The Military Correspondent of the Times published in Wednesday's and
Thursday's issues a most interesting survey of the history of the Channel Tunnel scheme. He summarises some of the chief naval and military objec- tions urged against the scheme when it was originally raised. The Admiralty view was that the tunnel was a work which evaded naval attack, and if lost could only be recovered by a land force, which would compel us to maintain "an army equal in numbers and readiness for war to those of other European nations." Of the soldiers, the Duke of Cambridge, Lord Wolseley, Sir J. Lintorn Simmons; and Sir Frederick Maurice, and, generally speaking, the great body of expert opinion, took the same view. The tunnel, they held, would necessitate vast fortifications at Dover, a garrison there of ten thousand men, and a large permanent addition to our Regular establishments, while even then there would be no absolute security against surprise. With Dover in an enemy's bands, it was argued that we could not hope to expel him with our existing military organisation. The Duke of Cambridge also urged the danger we have already noted,—the occupation of North-West France by a German army. The force of these arguments is not yet exhausted, and we commend them to the consideration of the modern advocates of the tunnel.
Previous page
