LONDON CHAT.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12683, 22 December 1906, Page 4

LONDON CHAT.

(raoir o.n own correspondent). LONDON, November 9. The obannel tunnel section of tho Littlo England party ia 1 ' holding up it 3 diminished head onoe more. It is so obvious that the best way to preserve the safety of this Lsl-nd-Kingdom and t.> deter invaders is to provide a convenient route of entrance for an invading army, nnd ono -which renders invaders quite independent of the sea, that of course tho Channel Tunnel finds many radical advocates. '"Think how nice it would.be," they cry, "to bo able to get to France without being seasick! Surely thc mere possible risk to the country is nothing in comparison with such a boon! Bother the Old Country! Let us have the tunnel, and down with sea-sickness!" And actually tho war' correspondent of a leading London daily was deluded into joining into this cry and supporting it with arguments based on inaccurately remtjrnbored statements and opinions of several decades ago. He urges that • in case of need thee Channel tunnel could be instantly destroyed by high explosive, always to be kept in readiness and capable of being fired by •electricity from a fortress specially built to protect the English entrance- to the tunnel, liut tho answer to this is'almost self evident—is at any rate quit© conclusive. It is pointed out that in 1882 a very strong expert committee wa. appointed under General Sir A. Alison, to make suggestions as to tho defenoes which should be created in order to secure the tunnel, if made. This committees advised a vast number of defensive measures, including the erection of a first-class fortress, with a garrison permanently maintained ot at least 8000 men. But their report concluded -with this significant sentence: "It would be presumptuous to place absolute reliance upon even the most comprehensive un-d ecomploto arrangements which can be devised with a view of rendering the tunnel absolutely useless to an enemy m every imaginable contingency." Lord Worseley spoke out emphatically: "I think it would be utterly impossible for this country ever to raise its head again as a free and independent country if the Channel were in possession of a foreign natron.' Sir Lin-torn Simmons, a great sol-dier-engineer, and therefore especially valuable as an authority on this point, was quite aa emphatic: "I do not think that military science can make the end of the tunnel aßsdlutoly secure. I thank it might bring national ruin. I cannot conceive any amount of commercial advantage that oould in any way compensate the risk that would be run. Then Sir Arcliibal Alison, wh* had had bt-fore him, as president of the milijtary enquiry, the whole of the case, edeclared that if an enemy ono© got possession ot, the tuivnel and th© fort, it would be "perfectly fatal to this country; tliat tne country would not be worth an hour's piir-chaso." But perhaps under this rspect of the question the most cynical fact of all is that the -popular use erf the tunnel will necessarily d*>pend upon its complete insecurity, so Far as the nation is concerned. As Sir J. Howkshaw well put it, "nobody would use the tunnel if tihere are to be large masses of gunKwfcton or dynamite, or any other there, waiting for somebo-dy to touch a button somewhere and expHode thorn. Them are impracticable things, and would bo foolish." Yet these, or some corresponding means of instant destruction, are the essential condition of aational safety. It is therefore certain that the fears of travellers would ijause aB the meaps devised to be gradually taken awayv SIX QUESTIONS BY LORD ROBERTS. Even apart from this wild idea of destroying England's main protection— the "Blue Streak" which constitutes the moat of her island fortress—the question becomes daily more pressing whether, assuming that "most" to be still maintained, we are taking due precautions against a hostile surprise. Iv this connection Lord Roberts in his new ecampaign this autumn on the question of Imperial defence ia asking those who support the out-and-out Blue Water School theory the following six questions:—(l) Are we absolutely safe against the risks of a surprise attack? (2) Are we certain that fog and storm will always be on our side? (3) Have our naval commanders sufficient experience .in war to be suro of their ability 'to command the complicated machine which a line-of-battle ship has become during the excitement of a battle P (4) Can they be certain that they are fully equal to bearing the strain of defending a nntinn unprepared to defend itself? (5) Did not Napoleon in 1798 land -50.000 men in Kgypt, in spite of the fact that we held command of thc <*?a P and (0) Would it not relievo our .admirals of anxiety to feel that, even if a landing wore effected, it could bo ! dealt with promptly and thoroughly by [ a people trained to defend themselves? The questions are setting many in his audiences Eerionsly thinking. And no wonder. " POPLARITY." The report of Mr J. S. Davy, tho Government Board Inspector, on he enquiry he held into the extraordinary increase in the number of supers and the cost of their maintenance in tlie Poplar Union, was issued yesterday, and i>s. in many respects, a 'remarkable doenment. Briefly stated, the conclusion at which he has arrived is that the scandalous condition which nrevailed in the administration of the •rorkhoiwe was the result of a delibernte policy inaugurated by Me-ws Crooks and Lansbury, when they joined "he Board of Guardians in 1893, with ihe obj<xrt of calling attention to the nequalities of the Poor Law and fnr--herine their views on Socialism. "In fact, the evidence suggests," writes tho nspector, "that in later years the T-uardi-ine deliberately increased _ their "xpendituro with a view to making it evident that additional contributions from the rates of the whole metropolw were an absolute necessity of the Pop•ar district." Mr Davy makes a careful analysis of the evidence, which was fully reported during the progress of *he enouiry, and makes it clear that •-bile Poplar is essentially a poor dis--rict, it. ia not by any means the oorest __ London. Its exreessive paawrism is due to tho policy of the guardians, which deliberately encouraged the inhabitants to pauperise them-

selves. He points out that of the total asseeeablo value of the district of £839,000, lees than £170,000, or only about one-lifth, represents the rating of the electors who both pay their own rates and have votes. The bulk of the rates is paid by railway, dock and other companies, who are practically unrepresented. Under such conditions, he adds, the chances of re-election of the guardians was but little affected by the rise in thevates, "and they were free to pursue their ulterior aims without much peereonal loss. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion,". ho eaye, "that both tho rise and the decrease in pauperism were mainly due to the deeliberate action of the guardians, and that the nbsenoe of thrift and ■economy which characterised their general administration was also in a great measure deliberate. Their aims were no doubt to produce a situation which would compel the Government to interfere, so as to bring about an equalisation of rates within the metropolitan area and legislation with regard to unemployment in eocondanoe with the Elitical views of the leaders. The helpa position of the people who pay rates, and who in many oasee aro little better off than the recipients of relief, is quite pathetic." A PUBLIC NUISANCE. A public nuisance which calle for summary suppression is tbe annual infliction which all business London has undergone to-day—that ' antiquated piece of tom-fooiery. the Lord Mayor's fcihow. The principal hours during the* most important part _.©f the day— foreign mail day, too, be it observed— have been eiven up as usual to utterly childish peep-show' nonsense.. I have net been able to find a aingle person above the age of ten who has a good word to say for the oontinuanoo of this ancestral foolishness. But it dies hard, and there is still no sign of a Lord Mayor who will show his courage and good sense by abolishing the periodical post, which is a far greater nuisance to business people than outsiders can at all guess, and which assuredly ought not to have been allowed to survive the other archaic follies of the 19th century. One might have hoped that such Lord Mayors aa the present one, Sir William Treloar, or his penultimate predec6_or, Sir John Pounds, had wisdom and pluck enough to lead in this desirable course of refqtm. But the Lord Mayor's Show has wound its silly and tedious way past the office of the New Zealand Ascociated Press to-day, as usual!