The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1929. THE CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECT.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 January 1929, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1929. THE CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECT.

An effort is being made to revive rnterc.st in the idea of a tunnel under the English channel. To what extent it may be .successful in Great Britain, the country most vitally concerned, it is impossible to say. It would scorn that enthusiasm for the proposal is kindled .somewhat readily in franco, hut the views of French economists may not appeal greatly to the British Government. Some weeks ago a London paper made the statement that all the money was ready, France and Italy being prepared to (ind the whole o! the capital cost of about £90.000,000. II that were correct the magnanimity of France and Italy might almost appear so overwhelming as to require some explanation. Since, however, il a ( har.ncl Tunnel were constructed it would go without saying that Britain would have control of it, the suggested readiness of the Continental Powers to devote their surplus wealth to the enterprise is not likely to he put to so serious a test. The consider;;!i-u that must weigh with Britain, considers an exi hnnge, is whether the advantages In be derived from the tunnel would outweigh the disadvantages. The proposal

is, ui' course, very old. It was lirst put forward at the beginning of the nineteenth century by a French engineer, and Napoleon, not surprisingly, thought well of it. . From the middle of last century till the ’eighties the project received a great deal of attention. Companies were formed on hotli sides of the Channel, and experimental work was undertaken, the British Government in negotiations with the French Government having signified in 187“ that it had “no objection in principle’’ to the project. Active 1 discussion of the question received a chock, however, when in 1888 a Select Committee of the Mouse of Commons expressed the opinion that it was “inexpedient that parliamentary sanction should he given to a submarine communication between England and France.” Operations that had 1 km* 11 put in progress at Shakespeare's Cliff, near Dover, were discontinued. Since the (treat War there have been fresh efforts to galvanise the Channel Tunnel project into life, hut four years ago the Committee of Imperial Defence expressed its judgment against it. There is a Mouse of Commons Channel Tunnel Committee, and its chairman stated recently that it proposed to reopen the question. Me expressed the opinion that interruptions of business ily storms in the Channel resulted in the loss of large sums of money which Britain could not afford, and that the tunnel would be a benefit to Britain and the Continental countries. It is stated, whether correctly or not, that the technical difficulties of the project may he regarded as practically overcome, and the argument is used that, the development of aircraft having destroyed Britain’s insularity, the old grounds for objection to the underfaking have disappeared. It is also suggested that in the event of war the funnel could he readily blocked or filled with gas from the British end, so that no enemy could make use of it. Tt is not to lie assumed, however, that the arguments in support of the construction of the Channel Tunnel arc such as should carry the day even in present circumstances. Tf' the attempt to revive interest in the proposal ends in again making it a live question, no doubt the Committee of Imperial Defence will be invited once more to express its opinion whether strategic considerations should he still regarded as outweighing the economic benefits which Great Britain might hoi>o to reap from a Channel Tunnel.