the piles which formed its defence were placed
in front and behind it only, and not used to flank
it at the sides. On all these matters it is obvious
that no person who lias not devoted himself to
the study of such subjects is competent to give
an opinion; but this much is certain, that if any
possible measure, which could give additional
strength to a structure placed m so critical a
position, were omitted, a great wrong was done.

As bearing on the general question of the
manner in which this sluice was built, I may
mention that I myself saw some bricks taken
out of one of the great fissures made in the
masonry when it was blown up, and that some
of those bricks had never been touched with
mortar.

The strength of the original structure of the
sluice is, perhaps, even a more important
subject of inquiry than the degree of watchfulness
exercised over it after its completion,
and the attention given to the symptoms of
decay which appeared before the time of its
fall. Yet this is important enough too. That
many serious indications of the coming
accident were given there seems no doubt, and
one cannot help thinking that if, at the moment
when the sluice first seemed in danger, a strong
dam had been commenced some little way up the
drain, the work would have been sufficiently
advanced by the time the sluice fell, to have
prevented much of the loss which has occurred.
This seems to have been a case in which the
diving apparatus might have been judiciously
used, and it is difficult to see why there should
not be a diver always employed to go down at
regular intervals and report upon the condition
of those parts of an important structure like
this sluice, which are necessarily always out of
sight. One is also inclined to wonder that all
should be trusted to a single barrier, and that
there should not be a second defence against the
enemy, ready in the event of the first outworks
being carried. The expense of a double structure
would not be so great as that which this disaster
has occasioned; and when once a great work has
been pronounced important enough to be
executed at all, there should be no undue economy
in carrying it out. In such cases we should
imitate the ancients, whose work stands well
because of the astounding mass of material
employed. I dare say that in the days when
old Rochester-bridge was built (which it was
found very difficult to pull down) contracts were
unknown, and the architect himself saw to the
security of every stone that was laid. Economy,
not real, but most wickedly false, is the order
of the day, and so it comes to pass that rows of
houses tumble down before they are finished, and
collieries are sunk with single shafts, and bricks
(out of sight) are laid in their places without the
previous formality of giving them a coat of mortar.
Mr. A. undertakes a contract which so binds
him down that he can hardly get a profit out of
it if he does it properly. He takes no interest
in it, but thinks of getting the money only;
for is not Mrs. A. making the sovereigns spin
in London? So he gets an estimate from
Mr. B. as to what he will charge for doing the
labour part of the undertaking, and then Mr. C.
is left to look over the works, while Mr. A.
himself is off after yet another contract of some
other kind: the fulness of his hands already—if
he did his work properly—being no obstacle to
his opening them to grasp at more contracts to
be executed after the manner of the first. And
so we get abundant confirmations of the old
adage that accidents will happen in the best
regulated families; for is not this great British
family declared on all sides to be in its perfection
of management, a model and example to all
others upon the earth's surface?

Since this particular accident in our well-regulated
family has happened, and since it is
devoutly to be hoped that it may be very long
before any such thing occurs again, it may prove
not uninteresting to note down some few of the
more remarkable features connected with it
before the memory of the whole affair has
altogether passed away. And first I would call the
attention of those who are interested in such
matters to the curious watery etymology which
characterises these lands. From a friend well
read in such lore I have received the
accompanying notes:

"The variety of forms in which the word
water turns up in the Marshlands, suggest some
interesting reflections as to the history of the
tribes which have peopled that district:

"1. The modern English form: water, waters,
as Westwater, Plantwater, and the waters
generally.

"2. The old Danish or Jutish form: wash, at
least so I imagine it to be. It is equivalent to
the German wasser, and is used either as a
singular or plural noun. Observe, Sutton Wash,
or Welney Washes. In the corporation records
of Wisbech mention is made of the Washway,
that is, the Waterway.

"3. French: Eau, as in Popham's Eau, St.
John's Eau, Bourn Eau, and a number of
others. This is but the French spelling of the
following;

"4. Old Saxon Eu, which still survives in
the English word ewer, a water-jug. The
plural of Eu would be Eus, and we find this
still surviving in the name of the Ouse, that is,
the waters. Dugdale calls it the River Use. I
am writing from memory, but I rather think
that in ancient days the Ouse had two mouths,
the one as at present at Lynn, the other at
Wisbech, where the river Nene now flows.
Wisbech means the water's mouth. A variety
of Eu is Wye, precisely the same word, and the
name of a river in the West of England. The
plural of Wye is Wyse, and four hundred years
ago the name of Wisbech was spelt Wysebeche.

"The bech in Wisbech is sometimes spelt
Wisbeach. This suggests a false etymology. In
point of fact it means mouth, and is to be
identified with the French bouche, with the modem
English beak, and with the old Saxon forms bec
and beche."

The lands in this particular part of Norfolk