THE CHANNEL TUNNEL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17125, 2 April 1919, Page 9

THE CHANNEL TUNNEL.

APPROVAL OF SOHEME.

CONTROL BY BRITAIN.

SAFEGUARDS PROVIDED. LONDON, Mar. 21. Tbe Channel Tunnel proposals are well received. Britain will control, the power, and will have the right to flood the tunnel at Dover. Comments on the Channel Tunnel show that the Government is correct iii assuming that the old hostility to the echeme, especially from the military authorities, has evaporated. The Times points out that the chief aliments its remaining opponents use are Ipsychological and political rather than military. "It is possible that enemy attacks in the future are more likely to be made over the Channel than under it. The Government should, however, issue a considered prncuncement setting out the final arguments on both sidea." It is assumed that the French would promptly assent.

Engineers state that the boring will be carried out like that of the London Tubes, but more rapidly, as tho Channel bed is like; cheese. The removal of the debris of boring will be the only difficulty. Trains will be electrically hauled, like those in the Great Simplon Tunnel through tho Alps. The Evening Standard urges that a parallel tunnel for motor traffic should be provided. Sir Arthur Fell, M.P., predicts that the construction of four sub-Channel tunnels will be complete in 10 years, including a motor track. There will be no difficulty in the early despatch of London trains to Constantinople, as the gauges will be uniform throughout. Sir Arthur understands that France aerees that the electricity for the locomotives sha l ! be generated exclusively in Kent, enabling Britain to cut off the power instantly. France also cedes the right to flood the tunnel [from Dover.

The Times correspondent at Paris states that thp tunnel project is warmly approved in th» French capital.

But for the powerful sentiment in favour of retaining Britain's insular position unimpaired, the Channel tpnnel would hare been built very many years ago.' As far I back as 1302 M. Mathieu, a Paris engineer, suggested a tunnel between Dover and Calais. Nothing was ever done to follow up this first suggestion, but in 1869 the project was revived by Messrs. J. P. Bateman and J. Revy. In 1872 the Channel Tunnel Company was actually formed in London. In January, 1875, a convention for the construction of a luinel was signed for France by M. Michel Chevalier. The engineers who were to carry out. the scheme were Sir John Hawkshaw and M. Eavally. A monopoly of 30 years was granted to the company, the chairman of which was Lord Richard Orosvonoi'. It was estimated that the plan would involve boring through the chalk rock for 20 miles. Boring was actually begun at Sangatte, near Calais, on February 25, 1876, a shaft being sunk 200 ft before the lateral boring commenced. A memorandum of a proposed treaty between England and France was issued that same year, but the work hung fire until 1880, when the French Government's permission for preliminary work was renewed. In 1881 the sea-bed was bored half a mile from the.coast of France, and in 1882 a mile of tunnel had actuallv been excavated on the Dover side. The excavations were visited by Mr. Gladstone. Sir Garnet Wolseley, however, attackod the project from the point of view of this dofence of the realm. He pointed out that a sudden surprise might result in the landing of French troops at Dover, utA that ''he tunnel would act as a Bale and rapid neans ■ of ■ communication once the Dover

entrance had been secured. Treraendou excitement was worked up by the anti tunnel faction, and in May alt works wen stopped by an injunction on behalf of thi Government, issued by Mr. (Justice Kay There were two Tunnel Bills in the Houa of Commons at the time, and these wen promptly submerged in the alarmist wave, 4he House discharging them. A Royal Commission was appointed and issued an unfavourable report, urging political grounds -as the reason why the tunnel should not be continued, and in 1883 a Joint Committee from the Lords and Commons decided against it. The project, however, was not abandoned. In 1885 it appeared again, but the Commons gave the Enabling Bill scant mercy. In 1888 a Bill for experimental work was rejected, and another in 1890.