The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-24 00:00:00

THE FRENCH NAVY.

The following is the report made in the name of the
commission appointed to examine the bill on the gene-
ral staff-major of the navy, by Admiral Baron de Mac-
kau. It WtbS presented in the sitting of the 13th inst.:—
Messieurs les S4nateurs—The project of law which is
presented to you, tending to modify the law of June 17,
1841, on the general staff-major of the navy (arm6e na-
vale) contains two distinct and chief dispositions for the
service of the marine : it proposes :
On the one hand to allow the retirement from active
service of the general officers of the marine three years
sooner thin prescribed by the existing law of 1841 ;
And, secondly, to modify by symplifying them, the
conditions imposed by the law of April 20, 1832, on
promotions in the marine for rear-admirals to be raised
to the grade of vice-admiral.
Before opening the debate, the commission decided to
render you an account of the opinion it has formed on
the constitutional question mooted by the project of
law.

The commission has devoted various sittings to resolve
it. It has again carefully consulted the text of the Con-
stitution, and has repeatedly stopped before Art. 26,
which runs as follows :
" The Senate is opposed to the promulgation :
"1. Of laws which should be contrary to, or an infring-
ment upon the Constitution, religion, morality, freedom
of worship, individual liberty, equality of citizens before
the law, inviolability of property, and to the principle of
immutability of the magistrature ;
"2. Of those which might compromise the defence of
the territory."
Thus, gentlemen, it might happen that a project of law
might appear in accordance with the Constitution, and
which might, nevertheless, contain dispositions contrary
to, and infringing upon, great principles, and most im-
portant questions placed under your care by the two
paragraphs of the 26th article of the Constitution—in
that case it would be incumbent upon the Senate to re-
ject the project.
Behold how great is the mandate entrusted to your
patriotism by the Emperor. Your vote would suffice to
stop the Government if it had unwittingly been misled
into a wrong path.
Gentlemen, your commission only wishes to submit
serious questions to you, in accordance with what its
members owe to themselves, and conformable to the pro-
found respect they entertain for your high dignity. It
declines all forced interpretations of the terms of the
Constitution, and yet it must render you an account of
what presented itself to its mind, first under the form of
a doubt, and soon afterwards with the character of a
conviction.
What do these words mean ? "The Senate is opposed
to the promulgation of laws which might compromise
the defence of the territory."
Is it a law which would make the proposition to sub-
stitute for a system of defence of well-conceived fortifica-
tions, a new system inferior to the first ?
But the land army itself, is it not the most precious--
the most efficacious element of the inviolability of the
territory ?
If it was proposed to you to renounce its present
vigorous organisation, and which led it formerly to pro-
tect civilization in our own country and in Europe, to
replace it by a vicious organisation which would deprive
it of its tried leaders—which would weaken the princi-
ples of respect in all the ranks of the hierarchy, which
would contain (very involuntarily, doubtless) principles
in opposition to a sound military spirit, would it not be
to weaken our forces for the guard of our territory ? And
would it not be the duty of the Senate to reject such a
project ?
The navy (la marine), gentlemen also contributes
powerfully to the defence of the country. During the
long war of the Revolution its squadrons protected our
coasts of the Ocean and of the Mediterranean. If a
new war should break out, with all the new means of
destruction at the disposal of all, our navy would have
most important duties to perform, to contribute effi-
ciently to the defence of our continental and colonial
territory. It would be its duty, either by the defensive
or the offensive, by diversions afar off, or by operations
on our coasts, to defend France from attacks meditated
against her. England, it is known, calls her fleet her
"wooden walls," and we call our ships our "floating
citadels."
To reduce our navy would he to compromise one of
pur great means of defence.
i'eur commission is profoundly convinced that such
would he the result of the proposed bill. It therefore
concludes, "That the Senate should oppose its promul-
gation."
To give a suitable explanation of the motives which
determined our opinion, and to establish how the pro-
ject of law is opposed to that so important part of the
Constitution, we pass to the examination of the project
itself.
To Government to justify the two grave derogations
to which the law of 1841 was to be subjected, made
known by the expos," des motifs, that it thought, as re-
gards the limits of age, there was an absolute necessity,
a general anti uniform rule, in the general staff-major of
the two armies by land and sea.
It also thinks that it is necessary in the interest of
our naval power to open the ranks of the general staff-
major of the marine to officers who have acquired ex-
perience in steamers. And it points out that general
officers on the retired list, or belonging to the reserve,
as well as those raised to the dignity of senators, may,
in virtue of the decree of January 29, 1853, be called
upon in time of war to resume sea service.
.As regards the rules of promotion to the grade of
vice-k-zdmiral, the authors of the project of law observe
that the, law of 1832, on promotion (Art. 14). makes it
a condition on the promotion of rear-admirals to the
grade of vice-admirals, that the officer should have been
in command for a period of three years of a squadron of
at least five ships of the line.
The Government opines that it is equitable and con-
formable to the wants of the service to reduce by one
year the period of command at sea, and moreover not to
fix the number of vessels of the squadron or division in
which the command shall have been exercised, so as to
facilitate the accession to a higher grade.
Your commission, gentlemen, has examined this pro-
ject of law with a care imposed upon it by the high in-
terest which the Senate takes in the good organisation
of the navy so intimately allied to our national grandeur
and the glory of our arms.
The first of the dispositions of the project of law, that
indicated by Article 1, having for object the reduction
of the three years' service of general officers of the navy,
would be of great prejudice to the naval service, and,
consequently, would be of considerable detriment to
the general and essential interests of France.
It is depriving oneself voluntarily of the services of
general officers at the very moment when a long expe-
rience at sea, a skill generally recognised in the exercise
or command, renders the presence of those admirals at
the Lead of their divisions more useful than ever.
This ,imestion (to what age must the active service of
naval commanders be limited) is not a new one. In
1841, on tine occasion of the bill on the general staff, it
war mooted, discussed, and judged before the two
Chambers, wit' as much freedom as maturity, as the
discussion which was opened in the Chamber of Peers
on the 28th January was not closed in the Chamber of
Deputies till the 28th April following.
What was said in 1841; and what is repeated to-day,
to limit to 62 years and to j 35 the active service of rear-
admirals and vice-admirals'{ That conditions precisely
the same should be adopted as regards the duration of
active service of general officers, ,military as well as
naval.

To which Admiral Duperr6, then Minister of Marine,
and Vice-Admiral Lalande, member of the Chamber of
Deputies, replied successively :
Admiral Duperr6 : "The duties of naval commander,
4hyugh very onerous, do not demand that agility of
movement, that physical exertion, which have been
thought indispensible to the command of armies on
land. A naval commander may direct „the movements
of his squadron, without being put to much bodily ex-
ertion. Accustomed to live on board ship, hardened
by rough work at sea, he can at the age of 65 and
68 well suffice for the duties and exertions of com-
mand which, especially at sea, without great bodily
exertion, demand rather precision of judgment, which
is alone required by Long experience. If it is necessary
to quote examples in support of this assertion, we could
find in the histories of foreign navies, as well as in that
of France, admirals who, though far exceeding the limit
of age proposed, have illustrated their career by glorious
successes. This is the time to goote the old axiom of
every navy : Old admirals, young captains.'"
Vice-Admiral Lalande : "I find that this fixation of
age is the very worst condition which could be imposes
upon the limit of service, because that inexorable con-
dition will compel, for the greater part of the time, the
maintenance in service of invalided officers, or deprive
the service of valuable men whom time has spared, and
who, though aged, have preserved all their physical and
moral powers. But, however, if all unite to demand
this limit of age, which I find so shortsighted, I think
that it is as well to adopt the proposed bill as it has
been amended by the Chamber of Peers, which has
studied and discussed it with all desirable perspicuity."
Eminent members of both chambers took part in that
long debate, and among those who were favourable to
the conditions of active service as demanded by Admiral
Duperr6, we may mention a former Minister of Marine,
Count d'A rgout, and the two reporters, who were lis-
tened to with much favour in either chamber—Baron
Charles Dupin and Baron de lwerosse.

Gentlemen, what it is very necessary to point out
among the circumstances which occurred in 1841, and
which again present themselves at the present moment,
is that many enlightened men, in apphluding the pro-
posed measure for naval commanders, saw' therein, and
still see therein, always a strong presuroptioo that those
conditions would be also applied to the army, In fact,
before 1848 the King could, in virtue of his pre;ogative,
maintain lieutenant-generals in active service uvtil the
age of sixty-eight years, which was generally done, So
that it may be said there is a new importance to-day for
maintaining the dispositions of the law of the 17th of
June, 1841, in the double interest of the navy and army.
What can, then, the real object be of the bill before
us ? •

Evidently it is not solely to assimilate the condition of
eommnnders in both services, for to obtain that result it
would have been more simple to adopt the rule which
ameliorates both services than that which is detrimental
to them.