Le Laurier," have proved that if
there be any inequality of height, the average difference of level
cannot exceed one metre (about one yard English).

POSTSCRIPT.

Since the foregoing pamphlet was in print, an Article has appeared in
the Morning Chronicle of the 16th May, 1845, in which it is alleged,
upon the authority of an Article in the _Journal des Debats_, that M.
Garella has given in his Report to the French Government, and that he
reports in favour of the practicability of the scheme, but that he
found the lowest elevation between the two oceans to amount to, from
120 to 160 metres, and that this being, as he says, too great an
elevation for a Ship Canal, he proposes an enormous Tunnel capable of
allowing Frigates to pass through--that he thinks from examination of
the soil, that a Tunnel of 100 feet in height above the surface of the
Canal will be practicable, and might be made with a reasonable outlay
of money; and that the length of the Tunnel would be 5,350 metres, and
the expense of it about 44 millions of francs (L1,760,000).

It is impossible to read this statement without feeling a strong
suspicion that, for some object which does not appear, it is the wish
of the French Government, or those who have put the statement forth,
to deter others from embarking in the formation of a Canal across the
Isthmus of Panama; for the recommendation of a Tunnel of 5,350 metres
(about three miles) in length, and 100 feet in height, is not only
preposterous in itself, as applied to a Ship Canal, but is wholly at
variance with M. Garella's own letter to the Governor of Panama (ante
p. 26), and with the statement of his opinions in the Article in the
_Moniteur Parisien_ (ante p. 23), which Article is believed to have
been written by himself. It is true that M. Garella, being a Mining
Engineer (_Ingenieur des Mines_) may have a partiality for
subterraneous works; and this refection provokes the observation, that
it is singular that the French Government should have selected, for
this very important survey, an Engineer of Mines (however eminent in
his department), rather than one experienced in the formation of
Canals, when it had so many of the latter at command.

It is difficult to conceive that the writer of the letter to the
Governor of Panama, and of the Article in the _Moniteur Parisien_ can
be sincere in recommending a Tunnel; and the conclusion is
irresistible, that if the Article in the _Debats_ has any