ART. II.-Report on the embankments of the Rivers of Bengal. By order of the Deputy Governor of Bengal, dated 14th August, 1846. Calcutta, W. Ridsdale, Bengal Military Orphan Press, 1846.

THE general question of embanking rivers is one of vast extent, and though of great magnitude, yet of such delicacy, that even any particular case requires much investigation to enable an engineer who has had long experience, in addition to the adequate talents, to decide upon the best mode, and to estimate the cost and results, of conducting such an operation. It is not proposed, therefore, in this paper to attempt to shew all the bearings of the question in respect to the Rivers of Bengal; but the report, lately printed by the Committee appointed by Government to enquire into the matter, seems to call urgently for remarks from any one who may be at all conversant with such subjects.

The questions offered for the consideration of the Committee by Government were, we find, dated the 14th August 1846, and the report of the Committee to Government is dated the 15th September following; the Committee therefore accomplished their work in one month, and came to a full decision in that time, recommending to Government, without qualfication, the destruction of 3,000 miles of River Bunds, and the entire abandonment of the whole system which had been in operation for a long series of years. At the first view of the case, therefore, one would naturally conclude that the Members of the Committee were either thoroughly acquainted with the whole extent of country protected by the embankments, and also men of great talents and experience in such questions, so that having all the statistics of the tract before them, and the whole subject at their finger's ends, they could decide the question at once with confidence and safety; or that they were in every way unequal to such an investigation, and almost altogether void of the smallest perception of its difficulties, or of the vastness of the consequences of their decision. It seems impossible that any body can consider this case, and see such a question disposed of in a month, a question involving, not only the property, but the lives of a dense population occupying many thousand square miles of country,-without concluding that one of these two suppositions must be correct. Let us examine the report with a view to decide.

The report begins by disposing of the whole question of confining the waters of rivers on general principles, proving

most satisfactorily in half a dozen paragraphs, that not the rivers of Bengal only, but that all rivers should be left unconfined. We are not going to follow the example of the Committee by attempting to settle such a question within the limits of this paper; but we may remark, that the conclusion is reached by a very simple and indeed not uncommon process; viz, looking at one side only. Certain disadvantages are mentioned as arising out of the system of confining rivers, and an instance is quoted in the rivers of Italy; but on the other side of the question not one glance is bestowed; not the smallest atom of credit is conceded to a system in which so much money has been expended, and under which the country has flourished; and not even the most trivial advantage is allowed to have been derived from it. Nothing is shewn but a dead weight of disasters, without the slightest counterpoise in the shape of benefit. A man is at a considerable expense in building and repairing his house, and after all there is a possibility of its falling upon his head; but against the disadvantage of this danger he sets the advantage of having a shelter from the sun and rain, and people seem generally to have come to the conclusion that upon the whole it is better to have a house to live in. The conclusion seems to be about equally general in civilized countries, that it is better not to let rivers wander about through the length and breadth of the land, as they think proper. The world may have been mistaken in this point, but such a question at least requires a thorough estimate of the actual amount both of advantages and disadvantages, before a system which has universally commended itself to the inhabitants of civilized countries is abandoned.

Further, as to the professional opinions, &c., passed in this portion of the report, every position, taken up and established so summarily, is open to attack; but it is not, as before stated, intended to attempt to go into the professional details of the question.

The Report next proceeds to speak of the origin of these Bunds. It states, that people instinctively built Bunds to keep the water from their lands, and so far, no doubt, it is right. Just in the same way men instinctively build roofs over their heads to protect them from the rain; the distinction between those who are acquainted with physical science and those who are not, seems unnecessary. It traces it to the fears and cupidity of individuals, or, in other words to their anxiety to save their lives and properties. If all that is done in the world from such motives were to be destroyed, there would be but little left.

The paragraphs 12 to 17 are very important; they speak of the mal-construction of the Bunds, of "their vicious locality, and total deficiency of level corresponding with that of the country they ought to protect;" of " their being so low that the floods go over them on the first unusual rise;" of " large portions of the river being without embankments," &c. They thus shew that the question is not simply, whether Bunds are upon the whole advantageous in this tract, but whether the disadvantages said to arise from them are not wholly or principally owing to their having been constructed without any uniform plan, and by persons without professional knowledge or sufficient means. There are many disadvantages connected with the present state of the Native Town of Calcutta, which a town, laid out upon an original and scientific plan, and built by regular architects, and of proper materials, would not have had. In the latter case, nine-tenths of the fires, cholera, &c. from which it at present suffers, would be avoided. But even

with all the inconveniences arising from the denseness of the population, the materials of the houses, and the impurity of the streets, it is not considered advisable to burn it down, and let the people return to a state of nature.

The second section of the report professes to consider the effects of the embankments on the country; but, as before stated, in this part of the investigation, there seems to be an unintentional omission; viz: of all the advantages that have arisen from the Bunds. Statements are referred to which shew that the Bunds have altogether cost 115 rupees a mile per annum, including the remission to Zemindars on the lands injured by floods; but statements of the property and revenue saved by all the Bunds, that did not give way, and of the improvement in property, population and revenue, arising from the protection afforded by the Bunds, miserable and imperfect as they are, are not given. Perhaps it may be said, that the advantages are so extensive and diversified that it was impossible to shew them in a simple tabular statement, or even to calculate them at all with any approach to correctness,―and this may probably be the case; but it would still have been satisfactory to have shewn, that, at all events, the advantages were ten times the amount of the disadvantages. This might perhaps have been done without much difficulty; in such a case, for instance, as that while the Government expenditure had been 3 lakhs a year, the revenue was at least 35 lakhs more than it would have been, had the country been always left at the mercy of the river inundations.

T T

In this section also, the rate of the rise of the beds of several rivers during a period of seven or eight years is shewn, terminating in 1827: but what conclusions can be drawn from this we are left to guess; for 1st, What the rise would have been, had the Bunds not existed, is not shewn, nor do the Committee attempt to form a judgment on that most essential point. 2nd. It is not stated what the rise has been during the last twenty years. 3rd. The committee believe that the rivers have not continued to rise at that rate, and therefore that the increase of sand is rather apparent than real: this is a question however that should be decided rather upon realities than appearances. Are there no better data than such as these procurable? Is there nothing known about the progress of the deposits in the beds of the rivers during the last twenty years?

In the fourth section the report professes to shew the effects of leaving rivers without Bunds. No precise statements are given; only some general assertions are made, such as, that in a certain year of inundations some districts with bunded rivers suffered more than others, whose rivers were not bunded; but, as no actual and tangible statement of the property in each case destroyed is given, no inference can be drawn from such assertions. The question is not, whether under certain peculiar circumstances, the one had the advantage over the other, but whether upon the whole, and in a series of years, the results are for or against a certain system. In a hurricane a beggar who has no shelter to live under may escape, while a rich man is killed by the falling of his house; but this does not decide the question against the building of houses. Nobody can come to any sound conclusion from such general assertions as these: nothing but complete statistical returns of the revenue, population, &c. of the different districts for a series of years, accompanied by a close and enlightened investigation of the various causes which have affected them, made by competent persons, can enable any one to come to a satisfactory decision on the question.

The fifth Section speaks of the fertilizing effects of the flood waters, of which there can be no doubt; but cannot this be secured without leaving the floods uncontrolled? The idea mentioned, that the water let in upon the lands by sluices has benefited them, seems to be a tolerably correct one. If the water that overflows, where there are no Bunds, fertilizes, it is evident enough that the same water would not be spoilt by passing through a sluice: only there is this vast difference between the two cases, that if the water is admitted by sluices, just so much as will be beneficial may be let into the fields,

and the rest excluded;-whereas without Bunds and sluices, whether the crop is to be improved or drowned is left to the floods' will and pleasure, the owner of the field being helpless.

It is stated that the lands between the Bunds and the rivers are highly valuable, and that the zemindars would gladly have the Bunds removed a mile from the river: but, 1st, This is because the zemindars are not engineers, and do not know that the removal of the Bunds would not have the effect they suppose. In rivers without Bunds, the kind of rich soil which is found immediately on the edge of the rivers does not extend to an indefinite distance from them, but is confined to a very narrow space. In the delta of the Godavery there is just the same difference between the land on the bank of the river, and that a mile off, where the river has never been embanked, as there is in other deltas where it has. 2dly, Is there no medium between letting the river flood range where it will, and allowing none of it to flow over the land? Must a man have a house either without walls or without doors? Who would dream of building Bunds without sluices to admit as much water as was desirable, if he understood how, and had the means? 3dly, If the Bunds are placed far from the edges of the rivers, they must be made with greatly increased sections, as the ground falls as you retire inland; and moreover in that case the land near them on the river side will be so submerged as to drown any crops even in moderate floods.

The concluding remarks of this section require some notice. It is said that the transport of the sand necessarily depends upon the velocity and volume of the currents, and that whatever contributes to the latter, tends to increase the former. Compare this with the 28th paragraph, where the Committee state, that, in their opinion, the rising of the beds of the rivers is owing to the bunding system; by the Bunds the depth, and consequently the velocity and volume of the currents, would be increased in the channels of the rivers, and therefore the deposits in their bed should be more rapidly carried off. What would have become of the additional deposits left in the beds of the rivers during a series of years, as mentioned in the third section, if the volume and velocity of the currents in the channel had been diminished by the water spreading over the country, for the beds of the rivers are formed of sand, and the Committee (Para. 35) say that it may be taken proved that the sand would be carried over the country?

as

The sixth section speaks of some particular Bunds, apparently the only ones the Committee visited. In remarking on those