The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-23 00:00:00

DUBLIN AND BELFAST JUNCTION.

The report of the directors states that the total receipts
for the year 1864 amounted to £65,434, and for the year
1863 to £65,211, showing a small increase of £223. The
total income of the company for the half-yearending the 31st
December last amounted to £39,406 ; the working expenses
to £12,478, being less than 33 per cent. of the receipts, and
the total expenditure £22,490, leaving a profit of £16,216,
out of which the directors recommended a dividend at the
rate of 3 per cent. per annum, less income tax, leaving a
balance of £1,630, which added to £6,925 brought from the
preceding account, would make £8,555 to meet any loss
there might be on the sale of the Government stock held
by the company. Since the last half-yearly meeting the
I'ewry and Armagh Company's extension to Armagh had
been opened for traffic, and it was satisfactory to state
that the general receipts of the company had improved,
notwithstanding that the traffic of the district inter-
sected by that extension had to some extent been
diverted from the section of the company's line north
of Goragh Junction. Further progress had been made
with the remodelling of the portion• of the line laid
with Barlow rails, and it was expected that within the
current year it would be most substantially renewed
throughout its entire length. The report of Mr. D. J.
Rowan, the engineer, stating that the total quantity of de-
cayed sleepers replaced since 1859 was about 36,000, or an
average of 7,200 yearly. The broad-flange (or Barlow)
section of road, which had been for the most part modified
by timbering and other improvements, gave every satisfac-
tion, and justified the extra outlay ho (Mr. Rowan) had
recommended. The bridges and works on the line wero in
sound condition. The expenditure on capital account
amounted to £1,077,846, leaving a balance of £3,024.

RAILWAY BILLS.
Yesterday, before Mr. Frere, the following bills were de-
clared to have complied with the standing orders :
• GREENOCK.—For the construction of railways from
Greenock to the Ulasgow and South Western and Bridge
of Weir Railways. Capital £300,000 ; loan, £lOO,OOO, with
power to Glasgow and South Western to contribute X 150,000.
VENTson AND BONCHURCH.—For a tramway between
those places in the Isle of Wight.
The Bill for the Bembridge railway and Pier was with-
drawn.

Other cases were partly heard and adjourned.
SELECT COMMITTEES ON STANDING ORDERS.—Yesterday
the committee reported that in the case of the Crystal
Palace Railway Company's Bill for new lines the promoters
might be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided cer-
tain notices were published. In the case of the London and
North Western (new works, Wales and Ireland) the com-
mittee report that the promoters may proceed with their
Bill, provided that all powers relating to the construction of
Nos. 1,2, 3, and 7 railways be struck out of the Bill. The
committee report the same decision as regards railways No.
2,3, 4,5, 6, and 9, proposed for the North of England
Union Railway.

Between 200 and 300 petitions for and against railway
Bills were presented during yesterday and Tuesday.

WEST INDIAN AND PACIFIC STEAM NAVI-

GATION.
The annual meeting of this company was held in Liver-
pool yesterday—Mr. F. A. Clint in the chair

The report and accounts, proposing a dividend at the
rate of 7 per cent. per annum, having been taken as read,
The CHAIRMAN said that in a short time they would
have a fleet of 19 steamers, nine of which would be new.
They had now thoroughly organised the company, and they
believed that the general prospects of increased trade and of

increased prosperity to the company were hopeful and
cheerful.

Mr. B. ITAr.r, moved as an amendment to the adoption of
the report, with reference to the management of the com-
pany, that it be taken away from the present managers, and
that the number of the directors be reduced.

After a stormy discussion the amendment was negatived
by 25 votes against 16.

The report and statement of accounts were then adopted.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMM—The Navy Estimates, of which we yes-
terday gave an outline, may be expected to suggest
considerable discussion, for the topics of interest in-
cidentally furnished by some of the proposed votes
are unusually prominent. Foremost of all stands
the actual, or rather the comparative, efficiency of
our ironclad fleet. The Estimates tell us of the
sums to be expended, but are silent about the re-
-1 sults to be produced. Yet we cannot avoid mea-
suring these results by the results obtained else-
where and under different systems. This time it
will not be the navy of France, but the navy of the
United States which will challenge comparisons.
There will be no escape from the discussion, for the
Americans themselves are at once candid and con-
' sistentin forcing it upon our notice. Their journals
argue as if peace with the South necessarily meant
war with England, and so freely is the contingency
debated that within the last few weeks a Federal
Admiral, in an official report to the Secretary of the
Navy upon the performances of the fleet under his
command, describes one of his ironclads as compe-
tent to " destroy any vessel in the French or British
Navy, lay their towns under contributions, and re-
turn again—provided she could pick up coal—with-
out fear of being followed." We trust that the
occasion for such international visits may not arrive;
we entertain grave doubts of the justice of the Ad-
miral's estimate •, and we are not much alarmed for
the reputation of the European navies. But at the
same time we are bound to take such speculations
into our Consideration, the more so, indeed, as we
have once before found the Americans unexpectedly
ahead of us in the construction and armament of
ships of war. There.is no need of a new " panic."
We believe that both in actual strength and prospec-
tive resources we are .prepared for any emergency ;
but it will certainly be asked whether the pro posed
expenditure of ten millions places the British
Navy on that footing which our position requires.
The question will turn mainly on the turret prin-
ciple and the capacity of armament which that
principle furnishes. For the Americans, it may be
said that they have succeeded in sending very heavy
guns to sea in small vessels. Their Monitors are
only of about 1,000 tons burden, and yet they carry
heavier ordnance than we have yet placed on board,
ironclads of six times the tonnage. That the casual-
ties among vessels of this class have been numerous
is true, and that they are incapable of taking long
voyages without eminent risk is true also ; but they
have been known to ride out a gale on the Atlantic
coast with as much ease as their wooden consorts,
and they are certainly, therefore, effective in their
own waters. Nor is it clear that they could not on
an emergency, and at a certain hazard, be sent
across the ocean, so that it is incumbent upon us to
examine their alleged capabilities without prejudice,
and to ascertain, if possible, on what presumption
the Americans have adhered so tenaciously to this
peculiar model. In this inquiry we cannot do
better than take the Monadnock as a specimen of the
navy which is compared with our own. This is
the ship of which Admiral Porter 'so confidently
boasted, and if we cannot undertake to say what she
might do upon trial, we can, at any rate, describe
her construction, and infer her probable qualifica-
tions. The Monadnock is a vessel of the Monitor
type, built in the Government navy-yard at Bos-
ton, but she is half as large again as the original
ships of her class, measuring 1,564 tons instead of
1,000. Admiral Porter spoke of her sides as par-
ticularly " strong and thick," but we can state with
greater precision that her armour consists of five or
six one-inch plated, screwed to her sides and to each
other by numerous small bolts. She carries, we
presume, as Admiral Porter does not record any
exception on this point, the usual Monitor arma-
ment of 450-pounders. If we proceed, however, to
examine the grounds of the Admiral's confidence in
this vessel we shall be somewhat perplexed to dis-
cover her advantages. He says of the Monitors in
general that their fire, compared with that of a
broadside vessel, is " very slow and not at all cal-
culated to silence heavy batteries;" and also that it
is less accurate than that delivered from a broad-
side. He further says that he " does not know yet
what their real durability is," or how they would
sustain a continuous fire against their turrets,
adding, indeed, that he himself would prefer
going into action in a wooden vessel. Still he sub-
joins, " the principle is a good one, if the vessels
were all built like the Monadnock ;" but he does not
tell us that the Monadnock excels the other Moni-
tors in any of the respects above-mentioned, that
she can deliver her fire more rapidly or more accu-
rately, or that he is better persuaded of her durabi-
lity. Indeed, at last he upsets the case on her be-
half, for he frankly states that no vessel that he had
ever seen—not even the Monadnock—" came up to
his idea of what was required for offensive opera-
tions as much as the Ironsides." But the Ironsides
is a broadside vessel, one of the few which the Ame-
ricans have constructed on that principle, and not
comparable in tonnage or armour to our largest fri-
gates. True, he thinks she " would be no match for
the Monadnock in a fight;" but this is solely on ac-
count of the Monadnock " having more speed ;" so
that it is by speed alone, and not by either offensive
or defensive strength, that this wonderful vessel
would be expected to beat even a second-rate Iron-
.clad of the European model. Now, the speed of a
fighting ship is undoubtedly a most important point
in her capacities, but what the speed of this Monad-
nock may be is the very thing which we are not told.
All we know is that she beats the rest of the Moni-
tors and the Ironsides • but we also know that the
ordinary speed of the American Monitors does not
exceed seven knots an hour, so that the Monadnock
may well eclipse them, and yet be a slower vessel
than ordinary ironclads of the British Navy. Our
readers will be rather puzzled to imagine, after this
explanation, how the Monadnock could do such
great things as Admiral Porter expects from her. If
our theories are correct and our experiments trust-
worthy, a single 68-pound shot from one of the old
smooth-bore guns would, at short range, go through
her armour. Unless her speed is fully double that of
the Monitors generally, she would have little advan-
tage over our ships on that head, and though she
does carry a very heavy gun or two her fire from
these ponderous pieces of ordnance would be com-
paratively slow and uncertain. We do not, then,
think it very probable that in the event of a war
with America our ships and seaports would be at
the mercy of Admiral Porter and the Monadnock ;
but it would be unwise in the extreme to pass the
subject without notice or inquiry. The Americans
are certainly placing heavier guns on smaller ships
than any other people, and though their favourite
cannon has just been unequivocally condemned they
have other patterns in use. We think we must be
entitled to say, after the action in Mobile Bay, that
the Federal artillery cannot be superior to our own.
On that occasion a dozen vessels, together mounting
the most powerful guns known to their service, ham-
mered half through the day at a single iron-clad ram
without knocking a hole in her, though we must be
strangely deceived in our calculations if one of our
own ships would not have sent her to the bottom in
ten minutes. At any rate, we can riddle with our
'guns targets three times as strong as the sides of the
Tennessee. So we do not profess to be alarmed by
the predictions of American Admirals, but it is still
only prudent to keep our eyes open to events. They
could meet our 100-pounders with 300-pounders or
450-pounders. Would this advantage compensate
their inferiority of armour and general lack of speed?
Would one of these enormous shot, though propelled
with a low velocity, produce a fatal effect on the
plating of frigates ? Will weight of metal tell de-
cisively in action : and, if so, must we have turret-
ships to carry this weight of metal ? These are in-
quiries which will inevitably be suggested by the
proposals to be made on Monday next. We do not
believe that we are on a wrong course, but it is at
least remarkable that the nation which professes to
be our rival and speculates on being our enemy has
taken a very different course, and believes that
course to be the right one.

HERALD.—EarI Russell takes considerable credit
to himself for having prevented the war between
Denmark and Germany from becoming a general
war. He is never weary of boasting that, by his dis-
cretion and coolness, he averted a conflict which his
prophetic eye foresaw would have deluged Europe
with blood, uid (upon which he lays even more
stress) irretrievably damaged "the cause of pro-
gress." With armsakimbo he denounces those reck-
less politicians who would have conjured up a war
to prevent the disintegration of Denmark, which
disintegration he proves to his own satisfaction
Denmark thoroughly deserved. His utterances in
Parliament and elsewhere show that he is now de-
cidedly of opinion—or rather that he considers it
convenient to express the opinion—that Denmark
was wrong throughout the quarrel, and was entitled
to no assistance from the Powers who were parties
to the Treaty of 1852. He invites the nation to offer
up thanksgivings that a statesman of such eminent
prudence and patriotism was charged with the con-
duct of its foreign relations during the past year,
and his one time fite and fury breathing organs—
now very lambkins--take up the same strain, and
proclaim him the saviour of his country. A more
impudent political fraud was never attempted even
by the noble lord. The fact is, that Earl Russell
did his utmost to make the war general ; that he
proposed to the neutral Powers, not once but thrice,

to go to the assistance of Denmark, and address an
ultimatum to Germany ; and that the outbrea alfct4l.
terrible war was only prevented by the J'efu he
France to act with a Minister whose treac.herY s f
had so shortly before experienced in a matter his
such immense importance. In January, Le"' to
lordship invited France, Russia, and Swechlent
enter into a new quadruple affiance, with the , objeo_v
of maintaining the Treaty of London, and tool" eff:
to explain, in reply to the inquiries of those Co
as to what he really meant, that he proposed,
moral force was not sufficient, to appeal to phr
cal force. The proposal was refused • it
vvw
newed shortly after with the same effect.
this fact the country called upon by his lordship'
to thank him for keeping peace, and to con:
eider Denmark the true author of the war, oughb
to be familiar—his lordship's dispatches have hee,,,„
published. Very few persons, however, call::
aware that six months afterwards, when the all
were in possession, not only of Schleswig but i?
Jutland, when the Danish army was practical-Li,
annihilated, and the Danish people exhausted au'.
dispirited, his lordship invited France to join lizgd
land in addressing an ultimatum to Austria °.,11
Prussia, imposing upon those two Powers the M.:
titular terms of peace which his lordship 1104,1,
covered for himself to be the fitting ones. ou-4.
however, is the fact ; the Minister who at the
of June declared the quarrel to be one in whi_c,
England ought not to interfere, whose tender hear
et
so affected at the idea of extending the wait
and especially at the thought of the mischief
might occasion to Austria and Prussia, who thougv.
Denmark had brought all her calamities upon her,
self, and had no title to ask help, applied to to
French Government in the beginning of Jull t
agree upon a division of Schleswig .e., to au°,g,
his lordship's line of the Dannewerke and the Sclu
5,
and to compel Austria and Prussia by force of art,
if need should be, to accept the arrangement.
French yellow book supplies this interesting iltsj-
tration of the noble lord's candour, consistencY7`.o
good faith. Buried in that dull and unattractito
volume is a despatch from M. ..
Prouyn de LlitlYl
the Prince de la Tour d'AuvergLle, the French of
,„
bassador at the English Court, .dated the 10th......
June, which gives the reasons of the French (l
vernrnent for declining this proposal. 1.;.f. Dro
llYne
er-
t:
Lhuys says in substance that he had ha a couvke
sation with Lord Cowley, in which his lords2liP,,,scl
of establishing an agreement between Fran' -4-bey.
England as to the tracing of a frontier, which '
should sustain as an ultimatum. The French
rd
nister proceeds to say that he had reminded 1-',°,01
Cowley of the position which France had trio,
throughout upon this question. ,t We were,
said, " obliged to act with a circumspection n°tl/11,3
posed upon England. That Power was bound top oci
mark by the relationship of the two dynasties, „et
by other ties, and had an interest which we do
ignore in affording her assistance ; while the P°au
tion of the British Isles, sheltering them agains to
reprisals, the danger of such a struggle was, syn,..v.,
speak, for England nothing. We, on the contr'."'eci
had no interest to embrace the cause propertianer-
to the considerable sacrifices which a war with „vo
many would have imposed, and, therefore, we
England only a diplomatic help." t; Is the 61‘—iici
tion changed? Should we modify our attitude, a'axg
take arms to preserve to the Crown of Deße ter
25,000 to 30,000 souls more in Schleswig ?
to have made war for the treaty which gilara'tiie
the integrity of the Danish monarchy. Arad af we,
demonstration would mean for us war by lau,cee,
could not localise hostilities or limit our sael'gpect
we must employ all our resources. In the Pr°.a. be
of an eventuality of this nature would Englitor
disposed to give us unlimited support ?" • -
de Lhuys then remarks that Lord Russell seTisaa
think that a maritime demonstration would 11.tes to
to a conflict, and that it would suffice to ineynnsel
bring Germany to reason, and points out the 01very
of such an expectation, concluding with theseidt of
significant words, Before the regretable res d the
our common action in the affair of polaubeel;,
authority of the two powers had suffered 11°. polf
they could employ it without hesitation ; but their
words not followed by action would be fatal ti2„,oecl
dignity." The French Minister, therefore, asst
that Germany would have answered an ultuu,ed, or
with defiance, and that war would have fen to
that France and England must have subraitte
vrer
humiliation destructive of the prestige ankflir the
and he could not, after the way in Nv„ the
English Minister had left him in the liven
Polish question, feel confident that France or
not be left to vindicate her dignity by hersetrath
compelled to eat the leek. The blundering, uhnthe
ful conduct of Earl Russell in 1863 was ts sus'
cause of the disaster which English diplornal.., ,eta Med in 1864. Upon that question howevelhio
will not now enlarge. It is enough 'that Ave,
uys
shown from this dispatch of M. Drouyn de lip
that this peace-loving English his couill
statesman, who has saved, as heMteinllisstueSr: this
grtc:f
from a tremendous war on behalf of a state wtho
had no claims to its aid, endeavoured so late as, for
month of June to get up a general war, and thBwig
the comparatively petty question whether Schie'the
should be divided by a line drawn by the Schlei
Dannewerke, or beyond from Flensberg to Toncr.oo,
We are judging Earl Russell by his own profess' otle
We do not say that England should not have Eye
to war last June, much less that she should nosten'
the,
gone to war in January. We only exP°
o, .q.jog
arrant fraud which the Government is endeo
togiao
to commit in taking credit for having kelltion, were
out of war, when its most strenuous exer
employed to involve her war, and to extend
over the whole of. Europe. the war