The Sun.
London, England, 1870-10-04 00:00:00

MANIFESTO OF NAPOLEON.

The following document has been forwarded from the
office of La Situation, a' French journal recently esta-
blished in London. It appears under the title, "Lea
Id6es de l'Empereur," and is introduced by the state-
ment that Count Bismarck, immediately after the failure of
the negotiations which he had with M. Jules Favre, for-
warded an exact report of what had passed to Wilhelms-
hohe. The Emperor Napoleon thereupon retired to his
cabinet, and the same evening despatched M. de 'Castel-
nau to the Prussian head-quarters with the following
note, the whole of which was in the Emperor's own
handwriting :
" The King of Prussia, in keeping me daily informed of
the events which have been accomnlished since the day
when Providence compelled me to surrender my sword to
him, seems to call his prisoner to witness the hardships
which the Prussian armies are imposing on France, in the
interest, as the King believes, of Germany.
" The Count's communication confirms me in this
opinion. But is the time really come for me to reply
to this twofold attention by the expression of my own
thoughts ?
" Down to the 4th of September, the reserve which I
have maintained since Sedan was founded upon a firm
resolution to leave the Empress full and entire liberty to
conform to the wishes of the country.
" Since the 4th of September, however, I have been
unable to restrain myself from praying that France, even
in sacrificing my dynasty, might succeed in driving back
the invaders beyond her natural frontiers.
" In the overture made to the Count, the result of
which it was easy to foresee, the war has been deprived
of its veritable character, in the belief that by this means
the responsibility of the movement, to the force of
which my Government felt it its duty to yield, would be
avoided.

" That was to destroy the effect of the motives which
we have for refusing to subscribe to the conditions offered;
it was, above all, to paralyse the national defence at the
moment when it was about to assume proportions worthy
of France.

" The Count appeared surprised that an armistice,
necessary to the reconstruction of a regular Go-
vernment, should have been refused; and he is
astonished that none of the legally existing Powers
should have offered an opinion upon what he regards as
evidence of the King's moderation.
" But surely no one would reproach a Frenchman
with having repaired an imprudent step by refusing
propositions little in harmony with our glorious past !
" A duel, like that which is taking place between
France and Germany, can end only in the complete ruin
of one of the adversaries, or in their close and loyal recon-
ciliation.

" The Count, should, therefore, in the first place,
ask himself whether Germa,ny.., has a greater interest
in the ruin or the friendship of France ; and whether, ii
the former hypothesis be adopted, Germany dees not feel
that France may derive her safety from her despair, even
though Europe consent to remain an indifferent spectator
of an invasion that had no fixed bounds.

"My interview with the King authorises me to believe
that he would much prefer an affiance with France to
her ruin ; that he is not without concern regarding the
results of a struggle et, outrance, and that he appreciates
at their full value the claims which the complete recogni-
tion of the opinions shown by the different nations of
Europe during the war would give to the two peoples
thus closely allied.
" If such was, in fact, the opinion of the King, nothing
remains but to point out the means for making it effective;
but does it really belong to the conquered to define the
obligations of the conqueror, in order that his generosity
may not seem less tolerable than his demands ?
"I can only recall to the Count than an appeal is never
made in vain to the heart of the French people by
heroic measure ; while at the same time nothing
can certainly be obtained from them by an attempt to
strike in then breasts the chords of self-interest or of
fear, to which they will be strangers, whatever may be
the reverses Providence imposes upbn. them.
" Inclined by generous measures to a close and loyal
alliance with Germany, France would be the first to
admit that a line of defence between the two Empires, domi-
nated by fortresses, would have no longer reason to exist.
"As to the extreme sacrifices which France ought to
make, she would not hesitate to make them the moment
that she was allowed to perceive the immense
advantages to both nations that would result from a peace
which would have henceforth their own free will as its sole
arbiter.

" Upon this basis the other Powers, which must main-
tain a complete reserve so long as France shall retain a
hope of victory, would have a serious cause for interven-
tion.

" The sincere and plain exposition of the truth has
always established a sympathetic current between France
and myself, which nothing could destroy. It would
be enough, I believe, for me to affirm that our honour
has no injury to fear from a reconciliation based
on the disarmament of fortresses now become use-
less—and upon the principle of a war indenmity, to
be determined by inventory for peace to become pos-
sible. _ _

" By these conditions France may be prevented from
having recourse to those extremities which, by a caprice
of fortune, might easily give the death-blow to the social
order of Europe. . _ _

" Reconducted by experience to a just estimate of the
divisions which are tearing her asunder, and delivered
from the scourge of war, France would not hesitate to
acknowledge that, as she is compelled to attribute her
misfortune to the want of political unity, she ought for
the future to look for prosperity from the strictly observed
inviolability of the Institutions.
" These considerations are losing weight every day,
especially if the King hesitates to take account of them
before attacking Paris. The terrible shock which Provi-
dence has permitted to take place between Germany
and France may have given birth to a spark of
which progress may make use for the moral and
material well-being of Europe ; but if there be an obsti-
nate determination on either side to abide only by a solu-
tion of force, a fearful unknown element will inevitably
be set free by this shock, as disastrous to Germany as to
France,"
" NAPOLEON.
" Wilhelmshohe, September 26, 1870.

THE LOSS OF THE CAPTAIN.
[CENTRAL PRESS TELEGRAM.]

The inquiry was resumed yesterday.

Mr. Henry Laird, examined, said : The height of the
centre of effort of sails, as shewn in the original design
submitted in 1866, was calculated, and the ratio of the
stability of the ship with that area. The stability of the
ship was ascertained by metre centre, the usual method.
Witness made a passage from Liverpool to Portsmouth in
the Captain, and was present at two of the steam trials,
and went a part of the first cruise. When in a beam
sea, resulting from a strong south-west gale, the ship
rolled from about seven to eight degrees each way. She
rolled easily about eight to the minute. The Captain was
under sail and steam, and under sail alone for severa
days. The first day after leaving with fore and aft sails
set her heel was four degrees, and the Monarch's at the
same time a little more. Witness noticed that the ship,
when heaving, lurched to thirteen or fourteen degrees.
He cared not to stay the whole cruise, but on the return
of the vessel he learnt that when in a gale with other
ships the force of wind recorded was from nine to ten.
The Captain's mean heel was nine degrees, and the maxi-
mum thirteen. If the ship had had two feet more of
freeboard angles of maximum and banishing,
her stability would have been greater, but if
the question referred to the Captain's floating two feet
lighter than intended, thereby having that amount more
of freeboard, and the centre of gravity remaining the
same, witness was not sure whether her righting force at
any given angle would have been greater, because the
metre centre would have slightly approached to the centre
of gravity, and the displacement of the ship would conse-
quently have been 800 tons less. Witness was examined
at some length as to the arrangement of the masts and
sails, and the alt erations made from the original design
which he stated were sanctioned by the Admiralty.
The area of the sails was calculated on the same
basis as those for high freeboard vessels. The
responsibility of the witness's firm was of two
kinds—namely, the construction of the ship and the
provision of proper material and workmanship, and this
responsibility was the ship's performance as proposed by
the design. He considered the responsibility of Messrs.
Laird and Coles to be that of constructor and controller.
Witness was then asked as to other ships built by the
firm, some of which were not estimated as to draught of
water, but he said none had ever been refused on that
score. When asked as to data furnished by the Admi-
ralty, witness said in '66 and '69 he furnished all data he
understood to be wanted for thorough investigation of
design, which was to be approved or not as the Admiralty
thought proper. The only reason why the Captain
heeled snore in the second than the first cruise was, the
alteration of a portion of weights, or water being in the
ship unknown. Captain Coles might be described as

having a good general knowledge of the row:dn.:melds of a
ship, but not any very great theoretical knowledge of the
means of making those calculations.
Mr. Reed, late chief constructor, gave highly important
evidence. After the president had read extrects from a
summary sent by the Admiralty of the whole facts
connected with the Captain, witness was asked
for any explanation. He said his report of
the 20th July, made to the Lords of the Admiralty
with the full knowledge on their part and the
Controller of the Navy, was,. he objected to the freeboard
of the Captain, and cenfined himself to the consideration
of the design as a piece of naval architecture, possessing
lower freeboard than the Controlleve, their lordships, and
himself considered necessary for the seaworthiness of the
ship. His report, consequently, omitted all reference to
that feature of the vessel. Beyond this assumption, it
was taken for granted that the deck was high enough,
which was precisely where Captain Coles, the Controller,
and witness differed as to the design, so considered. Wit-
ness had no further objections than those pointed out in
the report of August 18GC.
Touching the weights and stability, the President said
from the evidence adduced, and the paragraph in the
paragraph in the summary, he-was led to believe that the
Messrs. Laird and Captain Coles were responsible for
the design, whereas from further evidence given by.
Messrs. Laird it seemed that they were under the con-
viction that the responsibility of themselves and Captain
Coles on the one hand, and the Controller of the Navy on
the other, was joint.
The witness said I am of opinion that the responsibility
for this design must rest entirely with Captain Coles and
Messrs. Laird. Because the Court will observe that in
the last reports, prior to the commencement of ships made
upon the design by the Controller and myself, are both eases
of doubt upon the character of the design, I in particular
questioning it up to two points with reference to which
it has failed, viz., its floating and its stability. It is out
of the question to suppose that their lordships would
order £350,000 of public money to be spent, and 500 lives
committed to a ship, the responsibility of which was to
rest upon persons who had from the beginning to the end
believed that the characteristic feature of the ship to be
wrong, and out of whose hands the design of the ship and
the responsibility had been advised and distinctly taken
in order to put to the test the question whether our be-
lief of a high freeboard as being necessary to a full rigged
sailing ship, was a mere prejudice of ours or a scientific
conviction. The very cause of the Captain being designed
and constructed was that the opinions of Sir Spencer
Robinson and myself were not to be trusted, and that we
were spewing some prejudiced opposition to the views of
Captain Coles. So strongly did I feel that we were clear
of all responsibility, and that the time would come when
it would be necessary for us to prove our exemption from
responsibility that I forbade my assistants to make use
of the word approved "in connection with the most
minor details, and told them to use the phrase "No ob-
jection would be offered." Witness concluded by saying
that if Messrs. Coles and Laird were not responsible for
the success and seaworthiness of the Captain, no naval
officer or architect was.
In reply to various interrogatories, witness said the
Controller's responsibility was to see that the workman-
ship and materials were sound. Beyond that the only
responsibility which arose, Captain Coles being ill, was as
far as the character of the ship was concerned. Nothing
whatever was done except with the full con-
currence of Captain Coles. 'Witness undoubt-
edly had misgivings as to the safety of the
ship, and he believed that the catastrophe must have
come sooner or later. His misgivings were obvious from.
the fact of . his advocating a much higher freeboard.
The funnel casings were likely to be started in extremely
heavy weather, and in consequence of the large engine
and boiler hatches being open to the inroads of the sea
the ship was liable to founder. As regarded the Cap-
tain in time of war, the witness did not like to express
his sense of her unfitness. He considered the ordinary
masting to be too heavy for the Captain, and concluded
that she was lost for want of canvas, and did not believe
it attributable to management on the night of foundering.
The Court adjourned, after sitting ten hours. It is
expected to close to-night.

OUR COTEMPORARIES—This Morning