April 11, 1859.] PIM ON THE ISTHMUS OF SUEZ. 201 



canal. There will be no certainty that the work will ever he finished. It will 

 altogether depend on contingencies, over which the engineer has no control, 

 and which cannot be estimated. Therefore the construction (under M. 

 Lesseps' system) may he regarded as impracticahle." 



Thus, then, in 1847, a French, an English, and an Italian-Austrian engineer 

 abandoned the scheme as impossible when they discovered the mistake on 

 which Napoleon's scheme was founded ; and thus in 1856 M'Clean and 

 Rendel, after mature examination, fortified by the local evidence of the 

 Egyptian engineers, agreed with Talabot and Stephenson. But Mr. Stephen- 

 son was present, and would doubtless give the result of his repeated personal 

 examinations. He would speak with all the force of high scientific acquire- 

 ments and more than thirty years' labour on public works on lands, on rivers, 

 and on seas, the greatest, the most novel, extraordinary, and successful that 

 had ever been attempted in ancient or modern times. 



Mb. Daniel A. Lange, f.r.g.s. — The discussion this evening on the sub- 

 ject of the -Suez Canal cannot fail to be of the highest importance, as express- 

 ing in how far the feelings and opinions of Captain Pirn and some Fellows of 

 this enlightened Society are in accord with the Academy of Science in Paris, 

 and other eminent engineers, on the subject of the Suez Canal. Appreciating 

 as I do the full weight and learning which is brought to bear upon all questions 

 submitted to its discussion, and aware also of the interest, I may almost say 

 excitement, which is felt in Europe on all matters connected with it, I hope 

 the few observations I have to make may not be considered unworthy of your 

 consideration. There is one point I would rather not have touched upon — 

 it is the engineering question. I am aware that there has been much warm 

 feeling and controversy about the different opinions held by the engineers ; 

 but it is one which, having been gone into this evening, I cannot well pass 

 over, and as Mr. Stephenson is here, he will correct me if I fall into any 

 unintentional misstatements. I have no wish to entangle myself in any 

 scientific controversy between the eminent engineers who now take part in 

 this discussion, and will leave to those competent to deal with such matters 

 the task of enlightening the public on this important question ; but, for the 

 benefit of the uninitiated and those who may not have had time or inclination 

 to wade through the different opinions held by opposite parties, I have deemed 

 it not ill-timed to place the point at issue as simply and clearly as I can before 

 you. Mr. Kobert Stephenson holds the opinion — and, whether rightly or 

 wrongly, it is not for me to decide — that after it had been ascertained beyond 

 a douljt that no difference of level existed between the Mediterranean and the 

 Red Seas, the project for cutting a canal through the Isthmus of Suez became 

 impracticable. On the other hand, engineers of equal eminence state just the 

 reverse, and view the non-existence of any difference in the level between the 

 two seas as the very circumstance which will render its construction perfectly 

 feasible. Now the question arises, who is right ? And you will have to deal 

 with the evidence before you. You must either pin your faith to one or other 

 party, and make your choice between the opinion held by Mr. Robert Stephen- 

 son and that held by other engineers. Either Mr. Stephenson is right and 

 they are wrong, or their collective opinions are of greater value than that of 

 Mr. Stephenson. You will have to judge for yourselves, and my object in 

 bringing this matter before you is, with an earnest desire for truth, to endea- 

 vour to state, as impartially as possible, the full value of the evidence with 

 which you have to deal. The lateness of the evening prevents me from en- 

 tering fully into the objections raised, and which have been so ably met by 

 Mr. Rennie ; but I wish to hand in the following condensed statement of the 

 opinions already alluded to,* and I think I cannot do better than refer to 



* See p. 203. 



