The Sun.
London, England, 1865-10-31 00:00:00

sand arid plains, whose inhabitants perished with
famine, while the residents in happier localities had
plentiful supplies. If any further inducements
were needed to prosecute the irrigation works with
energy, it would, one would think, have been found
in the extraordinary success and consequent profit
of the Godavery works. The Government of India,
as usual, thinks differently on this matter from the
general body public, and whether they think that
too great energy would reproach their own previous
inaction, or whether they have a rooted ob-
jection to all improvement and reform,
it is certain that the supreme authority in India has
never looked with favour on any of these national
undertakings. Sir ARTHUR CorroN, an engineer of
high standing and long experience, whose name is
well known in connection with the Godavery and
Kistuah works, has recently addressed a letter to a
contemporary respecting the remodelling of the
Ganges Canal, in which, as usual, he finds reason to
complain of the management of the India Office.
The Ganges Canal has been by general consent a
comparative failure. The Calcutta press has spoken
decidedly on the subject, one journal having stated
that it has "to a very small extent fulfilled the
objects of irrigation for whichit was mainly designed,
while for the purpose of navigation it has been next
to useless." It has been said, in answer to this, that
the canal was never intended for navigation, but
there can be no reason why a properly constructed
canal should not perform double duty, and, whilst
it enriches the country through which it flows by
watering the soil, serve also the ends of commerce
and facilitate the transit of heavy goods. The two
ends have been attained in other parts, and there
is no reason why the Ganges Canal under efficient
management should not produce equally satisfactory
results. The Government, indeed, according to the
official Blue Book on the matter, professes to be
satisfied with what has been done. "We believe,"
it is said, " that very few engineering works of
equal novelty of design and magnitude would be
found to bear the test of actual experience with a
more favourable result." These are not days in
which to talk of the magnitude of engineering diffi-
culty, unless it is something very serious and per-
plexing ; but Sir ARTHUR CorroN is ready to deny
the assertion that there is anything stupendous
about the Ganges Canal. He says, "The extent of
irrigation provided by several Madras projects far
exceeds that provided by or projected for the Ganges
Canal. The latter is only intended to irrigate about
1 million acres of wheat, and is not yet supposed
to have reached one-third of that number. The
Tanjore project is actually irrigating 11 million
acres of rice, and the Godavery and Kistuah pro-
jects together provide for two million acres of rice,
which requires four or five times as much water as
wheat." Sir ARTHUR COTTON distinctly shows that
the results of the Ganges Canal are by no means so
satisfactory as the Government professes to believe.
The canal has been, he says, instead of a source of
profit, a heavy charge on the tax-payers, the inte-
rest on the capital invested having been nearly
all raised by taxes. The Madras works, on the con-
trary, are paying 80 and 180 per cent., while the
whole neighbourhood of the works has reaped great
benefits from them, although the works are not yet
fully carried out. The engineer is positive that
when the water is fairly distributed in these dis-
tricts the increase shown in the revenue (already
80 per cent. in some parts) will be doubled, and
the same results must, he believes, follow works of
irrigation and navigation properly carried out in
every part of India. The effects produced by in-
creased fertility in the soil and by increased
wealth and comfort to the people, besides the
means afforded of cheap and easy transmission
of heavy goods. and raw material, liverywhere,
the same, and as they all tend to trie national wealth
of the country, one might suppose that the Govern-
ment would be only too glad to avail itself of so
easy and certain a means of benefiting itself and
the people. Such, however, does not seem to be
the case. The Ganges Canal is unsafe, and the
Government is prepared to go to a great outlay to
repair and improve it, but the plan which Sir
ARTHUR COTTON submitted has been entirely put
aside. This is to be regretted, as that gentleman has
the advantage of forty years' experience, and has
proved his engineering ability by the con%truction
of many successful works in Indian irriga-
tion. But Sir ARTHUR COTTON believes that
the deficiencies of the Ganges Canal are not due to
any natural difficulties of the situation, but to the
projection of the work on wrong principles. He
proposes to construct a new head to the canal, and
taking the canal along a route which presents very
few obstacles to the engineer, and he believes
this could be done at a very small cost. He com-
plains that his plans have been submitted to an in-
experienced officer, and that, consequently, they
have not received fair consideration. Sir AR-
THUR COTTON founds his works on the prin-
ciples which have proved so successful in
the undertakings of the native engineers. The
fact is, that the Anglo-Indian authorities
have never shown themselves willing to give a fair
hearing to any comprehensive scheme. When
forced by the necessities of the time, or by the voice
of public opinion, to do something, they set about
it in a hesitating, unwilling manner, usually at
great expense. Instead of consulting the ablest
and most experienced men in the profession
and undertaking of work that is to last
for generations, and to affect millions of
people in a large and enlightened manner,
they go on in the ordinary routine fashion, and
leave the decision of affairs in the hands of any
official whom chance may have placed for the
moment in command. It is not surprising that
an old and experienced engineer like Sir
ARTHUR COTTON, who has so often seen his
views prove correct when put_ into practice,
should experience some irritation in seeing public
money and time so cruelly frittered away. It must
be remembered, too, that the question is not
merely one of property, since the too frequent
famines in the North-West, and the consequent
loss of life, would be completely averted
by means of an efficient canal. Sir ARTHUR COT-
TON mentions as a proof of the failure of the present
Ganges Canal, that between 100,000 and 200,000
persons perished of famine in the very districts
which it traversed in 1861. If public questions
were only dealt with in a public spirit, we should
soon see these matters very differently arranged.
As it is, there is so much prejudice, ignorance, and
routine to combat that independent reformers have
but a poor chance.

The many meetings and gatherings of the Con-
servatives of the country appear at last to have
inspired the opposite side with activity. At Chatham
last night a grand entertainment took place to
celebrate the return of Mr. OTWAY at the late
election. Mr. TRIBE, the Mayor of Rochester, and
an elector of Chatham, presided. Mr. BAss, M.P.,
responded on behalf of the House of Commons, and
made an energetic speech, in which he advocated
the claims of his party to the respect and confidence
of the country.. He deplored the many serious
losses which had befallen the Liberal ranks of late,
and mentioned the names of those who had departed.
The deaths of Sir JAMES GRAIIAM, Sir G. C. LEWIS,
Mr' SID SEAT, the "honored" COBDEN,