The Sun.
London, England, 1860-09-11 00:00:00

THE NAVIES OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

Within the last few months we have seen the
navies of France and England contrasted by various
writers, on various principles of computation, and
from various points of view ; bnt there is one re-
markable fact of which, though it may possibly
prove important enough to govern the whole ques-
tion, little has yet been said. The Emperor Napo-
leon appears to have definitively accepted a new
theory of naval 'warfare. He has adopted an en-
tirely new system of constructing ships of war, and
is recognising an entirely new principle in the
formation of a fleet. Line-of-battle ships, accord-
ing to these views, will be utterly superseded, and
their places will be taken by heavy frigates so
protected by steel or iron armour as to be prac-
tically invulnerable. That, at least, is the theory
on which these vessels have been planned, and to
such good purpose has it been embraced that,
though France has at this moment but two ships
of the line on the stocks, she has no fewer than
eight of these steel plated frigates in process of
construction, besides two actually afloat. As we
have no such vessel afloat, and only four on the
stocks, it follows that, if the French are right, we
may presently find our navy in a position of inferio-
rity far more alarming than that which was disco-
vered two years ago. On the other hand, if the
French are wrong, they will have squandered upon
a profitless experiment the means of creating a for-
midable fleet, and we, for once, shall be found the
best economists. We put the case in this way because
we do not wish to regard the question as absolutely
decided, though it cannot but be startling to ob-
serve the completeness of decision on the other
side of the Channel. The fact, too, is the more
impressive from being in direct contradiction to
the ordinary course of things. Our Admiralty
has acquired a reputation for headlong resolutions
and reckless expenditure, while the -French are
represented as profiting by our experiments to get
the greatest possible results at the least possible
cost. Here, however, the conditions are reversed.
We are still testing iron plates against rifled
cannon, and building line-of-battle ships more
zealously than ever, while the French are acting
confidently upon a new invention, and preparing
for a system of warfare which is to supplant
old fleets and old tactics altogether. Now, which
of these two courses is really the wiser one ? It is
a momentous question, for, if we should really hap-
pen to be in the wrong, the consequences might be
disastrous to our maritime ascendancy.
In favour of the French theory, it may be ob-
served that their adoption of the new system has
not been precipitate, nor without a course of proba-
tion and experiment. It is some time since the
first attempt was made at sheathing a vessel ,n
armour, and the idea was more than once dropped
and taken up again as fresh improvements sug-
gested themselves. The floating batteries employed
in the Crimean War, though not severely tried,
were thought to do good service, and the French
better than the English. At length, after repeated
essays, the French professed themselves satisfied
that frigates could be constructed of such impreg-
nable strength and such tremendous power as to
be more than a match for any class of vessels
yet launched; and they plainly announced their
conclusion that before a dozen years were past line-
of-battle ships would be obsolete. The Emperor Na-
poleon, therefore, has been neither hasty nor incon-
siderate. He has acted on the very principle as-
cribed to him in the famous Leipsic article on the
French and English navies. He has first assured
himself of the utility of the invention, and has
then, after taking his resolution, carried it into
execution without stint or delay. This policy gave
him a sudden superiority in screw line-of-battle
ships a year or two ago, and, if it should be equally
justified by the results on the present occasion, it
may give him a still more decided superiority a year
or two hence.
On the other hand, we are bound to admit that,
except for the obligations imposed on us by a
French precedent, the question may still be re-
garded as too doubtful to warrant any precipitate
adoption of the new discovery. Everything turns
upon the armour of these vessels. Whatever may
be their qualifications in speed or armament, these
can easily be encountered ; but if a French ship is
really invulnerable while an English ship is exposed
as of old to the storm of shot, it needs no rea-
soning to arrive at the results. Is this invulnera-
bility a fact ? We can hardly believe it. Our
authorities have been trying the question inces-
santly for months past, and heavy guns have been
pitted against patent armour in our various sea-
ports with scarce a week's intermission of the ex-
periments. As far as the results have been pub
lished, the tests have appeared to tell rather
against the armour, whether chain or plate, and it
would not be wise to lavish money on inventions
proved to be fallible. Moreover, we cannot but
remark that no Government but that of France
has yet adopted the theory, though it is pre-
cisely such as would command itself to mari-
time States desirous of securing sudden efficiency
at a limited cost. Even America, always prone
to new inventions, has rejected the project,
though she gave it a deliberate trial. It was
not so with rifled cannon, which were adopted
promptly and universally as soon as ever their
superiority was discovered. We must not for
get, either, that it is impossible to balance the
French experiments against our own, inasmuch as
we cannot be sure that the conditions were equal.
Granted that the French have succeeded in con-
structing ship armour impenetrable to any of their
guns, this nlay prove, not that the armour is
stronger than ours, but that the guns are weaker.
Would the Cloire or the Normandie prove invul-
nerable if battered by Armstrong or Whitworth
guns of heavy calibre, or by a broadside of such
pieces? The French cannot pierce these breast-
plates with their own 'cannon, but could it not be
done with ours ? It is a question of artillery as
well as armour, of attack as well as defence: Pro
bably the reason why the Americans discarded the
scheme of iron-casing a vessel was because they
measured the strength to be thus gained against
the power of their Dahlgren guns, and our own
artillery is now the most powerful in the world. If
British manufacturers cannot produce a plate of
iron which British guns cannot penetrate, we need
not be much afraid of finding such plates. elsewhere.
Although, moreover, we acknowledge that the
importance of this question far transcends that of
mere pecuniary considerations, we may fairly pause
before we plunge into such an ocean of extrava-
gance as the adoption of new theories creates. The
question at issue is not only the " reconstruction"
of the British Navy at so very short a date after
the last renewal, but its reconstruction upon prin-
ciples of still greater cost than before. Steam proved
half ruinous to us, but iron would be worse. The
expense of a man-of-war in Nelson's time was about
£l,OOO a gun ; it is now about £2,000, and at the
rate of outlay actually sanctioned on our four iron-
cased frigates it would be £4,000. We have but
just superseded our sailing navy ; if we are now to
supersede our wooden navy, and at twice the re-
cent charge, what will be the aspect of our esti-
mates for some years to come ?

Of course, however, we do not for a moment deny
that if the necessity really exists it must be encoun•
tered, be the cost what it may; and, indeed, if we
take timely precautions and act at once upon our
convictions, so as to escape arrears, the work may
prove fairly manageable. All we have to do is to
come to a decision, and, if that should be in favour
of iron-cased frigates, our dockyards, when relieved
from other work, can certainly turn out as many
of the new fighting-ships as those of any country
in the world. Our Admiralty authorities probably
remember that when they were drawn away from
line-of-battle ships some time ago to a new class of
vessels, the diversion cost them many a struggle
afterwards before their position could be regained.
This is true, and the recollection may well render
them cautious ; but caution has its limits, or it may
become just as dangerous as temerity. We do not
blame them for circumspection, so long as it is cir-
cumspection only. All we wish to understand is
that the consideration of the new system is not
damaged by official obstructiveness. By this time,
we.should think, the relative powers of shot and
iron must have been pretty well ascertained; and,
though it would be absurd to adopt a theory admit-
ting of practical disproof, it would be disastrous as
well as puerile to shut our eyes to an invention
which, if really effective, would carry with it the
sovereignty of the seas.— "'lmes.
Gar Broad-str

.MSTONE'S EYE SNUFF.—Mr. Grimstone, .-street
Bloomsbury.—Ophthalmic Hospital, Charing-cross. Sir,—
Perceiving that on one of your bills my name is mentioned
in union with that of my late patient, Mr. Lachfield, I be
leave to confirm his testimony, and state the great benefit
derived by the use of your excellent herbaceous Eye Snuff
in his case, which was one of obstinate chronic ophthalnita,
accompanied by opacity of the cornea, and a varicose state of
the conjunctional vessels. His case was the first under my
notice in which the preparation was used ; but being struck
by the advantageous results, I resolved to lay aside preju.
dice, and advise its use in some cases in my practice at thin
Hosy ital. The benefit was great, and has led me still fur-
ther to recommend it.—l am your obedient servant, j, G.
GUTURIE.

[ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably ag-
gravate
and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance,
dis-
appointment, and expense may be avoided by persons
in
77, .Regent-street, W., London, and they
indifferent health sending only their address to R
VALIDS' OWN
WS.lllBraerceryi'veEgraqa"tis and free by post the "Ix
GUIDE," or-Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex-
pense, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, and
refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the removal
of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver
complaints,
nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, pal
cough, asthma,
dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throa s, catarrhs, :olds
noises in the ears,,rheumatligu, gout, impurities, eruptions,
neuralgia
hysteria, tirrftshillt
---4, sleeplessness, acidity, Pailm,
tatiou, heartburn, e a
4-4che, despondency, cramps, ,PloPt•
de
pitmtion,
sinking, fits. ronchitis.—"Unquestionably the safest elll ,
to health."