Beaconsfield, and handed by Lord Beaconsfield to the late Baron Lionel de Rothschild. In that letter the late Lord Derby stated his views of the Channel Tunnel project. The noble Lord believed that the carrying out of the project would be attended with very great advantages, although probably with some disadvantages; and, while it was doubtful whether it ought to be assisted by the State, it ought not to be discouraged by the Government; and, further, that the scare and alarm about the invasion of the country, through the Tunnel, was idle and weak, and ought not to be considered for a moment. In regard to that letter, he (Sir Edward Watkin) had seen it, and it had been seen, at all events, by one of the officials connected with the Board of TradeMr. Calcraft-and he had no doubt that Mr. Calcraft communicated the nature

of its contents to the President of the Board of Trade, and the fact that such a letter was in existence. He was sure that the hon. Member opposite would agree with him that this was an imSIR EDWARD WATKIN said, he portant declaration of opinion by a man only desired to say one word. He was who really deserved to be called a statesvery glad indeed, and he congratulated man-the late Lord Derby-to another the House and the Government, that the man whose predictions in a different Government had come to something like line of statesmanship were now being a conclusion upon this question at last. very rapidly verified. For the informaThey were told that all the Papers had tion of the country this letter ought to been laid on the Table, and he should be published with the other Corresponlike to ask whether certain letters were dence. With regard to the general included. In 1872 there was a letter question, he thought it was to some exwritten by the Board of Trade to one of tent to be regretted that the Governthe other Departments of the Government had not made up their minds ment, which letter was revised by the present Prime Minister. That letter, he believed, by some error on the part

somewhat sooner. Private persons had been put to considerable expense in the matter, and had been very greatly