THE TUNNEL BUSINESS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 52, 2 March 1929, Page 19

THE TUNNEL BUSINESS.

FOSSIL FEARS. "SOLDIERS ALWAYS AFRAID." PROSPECTS FOR BORE NEVER j BRIGHTER. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, January 14. As one of those unfortunates physically uncomfortable both on the sea and in the air, this tunnel business sounds like a good proposition. We are now being promised a tunnel to France and one under the Straits of Gibraltar, and it only remains to tunnel under the Behring Straits to get us round the world by land all the way. Even so, there is no getting back to New Zealand except by boat or 'plane, alack! There seeina more than a chance that this bright little island will lose more of its insularity than it has already through aviation, for never before were the prospects brighter for the Channel Tunnel. T he handicap of the sea passage is so big that there are actual suggestions to build a bridge, but I who remember the gale that Sunday night when the Tay Bridge was blown down with a train crossing it, cannot imagine such a bridge ever obtaining wide public support. Sir Ilobert Perks, the distinguished engineer, who is all for the Channel Tunnel, is against a bridge, briefly, because for many reasons it would be impossible, and even if erected its cost would far exceed that of a tube railway in London. £30,000,000 he considers would suffice for a tunnel, and if it were built the French would bear a part of the cost. As long ago as 1872 all the pros and cons were exhaustively canvassed. As a practical proposition it is. of course, faT more feasible now than then, and the Channel Tunnel Company which still exists in Britain with its counterpart in France, lately deposited with Mr. Baldwin detailed plans for a broad-gauge electric railway from London to Paris, on which non-stop expresses travelling at the rate of over ninety miles an hour would make the trip between the capitals in two hours and three-quarters.

An Element of Danger. But the main objection to it still holds, that it would provide an element of danger to our national safety which makes the soldier loath to see such road to England opened np. The Premier, when the question was raised last in J'arliament lately, was non-committal. Mindful of t-he consistently hostile attitude of the Committee of Imperial Defence in the past, he looked at the question purely stategically, and could not admit that the time had come to review their decision of 1923 against it. What is this element of danger? It is obvious that if an enemy were in possession of both ends the tunnel would be of the greatest military value to him. But how would he obtain possession Y It must either be done, as Lord Wolseley feared it would be, in a surprise attack or as a result of regular military and naval operations. Lord Wolseley's supposition that "England, as a nation, could be destroyed without any warning whatever, when Europe was in a condition of profound peace," is a fantastic supposition, and would be universally so regarded nowadays, even if it were not so obvious fifty years ago that wars of this kind do not happen. Even when first mooted Lord Salisbury was in its favour, as Lord Cecil is to-day its keenest champion. Air. J. L. Garvin declares that all arguments that have been used against the Tunnel are definitely on the "pre war" shelf. Compared with other contingencies, that of a rush of hostile troops through the Tunnel is trumpery. It need no more get upon our nerves than the Mont Cenis does upon those of Frenchmen or Italians. And. even if it were not so, the nation that is to be ruled by its fears in the bustling world of to-day is fatally self-handi-capped, says the editor of the "Observer." He says soldiers are always afraid. Mr. Winston Churchill in 1924 wrote a trenchant article for the "Daily Mail," which it has now dug up. He pooh poohs the idea of danger, and concludes: "The danger of invasion following on treachery is the sole ground on which a Government is justified in vetoing the scheme. And if that ground is shown to be illusory the way will be cleared for the fair examination of an enterprise which might well become a notable symbol in the advance of human civilisation."

Objections to the Scheme. One imagines that the war risk being ignored nothing would be left but enthusiasm for the tunnel. But surprisingly the Fabian "New Statesman" declares itself this week an out and out opponent. It could not pay its way. Trade with the Continent would not be stimulated, for even now goods go by sea rather than by rail between our ports. "There are plenty of sound schemes of national development which will require substantial Government support, but the Channel Tunnel is not one of them. It is a chimera, and an economic absurdity. Its adoption as a 'plank' in the Liberal election programme would not matter very much, since certainly it would come to nothing. But we hope it will not be so adopted by the Labour or any other party. If the scores of millions of, pounds that will be necessary can be raised without any Government guarantee then let them be raised; but it is certainly not desirable that the resources and the credit at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be lent to any such wild-cat scheme. The sea is good enough for the purposes of our export trade. There is no apparent prospect of a Channel Tunnel offering cheaper or greater transport facilities. There might be something to be said for a train ferry such as we used during the war for the conveyance without reshipment of very heavy goods like big guns; but that is another question. As for the antique tunnel scheme we do not oppose it; we merely deplore the fact that sensible people should still be spending their energy in advocating so intrinsically, impracticable a project. There will be no Channel Tunnel."