THE CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 1 February 1929, Page 9

THE CHANNEL TUNNEL.

NOT A MERE VISION. PROSPECTS OF ACHIEVEMENT. Commenting in an interview recently on th© question of the Channel tunner to link Britain with the Continent by a submarine passage ,-a subject that nas within the past rew years comes pro, miueutiy b-erore the wood, Sir Kooert x'erics, who has been associated with the promotion of the Channel tunnel lor nearly nali-r -a century, and nas-neen' tne •‘father" or many gugantie unctercakiugs at home arid -abroad) including tne rvianeiiiasteir Ship Canal, saicl: "it is not a question of money—tne- money will be iound. it remains for the

Government to say ‘Go 'ahead!’ “When the peop.e demand the Channel tunnel they will get it. The Channel Tunnel Company is stiff intact, and it meets* -periodically. Now, on account ... to traffic and the state or trade, there is a reviving demand for it. “As to the cost, it would- bo 25 per ceiit. 'ess per mile than. Die tube railways or London. Modern electrical macuffiery would be employed, aud the boring could be carried l out at a good rate of speed. The' great traffic between the- .British isles and Europe would compensate for -the expenditure anti wcaivd make for concord and prosperity between. nations. IN JOHN BRIGHT’S TIME,

“It is not generally known how near che scheme once caiii-e to reaiiLsatib-ii. It imcl been' given the sanction of the broverniiieiit of tlie’ ■day, -.and brerri&niioer arranging with Mr John Bright. tomove a bi’iil in the House of Commons. “In order that there might- be no hitch, it was suggested that the measure should be .seconded l>v JWLr Randolph Churchill. I met Mr Churrcbill, it 11 cl he told me that lie would consider it if I eave liiiii 24 hours to do so. But at the eiid of that time lie sa.rd that, owing to sbihie dispute with eer-

tain members of the Government, lie would hare to decline to second the propoash .... , , , “For long I argued 1 with lnm, but to no purpose; lie refused to reconsider his decision, and that killed it. Had lie acceded to my request the tunnel would have been built long ago. ‘I may not live to see the completion of the work in which I have been so long interested, but it will come, 1 fc<Eil siirG*. 3, The ' late Viscount Cow dray, the head of the great contracting firm oi Si Pearson and Sons’ Ltd., said that every £5 spent on the Channel tunnel would represent a minimum of one man’s work for a week. When the cost was revised a year or so ago it was estimated to be 000,000, or £13,000,000 in; excess of | the estimate computed m 191/. V ltli improved machinery and the reduction entailed thereby .the expenditure may now be less. This estimate includes the construction of railway stations, drainage and equipment from the mouth of the tunnel in England to the mouth of the tunnel in France. Hall the actual cost would he paid by England, and the other half by France. The people of France are more eager than ever "to see the project completed. Baron d’Erlanger, who has long championed the scheme, believes that at least 3,000,000 passengers would travel via the tunnel from the first year. There would he an over increasing transport service of British manufactured goods, which means more work for factories and modern workshops.

MIGHT HAVE SAVED 300,000 LIVES. London could be brought within 23 hours of the Mediterranean coast without interchange of trains, and no sea. travel would be necessary- to reach any part of Europe. in June, 1914, Lord Sydneham, late chairman of the Imperial Defence Committee, said if ever Britain had to send military forces to France'or Belgium or Holland the tunnel would be of enormous importance, and within a few months his words came to be full of meaning. Seven years later, in 1921, Marshal Eoch remarked: “Had there been a tunnel under the Channel it might have prevented war.”- Later he said: “Had the

British and French been in possession of the tunnel in 1914 tli© war would have been shortened by at least two years.” And the Channel Tunnel Committee’s comment is: “In that event not fewer than 300,000 lives would have been saved to the Empire, and the i sufferings of thousands returning; to England would have been greatly relieved.” It is the Imperial Defence Committee which has always obstructed the scheme, and in the summer of 1914 they expressed the opinion that “strategic conditions had not so altered as to justify a reversal of the conclusion reached in 1907.” *

Because there was no tunnel, the country, as Mr Asnuith pointed out iri M arch. 19(4, .had to incur enormous expenditure at Rich boro ugh in dredging and constructing ferries to Iran sport guns and munitions required by the Allied troops on the Continent. According to the “Sunday News.” the Channel Tunnel would direct,lv find work for 24.000 men for five years, while the huge orders for machinery. steel, cement and other equipment would create emnloymont in our factories for as many men again.