The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-17 00:00:00

BPiltiT OF THE PUBLIC . JOURNALS.

The Times discusses the whole history of our l fortifica-
tions, and observes that since they were first lesigned a
complete revolution has occurred in military Ft ience. It
is hardly too much to say that the guns of to-day differ
from the guns of ten years since as widelsas the first
cannon differed from bows and arrows. In 1859 the
largest gun known to the service was a 68-pounder. Now.
a-days, a 600-pounder is no extraordinary weapon. In
addition to this came the universal rise in prices ; so
that a variety of unavoidable circumstances did
really combine to upset the original calculations
and enhance the cost of the scheme. The moral to be
drawn from this story is not encouraging, and in proof of
this we will merely ask the reader to recall the arguments
of the great military controversy during the last six months.
As far as such views are concerned, we might just as well
have pitched our five millions into the sea at once. Not
the slightest heed was taken of these fortifications, or their
place in the system of our national defences. if our fleets
should be defeated and the command of the channel lost,
the enemy, it is said, would throw his hosts upon our shores,
and there would be nothing to stop him for a single week.
The war would be "short, sharp, and decisive," and the
only chance for us is to maintain a standing army of
about half-a-million of men, so distributed between
active and reserve forces that the whole body might
take the field at tweny-four hours' notice. That is all we
have got for £5,000,000 actually spent, and some £3,000,000
of expenditure in prospect. The cry is as loud after all
we have done as if we had done nothing at all. Since the
alarm was first sounded we have increased our land forces
in mere numbers just eighty-fold—other improvements
considered, we may say a hundred-fold. Gunboats,
turret-ships, and torpedoes would render a landing on our
shores infinitely more hazardous than formerly, and yet
—just as in 1849, so in 1859, and just as in 1859, so in
1869—we are described as without any security against
invasion. If that is not a story without an end, it is one
with a very unpleasant conclusion.

The Star has little opinion of the efficacy of fortifica-
tions as a means of defence, and says : We are fully con-
vinced, and we feel sure that hundreds of brave and scien-
tific officers share the opinion, that if an enemy's fleet of
ironclads could by any possibility appear off Portsmouth,
and had the chance of destroying the shipping and dock-
yards, it is not the forts upon which we have spent so
much money which could prevent it. Either the
enemy would lie off at an extreme distance, and
slowly bombard the place at his convenience, or send in a
few of his best-protected vessels, to run past the forts and
work general mischief inside. To prevent this, torpedoes
in the fair way would be worth all the forts we have built.
It is a good rule in war that we must meet an enemy with
his own weapons. If he attacks with a fleet, our fleet
must meet him. If he lands an army by some remarkable
and unimaginable good fortune on his part, we must con-
centrate our army; and if we cannot trust to these—that
is, to ourselves—the sooner we all emigrate the better. The
policy of fortifications is based on the assumption that our
fleet is not only not able to cope with the enemy in
the open sea, but not even capable of defending our dock-
yards. The idea is monstrous and indefensible. It is at
once a slur on the navy, and a pitiful position for the
nation to occupy before foreign nations. We hope the
present Parliament means to stand erect, and spare us
further examples of ignoble trepidation. Let it save the
£2,800,000 for the works of peace ; and should war come
the investment will be found to give infinitely greater
strength to the country than if each separate town were
fortified with iron, while the people inside were encouraged
to prostrate themselves in terror before imaginary
dangers.

The Standard thinks that a most important example
has been furnished by the Preston strike. It illustrates a
double truth. The first is, that in the greatest manufac-
turing county of England a feeling has set in—which the
Preston committee calls " apathy "—hostile to strikes;
the second is that the operatives, although conducting
themselves With infinite forbearance and submission, have
utterly failed to carry their point, and instead of increas-
ing have lowered the rate of wages. It is true that a rem-
nant of them still announce their resolve to prolong the
conflict, and that some hope exists of emigration plans
relieving the distressed population. But how much has been
paid for this battle ; how much by the weavers themselves,
and how much by the ratepayers ? It is a healthy sign
of the times that a sentiment is growing up in the eastern
and southern divisions of Lancashire against this practice,
so irrational as towards the employer and so cruel as
towards the employed. Preston has been famous for its
strikes. Not one of them has ever triumphed. Not one
of them has ever added a permanent penny to the wages
of the working man. All have left behind them desola-
tion and regret. Will the lesson at last be understood?
We look at that great industrial town, and there are
thousands in it who could tell us, now that the battle has
been fought out to its bitter end, that they gained nothing
by it ; that, on the contrary, they have incurred unhappy
losses; and that, above all, the teeming counties round
them refuse to take a share in
,the strife, and are adopting
new theories of industrial economy.

The Post declares that, viewed from a proper standpoint,
the bill for creating County Financial Boards is certainly
not open to the charge of being, either directly or indirectly,
mischievous. The bill introduced by Mr. Knatchbull-
Hugessen simply provides for the engrafting of a small
modicum of the representative system upon the existing
magisterial mode of government in counties. The
proposed arrangement may be productive of good.
In some counties there is much better management
of local affairs than in others ; and the admission to
the boards of men practically acquainted with the
requirements and working arrangements of their several
districts might often tend to a more satisfactory despatch
of business than would otherwise be found practicable.
In 1850 Mr. Milner Gibson introduced a bill, pro.
posing the formation of Financial Boards, composed,
as in the case of the present bill, partly of guar-
dians and partly of magistrates. A select committee, how-
ever, negatived the preamble of the bill, on the ground
that the management of the county magistrates was
already " economical and efficient." Another bill, the
same year, was rejected also. In 1851 a somewhat similar
bill was introduced, but it was negatived on the second
reading. Public opinion was evidently not ripe for the
proposed change, and the question was scarcely again
agitated at all until last year, when two bills on the sub-
ject were brought into the House of Commons. These
were referred to the select committee presided over by
Colonel Wilson-Patten, which recommended that the
wishes of the ratepayers should be gratified ; and from
the reception the Government bill received there can be
little doubt that what is right in principle, is desired by the
taxpayers, and is incapable of mischief, will qt last be
carried out.

The Herald, in referring to Mr. Gait's speech, says that
at a time when the temper of the Americans has become
so threatening that even Mr. Goldwin Smith is no longer
safe in the country of his preference it is of peculiar im-
portance to us to be accurately informed of the feeling of
the Canadians in respect to the claims which have been
advanced against us by Mr. Sumner. To both sides in
the controversy the real, if not the only, object to be
regarded is Canada. It is Canada which the Americans
covet ; it is Canada which alone is the source of England's
anxiety. The big words of Mr. Sumner have no terrors
for us, save in so far as they threaten the security
of our North American provinces. Any war
between England and the United States is only so far
a matter of anxiety to the former as that it commits her
to the defence of the Canadian frontier. In no other part
is England vulnerable, and if any hostilities, which may
God forbid, break out between Great Britain and America,
they must quickly be resolved into a war for the posses.
sion of Canada. That England is bound to defend Canada,
and that she will be prepared to do so in the event of the
Euarrel being carried to the point of war, we suppose few
nglishmen will deny. If, indeed, by her own choice,
she should prefer to cast her lot with the United States,
then let her go with a blessing. Such a conclusion
to the difficulty would be a good deal disconcerting
to those who expect to seize her by way of revenge,
and in satisfaction of a pecuniary claim • but to England
it would be perfectly acceptable. A parting from Canada,
if effected in an amicable spirit, would be no loss, perhaps,
to either side—certainly not to England. In these cir-
cumstances we have but one duty and one policy. To
defend Canada against the United States, with the Cana-
dians opposed or indifferent to the British connection,
would be impossible. To defend Canada at our own cost
and by our own means would be very difficult, and would
not be just to the people of this country. But if the
Canadians are willing and ready to take their share of
the work of defence--if they are loyal, as they profess to
be, to the empire -we not only believe that we ought to
undertake their defence, but that we shall be able to do
so with every reasonable prospect of success.

The Daily News says that while Roman Catholics and
Anglicans, like rival litigants, are asserting their claims to
be considered the lawful successors of St. Patrick, historic
criticism, as the final court of appeal, chews some inclina-
tion to get rid of the dispute, after the manner of
an estate swallowed up in costs, by res.h.lug the saint
into a myth. Whatever may become of St. Patrick, the
real patron saint of Ireland 15 Daniel O'Connell.
The homage which
Iya3- rod to his memory by
the cerenninial of Fricay was natural and liccoming.
Ten th,aisand of his fellow countrymen followed the cotlin
Ef O'Connell to ity last restinq-,place. Among them were
the tir3t- Roman Catholic Li-,rd Chancellor of Ireland and
Cardinal Cnil,n. Their presence was a fitting homage to
the man to. whom chiefly Catholic emancipation
is was due.
The time of the celebration had also a- certain appro-
priateness. The great measure which to remove the
i
Fast vestige of ecclesiastical ascendency n Ireland,
and to do away with that great historic wrong
with which during the. earlier- and better part of
his career' O'Connell waged partially successful war,
has received the assent of the people of England and of
their representatives. It is well that those who are about
to reap the harvest should remember the labourer who
toiled in the midday heat. Curiously, but naturally, the
very measure which completes one art of O'Connell's
work contributes to make the rest void. The act of justice
which will remove the last symbol of Roman Catholic
inferiority 41relana buries more deeply in the limbo of
abortml pOpOts'all schemes for thtt_tergal (if taiLlaiorie.