Mars 1, interesting to recall how frequently and from how very long ago the project for joining gland and France by a tunnel der the Channel has been ea wassed, and rejected. It was proposed by a French engineer to the great Napoleon, 1t was wrangled over in the seventies ud in 1882 a shaft was actually ins of ible recent og in 1927; but th: undertaking was killed memorandum from Lord Wolse-It was revived in 1907 an' and once more in 121 it was ardently—press only to be thrown out at unanimous recommendati the Committee of Impei fence. One of the strongest ryguments of advocates of the tunnel is that conditions of modern warfare, aeroplanes and marines, have made it unnecessary to consider the tunnel rom the point of view of n tional defence: it could not, they say, make England less vulnerble than she is. Clearly that ion of the Com-
Defence Fw double reight at Channel ports and work for the unemployed, all favour of the suggest then To some extent ther ye. Thus the nun men who can be put to di unnd, working on only lave, is small: it ix not Tike a road tions, nel is nct all the vital consideration is Still that of national defence, the points in this connection fare forcibly summarized in the] February number of the "Nineteenth Century."—Writing in 1882 the then editor, Sir Jame Knowles, dwelt on the following disadvantages: first, the cer= tainty of increased military penditure for the guarding of the-Channel; secondly, the pro-y of intermittent pas for special milfaryexpemaitu the possibility able disaster, invader once got firm foot; hold in England, he certainly would not leave it again, out stipulating that the English of the tunnel should be left in his keeping: and it is a matter of history how formidably the ancient possession by the English of Calais told against France in the warrings of the two countries.
Examining these the light of mode arguments in the present edit teenth Century have amed for lost it, "The ini amount considera es, "is to be able to destroy or to flood the (unnd at the propes moment." Apparently this is not 50 as it" may. seem. Engineers in 1882 emphasized the difficulties and the military jeommittee of the day thought it would be presumptuous to rely implicitly on any" scheme to render the tunnel "absolutely luscless to the enams in every ble contingency." {hig point one may perhaps thin that if the progress of engine:
has made the tunnel easier to close, it will also have made it easier to reopen, But, as the "Nineteenth Century" points out, there still remains the question "Who is going to press the button, and when will he press it? An'interesting story of Marshal Macmahon is recalled. After the battle of Sedan he sent orders to the engineer in charge of the tunnels through the Vosges to blow them up: "Unfortunately there - occurred (hat might possibly happen at Dover) a difference of opinion, 'The engineer thought it was not imly necessary to destroy. finely executed works' and delayed to do so at once. The tunnels were Seized, the possession of the line was nade good and we all know the results.
'The responsibility to be put upon any' man or body of men, the courage and vision.which would be required to say that the moment had come to destroy the tunnel, perhaps simultane ously destroying numbers of fellow countrymen actually in it. would be so great, that it should hardly be asked of any As for the defence of the with forts and yarrisoi there appears nothing in moder conditions of warfare to suggest that this would be less cost! thay or may not be tru: but because we suiter dang fiom aircraft, is there an Journey and tunnel obsolete. It will extremely interesting whether the fifth suggestion of 1 Channel Tunnel is more fo tunate than its predecessor:
Punch" has lent it his aid with a cartoon the—timorousness, which has so long led us prefer the miseries of. Channel crossing to the known dangers of the tunnel. that the Defence in the day—that stages could not come disadvantages and that "all that has happened int the past five years in the way of naval, military and air develop ment has tended, without excep. tion, to render the Channel Tunnel 'a more dangerous experi
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.