CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8284, 22 January 1920, Page 1

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE. A “DEPRESSING” ANSWER. LONDON, November 20. The Prime Minister received a deputation of the Channel Tunnel Committee, headed by Sir Arthur Fell, its chairman, who stated the reasons why the committeee thought the Government should sanction the undertaking without more delay. As for the opinion of the railway companies, Sir Arthur said they had been blocked for so long that they had not yet had time to do any practical work except to make calculations and examine plans. Mr Lloyd George assumed that the committee had gone into it very carefully, and considered all the possibilities that may be of a surprise attack and the seizure of the bridgehead. Brigadier-General Surtees: Yes, and for reasons which I could give I say that there is no danger of that kind. The Prime Minister: Why do you say that there is no danger of that kind now?—There is no danger if certain simple precautions are taken. For instance, there would be a dip in the track, which could be flooded, and if it was thought necessary you eould always blow it up, but that would be most undesirable. The Prime Minister: How would it be blown up ?—By touching a button, either in London or in Dover. Then there would be- a depression in the track, which eould be flooded at a moment’s notice, and would stop all possibility of the tunnel being used. Tnerc is simple security. Sir A. Fell: We have had meetings at which the military question was the question discussed, but the military men now say that it is not a question of how we ■ may flood the tunnel, or how we may blow it up, but how you can preserve it from attack, so that we may use it when it is most wanted. We all know that in the late war the tunnel would have helped immensely. ' THE SOURCE OF ENGLISH STRENGTH. In his reply the Premier admitted that during the war the tunnel would have made a very considerable difference to the country, but there was no doubt that early in the war the Germans would have seized both Calais and Boulogne if they had made a dash for it, and they would have done it had there been a Channel Tunnel. “We should like to examine a little more carefully, we should like our military and naval advisers to examine a little more definitely, what are the dangers of a surprise attack. We dare not take risks, and I think that all members of the deputation will agree that if there is real risk of an enemy capturing the bridgehead and converting this country from an island into merely a sort of part of the Continent of Europe, which it would be if they had seized the railway, that is a thing which we could not for a moment face. It would alter the whole character and complexion of things, and would weaken this country enormously. An essential part of our strength is due to the fact that this country is not as vulnerable as other countries are. An enemy cannot get at it. That is a source of great strength to us, and our neighbors envy our isolation and the protection of the twenty-six miles of water that separate us from the Continent. We do not want to give it away. We simply propose that the problem shall again be examined very carefully from the military engineering point of view, and the naval and air point of view, and we shall then be in a position to give a definite answer. If the military advice is favorable the Ministry will certainly be prepared to support the scheme on general grounds. If it is the reverse we certainly eould not accept the responsibility, it would be far too great a responsible ly to take. There are national pass’ ns which are still stirring up Europe. All that bids us to be careful, to be cautious, not to be in the least less enthusiastic for it, but it bids us, at any rate, to remember that we are now an island. Providence has made us an island—l think for a great purpose in the history of Europe and of the world. SAVING THE LIBERTY OF EUROPE. “The fact that it is an island has been the means of saving the liberty of Europe many a time. I do not want it to cease to be an island, and I want to be quite sure before I commit myself that our action will not deprive this country of its providential advantage in that respect. We have no right to throw it away, and any Government that would do so without the most careful and anxious consideration would not he discharging its duty. ‘ If we are reassured under that head, there is everything to be said for the Channel Tunnel. It strikes the imagination. It opens up the road right through to the East. It facilitates intercourse with our nextdoor neighbor, with whom we have linked pur fortunes, and should there every be any trouble for them or for us, we can help them and they can help us much more readily owing to the fact of there being the Channel Tunnel. Scientific developments may make the sea even much more perilous than it lias been. It was perilous

enough in all conscience during the i last war. It may be that it will he- j come almost impassable for us, and ' this tunnel may be a guarantee against any such development. These are things which we want to examine. I am sure that you will not blame us.” Sir A. Fell: “It is depressing to be told that you are still going to inquire into the subject after all these years. ’ ’