The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-26 00:00:00

CAPTAIN PENNY'S DAVIS' STRAITS
EXPEDITION.

ABERDEEN, Thursday.—The Lady Franklin, the
arrival of which at the Orkneys was announced in yes-
terday's sun, is now here. She came in this morning.
and looks as if she had come through hard weather. The
crew are in excellent health, and Captain Penny has
brought with him a very intelligent Esquituaux. .
The directors of the company, for commercial reasons,
prevent the disclosure of facts which might injure their
specul4tion ; but from sources on which the fullest
confidence may be placed, we have gathered the
followinv

The Lady Franklin and the Sophia made the ice
about the end of August, and took up their position in
Hogarth's Sound, at a place called New Voyn, on the
West Land. Here two Yankee ships were found engaged
in the same fishery. Captain Penny succeeded in killing
12 whales before the winter set in, and then:prepared for
boiling. The ships were snugged, and the most friendly
intercourse with the natives was established. The
health of the crews was good, but the winter was very
severe, the glass at 'times being as low as 494 degrees
below zero.

In the spring the fishil-, was resumed. For nine
months the ships had been locked up, but with the first
of summer they were free. The fishing was again sue-
ceosful, no fewer than 16 whales having been killed. The
total quantity of oil (which is boiled) will be about 190
tons, and 15 tons of bone. The bone alone will fetch
3501. a ton, and the oil is expected to realise over 401.
a-ton

The Americans here, as in other things. are before us,
hut it is due to Captain Penn‘ to t,ay that since 1840 he
has had a resident fishery in view, and has now sue'
ceeded, in the face of difficulties that would have over-
powered most men.

We insert this morning a letter from " An Eye-
Witness," on a subject not likely just now to lack
interest with the public. It has been found to be
of great importance that we should provide our-
selves for the war in the Baltic with a new descrip-
tion of oftensive craft, suited to the particular na-
ture of the seas on which our forces are engaged.
The necessity for this new armament was discerned
as soon as our fleets passed the Sound, and indeed
we may say, perhaps, that it might have been as-
sumed some time beforehand. In the larger and
and more powerful class of vessels we appear, after
many experiments, to have arrived at the very con-
summation of success in our screw three-deckers.
Our frigates, too, and steam ships generally, leave
little to be desired, provided only they can find
water to float in ; but this is unfortunately the
one thing wanting. The shallows of the Baltic are
such that vessels with more than a certain draught
of water cannot approach near enough to the shore
to use their batteries, and it is necessary, there-
fore, to employ a smaller species of craft for such
purposes. Of course, vessels built to insure a light
draught of water cannot carry a large number of
guns, and, as they would consequently be no match
for sloops or frigates, they should be able to get out
of their way. As they cannot fight they must run,
and these conditions give us the combination of
qualities desired. The vessels in question should
he of very little draught, very great speed, and so
armed that' the gun or guns that they can carry
should be effeutive at a range long enough to keep
the craft itself harmless. Whether they are called
" gun-boats" • or " despatch-boats" matters very
little ; their general capacity is such as we describe.
After some delays, the Admiralty authorities
are now getting a small flotilla of these boats in
readiness for service. One of them, the Arrow,
had a trial made of her capabilities on Wednesday,
and two others, the Beagle and the Wrangler, are
fast approaching completion. 'The- trial of the
Arrow took place at Portsmouth, and it is upon
the results of this trial that the strictures of " An
Eye-Witness" are founded. Our correspondent
considers the experiment a failure, and alleges that
the authorities have committed several Mistakes in
their proceedings. According to his view of the
case, two classes of gun-boats have been hitherto
practically known. One of these is exemplified in
certain vessels which the Prussian Admiralty
caused to be constructed for service in these very
waters, and the other in those vessels which we
are now building. Applying, therefore, to each of
these classes the tests suggested by the conditions
described above, "Au Eve-Witness" observes, that
whereas the Prussian gun-boats draw only from 5
to 7 feet of water, ours will draw from 11 to 13 ;
that, whereas they can make their 13 knots an hour,
we can make only 11 ; and that their guns can be
worked in a very heavy sea, while ours, under such
circumstan?es, would be unserviceable. He con-
cludes, therefore, that we had better abandon our
present model, and construct all the guu-boats here-
after to be built exactly on the Prussian pattern.
On this advice we must observe that it is not very
clear what our correspondent means by the " two"
classes of gun-boats hitherto known. We had rather
imagined that there was, practically speaking, but
one model—viz., the Prussian, and that our own
boats, of which we can hardly be said yet to have
" had any practical experience," were intended
improvements on the model before us. And it
was in this sense, apparently, that a correspondent,
adopting the signature of "Baltic," wrote to
us on Tuesday, and explained why something
more was needed in our case than in
that of the Prussian authorities. Our boats

must be constantly up with the fleet, and enabled
to keep the sea in ali weathers. Cuuld the Prussian
Loafs do this ? We are ..of -course hot supposing
that vessels like the Nix and the Salamander are
purely shore boats, but could boats with only five
.eet draught of water carry their two heavy 68-
pounders, and yet keep well up with the squadron,
and perform all the required service ? If they
could, then their additional draught is certainly so
much to their prejudice ; but we had concluded
that this condition was accepted as one from which

there was no escape. Our correspondent " Baltic"
expressly stated that all these points had been de-
liberately considered and arranged,• and that every
requisite had been predetermined. Before it, can
be said, therefore, that the Prussian boats are better
models than the English it must be shown that the
former fulfil all the conditions of service expected
from the latter. "An Eye-Witness" is perfectly
aware that there can be no abstract difficulty in
building steam-vessels of five feet draught to run
13 knots an hour—the question is, whether such
vessels, when built, would answer all the other pur-
poses which our commanders have. in view. It is
not likely that our authorities, knowing the value
of a light draught of water, would have made their
boats draw twelve feet if they could have got off
with six.

As to the third remark of our correspondent,
respecting the working of the guns, it appears to
us that this is mere matter of arrangement. He
states, that whereas the Arrow " rolled awfully,"
rendering a steady aim impossible, the Prussian
boats, on a similar first trial, " had their guns
worked steadily and quite satisfactorily," even in
a very rough sea, and he explains the difference
by observing, that whereas our boats must carry
their guns in the bow, the Prussian carried theirs
amidships, on a central platform, where the motion
was least. But is there any reason why the Arrow
should not do the same, or rather, was there not
some reason why, with •a full knowledge of what
was done in the Prussian boats, the arrangement
was varied in our own ? Everybody will at once
acknowledge that if all the requisites of a sea-going
Baltic gun-boat could be secured with 5 feet draught
water, a draught of 11 feet would be extremely
undesirable, but the question is whether such a
result was to be obtained ? The Nix and the Sala-
mander were very well-known vessels, and, if no-
thing more was required by our commanders than
such service as those vessels could render, it was
undoubtediv a gratuitous piece of trouble to try
and improve upon them by experiment. We incline
to suppose, however, that something more was
wanted, and that we lad to pay for the difference.
An explanation of the whole question seL med to
he offered by an able weekly contemporary the
other day, in a discussion on the relative merits of
iron and wood as materials of naval construction.
Iron gives the greatest facilities for snugness, light-
ness, and shallow draught—wood the greatest se-
curity against shot. It appears that in the Prus-
sian gun-boats these advantages were combined by
constructing the vessels of iron up to the line of
flotation, and of wood from that • line upwards,
whereas the English boats being built wholly of
wood are losers in lightness to a corresponding ex-
tent. If the difference arises solely from this cir-
cumstance, the point at issue becomes very clear,
being simply; whether iron, though condemned as a
material for vessels-of-war generally, may not be
thus partially made available without undue risk ?
At present, however, we think it would be prema-
ture to maintain that our gun-boats, upon a balance
yardfewub
estat
eae
xne
appreciation
se
raiptmee er the
taespos
tp,
of capabilities, are inferior to the Prussian. In a
eopfwtehesli)ravllablueee, tfittobrlteitiletwo
afrorgmiveas
opportunity of oeffbarientgivanlgsoeurvrideoec.l-
Times.