THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 17, 1913. THE CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 17 September 1913, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 17, 1913. THE CHANNEL TUNNEL.

The cables told us recently that an active movement was afoot in London, in favour of the construction* of a tunnel between England and France. The project is not by any means new. About forty years ago i it was being seriotisly discussed, but was abandon* ed on the recommendation of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parlia- j ment. From a commercial point of | view there can be little doubt that the undertaking would prove successful. There are other however, that Shave to be considered, and these were dearly indicated by the Prime Minister (Rignt Hon. H. H. Asquith) when, in reply to a deputation of Commoners that waited upon him last month, he stated: "In the early days of this' project it was favoured both by the French and English Governments. As far back as 1874 the Foreign Office in this country expressly approved—l do not say the details of a particular plan, but the idea as an idea —and.it was only early in the eighties that the military aspects and the strategic aspects oame to the front, and doubts were entertained, and finally, I think in the year 1883, largely in consequence of the report of the Joint Committee of both Houses, presided over by Lord Lansdowne, the Government of that day, represented by Mr Chamberlain, then President of the Board of Trade, oame .to the conclusion that the interests of this country would not be promoted and might be very seriously hampered by the carrying out of any such, scheme. Their opinion was very largely founded upon military considerations, and amongst other authorities there was the great authority—and there has been do greater authority in our time in military matters—of Lorff Wolseley, who from first to last was <a most deter-

mined opponent of any project of piercing the Channel with a tunnel and destroying * what he regarded as the security of this country. What has been the result? The result has been that "from that time, 1888, this scheme has been resolutely opposed by every Government that has been in office I hoped you would have produced some evidence to show that military and technical opinion' had altered, since the time of Lord Wolseley—an opinion which had been followed in substance by all successive Administrations. The question of our power of feeding our* people or of preserving our communications across the Channel is a question of whether i or not. we have an invincible Navy and command of the sea. As long aswe have that, our food supply ought to be secure, but I agree that that does not in itself conclude the matter. You ask our Government to , reverse the decision of a. quarter of a century. Of course that is a matter which is not to be lightly undertaken, but there are, I agree, now factors, and one of them —perhaps the mdst hopeful and in some ways the most, important—is the establishment on a solid and, I believe, unshalen basis of our friendship with France. There are again, I consider, other new factors ui relation to forms of naval and military warfare and the source and distribution of our footl supplies which undoubtedly -deserve consideration, and I may say that, o,uite apart from this deputation and the formation of the committee whom you represent, the matter was already receiving the attention of the Government. Communications were passing and are passing from time to time between the various departments ooncernecf, .and with regard,to all these large strategical questions. It is desirable that they should from time to time ! 'be reviewed in the light of new facts, where there are new facts, by our best expert authorities—in this by the Committee of Imperial Defence — in order that the Government, on whom the ultimate responsibility rests, might be able to consider not only in the light efpast authorities and traditions what are the best interests of the country in the matter. ,That review will take place. I cannot anticipate what its results will be, as we have not yet materials to found a judgment upon. Ido not think I can say more to you than "that the matter-'b engaging our attention. We must apprpaclje this question with an unbiased mini?, though not of course without proper deference to the long chain of authority which hv this case supports conclusion —with unbiased minds and with a single desire to secure on the one hand the absolute strategic safety and the largest freest possible outlet for inlet for supplies of food and raw material. That .is the actual state of the case as far as the Government is concerned, and I will give consideration to the points you have raised."