The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-13 00:00:00

inquiry they elicited the fact that there were 12
1 reservoirs in the neighbourhood of Sheffield, all in
a more or less unsatisfactory condition. It will be
remembered that the jury in the Bradfield case re-
commended in their verdict that the Legislature
should take such action as should result in a Govern-
mental inspection. Mr. RAWLINSON and Mr.
BEARDMORE, however, the gentlemen whom the
Government despatched to examine into the mat-
ter, did not approve of this recommendation, since
they said that the Government could not ensure
ultimate safety, and that the responsibility must
rest with the engineers. Sir G. GREY, in replying
to Mr. FERRAND, said that it would be perfectly
impossible for the Government to undertake the
responsibility of certifying the safety of these re-
servoirs. The only remedy which he could sug-
gest was, that where dangerous works existed,
legal proceedings should be taken by
persons who felt alarm against the owners.
Bat this is a very roundabout way of doing
business when people ere in daily fear of a
catastrophe. At the Tilsden reservoir it is stated
that the water is constantly welling out of the
culvert. Some residents in the neighbourhood
went up with lighted candles and examined it and
found the water flowing in at several places.
"Whence that water comes, and what unseen work
it may be carrying forward, no man can tell. It
issues from the sides of the culvert where all ought
to be watertight, when the waterflow is stopped by
the valves being down as they were when we were
up the culvert." Such is the testimony of eye-
witnesses, and it must be remembered that with
regard to this and other works of the kind Mr.
RAWLINSON, the Government Engineer, declines
to assume any responsibility. With these facts
before him, and with the Bradfield catastrophe
fresh in his recollection, it is not surprising that
Mr. FERRAND should emphatically ask of Governs
meat where the responsibility lies ? Is no one to
be answerable for the safety of works that involve
the safety of hundreds of lives, and property valued
at hundreds of thousands ? Can no person or
persons be pointed out as the really responsible
agent who assumes the risk of certifying that so
far as mortal skill or ingenuity can be counted on
the work is sate ? If there is to be no such assurance
and the burden of responsibility is to be shiftpd
from one to another, from Government Inspector to
local engineer, from local engineer to managing
committee, from committee to company, and the
only means of relieving pressing anxiety is a tedious
process in a law court, then the Legislature may
well pause before they sanction any more such
stupendous undertakings. The true way of
settling the difficulty would be to adopt the
clause proposed on a former occasion, to
the effect that, before any of these reservoirs
are filled with water after their construction
some eminent engineer should report to the
Home Office that they were secure and had been
made upon a correct principle. The Government
assumes this office with railway lines, why should
it decline the duty of inspection with reservoirs.
This shrinking from responsibility on all sides is
most inconsistent and unreasonable. If engineering
science is capable of constructing such works, it
ought to be capable of giving a decided opinion as
to their security, and the visit of a qualified inspecs
tor is no more than the Government can properly be
called upon to do. After the works have been so
certified they may be trusted to the local engineers,
who should be kept to their duty, either by render-
ing a report at stated intervals, compulsory, or by
some other similar means. The chief danger in all
these reservoirs seems to arise from the works being
hastily or improperly constructed at the outset, and
this could certainly be guarded against with very
little difficulty on the part of the Executive. Mr.
FERRAND summed up; the whole matter in a cons
eluding paragraph of his speech, when he said that
" What the people naturally expected was, that
some legal authority should exist to bear upon the
contractors,:of these reservoirs, so as to compel them
to make their embankments so secure that the
people might rest in peace in their neighbour.
hood." This is, one would imagine, no task of
superhuman difficulty, and it would be well for our
legislators to give it their careful consideration, for
certainly when so many lives and so much pro•
party and social prosperity are at stake, the public
will not be inclined to acquit the authorities of all I
blame if an accident occurs, even if they have pre-.
viously declined their share of responsibility.

It is really quite disheartening to ponder upon 1
the various points of the Danish question ; so in-
suffic:eat have been the efforts made to controvert
the intentions of Prussia, and so unequal the
attempts to restrain that lawless Power within
due limits. It is, however, impossible to pass over
in silence the circular of M. DROUYN DE 1,111:YS
on the subject of the Conference. Not that it
contains much of a novel nature—for it is merely a
recapitulation of events—it presents ns with a setae
mary of the most important transactions that then
and there took place ; and if it has any special
object it seems to aim at exonerating France from
all participation in the blame that is inseparably
attached to those who took a leading part in the
councils that terminated so suddenly, and which
issued so disastrously. In one passage it would
almost seem as if M. DROUYN DE LEIUYS was at-
tempting a sort of quiet satire, and no one can
blame him if such were his intention. Ito observes
that it "has not been the fault of France that the
conclusion was not different," in alluding to the
labours of the Conference. This will also bear the
interpretation that the fault rested elsewhere. In
his resume of events it does not certainly appear
that very much emanated from the representatives
of France, but their chief duty lay in agreeing
with what others proposed, which might conduce to
the advantage of Denmark, and, in 'some measure,
fulfil the object for which cstensibly they set to
work. The last paragraph of the despatch contains
an expression that may or may not mean anything,
but it certainly can be construed into a kind of I
warning to Prussia not to push matters to extremity
and violate the bounds of decorum. After alluding to
the impartial attitude hitherto displayed by France,
M. DROUYN DE Lue;vs observes that "we are will-
ing to hope that no complication will arise of so
grave a nature as to nece.ssitate cur embracing a
different policy:, It will be well if this intimation,
guarded though it be, produce some effect, and if the
words of the Minister of a country not given to
empty boast and valorous phrases, while secretly
resolvedpeace, may have weight in quarters
where unhappily
the threats, menaces, entreaties,
and advice of our Cabinet era openly disregarded
n
and impertieen tiy received. If no credit can attach
itself to France for the result of this Conference,
neither can any one say, on criticising events, that
any great amount of blame can accrue to her states-
men for the failure of a
project in whose origin
they had no share, It may also be added that it is
not probable, if the meeting of the Conference had
taken place at Paris instead of in London, that so
tittle heed would have been paid to the wishes of
the nation where the Plenipotentiaries met; and it
is not at all likely that the representatives of the
German Powers would have dared to comport
themselves before the Cabinet of the Tuileries as
they did to that of St, Jaraea, It stems reserved