RANDOM NOTES

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 70, 15 December 1939, Page 8

RANDOM NOTES

Sidelights On Current

Events

(By

Kickshaws.)

Old linen, it is claimed, may be described as anything white and washable. Our terrier is both.

A diet expert says it is a good plan to start a meal with a drink of warm water. On the menu, of course, they call it soup.

Both Britain and Germany have now issued White Papers on who started the present war, but we understand the respective views are Poles apart. ♦ ♦ *

•T have just been listening-in to the Government propaganda session that 2YA broadcasts so often from 7 p.m. onwards.” says “P.M.” “As I have frequently heard opinions expressed concerning the truth and fairness of the subject matter put over the air during these sessions, I am pleased to be able to report to you one remark that had the ring of truth so clearly that it should appeal to all. In the course of his address, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan said, ‘I could speak for hours. . . .’ Is there any likelihood of the outbreak of a new complaint that might be called ‘Broadcasters’ Throat’?”

It seems strange that suggestions to build a tunnel under the English Channel always crop up exactly when it is quite impossible to start it. This time it is suggested that the tunnel be started “after the war.” The history of the Channel tunnel goes back quite a long way, but always something turned up to stop it being put to practical effect. The original idea was put forward by a French engineer named Mathieu, about the year 1800. He planned two tunnels, one above the other. The upper tunnel was to carry a paved road for horse-drawn vehicles. The lower was there to drain away water. Napoleon was very intrigued with the idea. In a moment of peace with Britain he said: “This is one of the 'great things we shall be able to accomplish together.” Hostilities broke out when the tunnel was about to reach a practical phase and the scheme was shelved. In view of the limited engineering equipment of those days, maybe it was just as well. Yet the idea was sound and survived all setbacks.

The Channel tunnel scheme was resurrected about 1866 under Napoleon 111. Just when the project showed every sign of reaching a practical stage the Franco-Prussian War broke out in 1870. The tunnel scheme was shelved. The project, however, was revived in a couple of years. New plans were prepared. Work was actually begun. Shafts were sunk between Folkestone and Dover, and at Sangatte, on the French side. Pilot tunnels were also driven some distance under the sea. These pilot tunnels were unlined, yet they kept very dry. proving that, if chalk continued all the way across the scheme was both practicable and fairly easy work. Military experts, however, started to get cold feet, despite the dryness of the pilot tunnel. Public opinion in Britain became increasingly hostile to the project. In 1882 a commission was set up to examine the scheme. The commission reported that it would be impossible for an enemy to attack Britain via the tunnel. Public opinion, however, ran high. The windows of the Channel Tunnel Company were broken by a mob. A new committee was hastily appointed, and recommended that the scheme be shelved.

Some idea concerning the Channel tunnel scheme, from the public’s point of view, was obtained when Britain and France were at loggerheads over Egypt. For years after this tension many people were terrified that the French might again start on the tunnel in secret, complete the work and invade England before anyone knew "anything about it. For that curious reason the scheme, although revived on many occasions, was always shelved. As recently as 1929, Mr. Baldwin. Prime Minister of Britain, revived the Channel tunnel scheme. Yet another committee was appointed to report on the idea. The project then put forward was to bore a pilot tunnel and two traffic tunnels. The total cost was estimated at £30,000,000, which probably meant, in practice, about £50,000,000 for the completed project. Four out of five members of this committee were wholly in favour of the scheme. They thought.it would pay without Government subsidy. The fifth member valiantly clung to the old views. The Government supported him and the Channel tunnel was shelved. This decision must be haunting Mr. Baldwin today. * *

Undaunted by setbacks the Channel Tunnel Company has never gone out of business. A history of over 60 years behind it, a sort of sleeping capital of £91,000 beside-it. and an office without a telephone in the Southern Railway Building. London, has kept this company quiescent. So far as is knowm, it is still there. In 1930, when the tunnel came again to the fore, the Channel Tunnel Company woke up, stretched itself, and drew up contracts for the work. Proof of the practicability of the scheme after all may be displayed by this company, in borings 2026 yards long on the British side, and 1700 yards on the French side. It seems curious that the chief opponent of the tunnel was the Committee of Imperial Defence. This committee voted against the tunnel in 1924 and again in 1930. They were ably supported by the shipping companies operating the cross-Channel trade. In contrast, several big banking firms were in favour of the tunnel, including Baron Emille d’Erlanger, head of the big Franco-British banking house of Erlangers. One can hardly overestimate the value of such a channel at the present moment. ♦ ♦ *

Maybe one day, if a series of fortunate circumstances arise, we shall have our Channel tunnel. Meanwhile, engineers are toying with this scheme, and alsfl another, to build a tunnel under the Straits of Gibraltar. The two schemes go together. It would open not only the whole of Europe to road transport from Britain, but the whole of Africa. The Gibraltar tunnel would be 23 miles long and would cost at least £15.000,000. Engineers assert that no insurmountable obstacles prevent tihe tunnel. Geologists claim that the rocks are suitable for tunnellingIndeed, there is a legend that the Gibraltar apes have long used a secret tunnel route to Africa. France would be interested in a tunnel to link her African possessions direct to Europe without the hazards of a sea route. Rival nations might object to French ownership of the tunnel, but it has been suggested that nominal ownership should be iu the bands of the Spanish authorities. This view, however, prevailed before the Cival War in Spain.

Two sides there are to everything That has a side at all, As nearly everything must have On this terrestrial ball. And one of them—we can’t say why— Is dark beyond a doubt, But. let it be—our duty is To keep the bright side out. —W. J. Lampton.