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

SFIIIIT 71:1-7, FTOI3II-C. JOURNALS-,

The T nms discusses the whole history of our fortifica-
tions, and observes that since they were first designed a
complete revolution has occurred in military science. It
is hardly too much to say that the guns of to-day differ
from the guns of ten years since as widely as 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 £3,000,600
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 for tune 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 net 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
farther 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