The Sun.
London, England, 1867-12-26 00:00:00

PAINLESS DENTISTRY.
MESSRS. GABRIEL, DENTISTS (Established
1815), of
Lon don 53, Harley-s:reet, Cavendish-square,
61, Ludgate-Hill, E. 0.,
Liverpool 34, Duke-street, and
Br:irliton
have just published a NEW PAMPHLET explaining their Pain-
less System of Dentistry, and self-adhosive Teeth without
springs, at LIODEItATE CHARGES, which may bo had free by post
for four stamps.

- DEFENCES AND DEFENDERS.

(Prom the Times.)

A great and important question has lately been
proposed for solution in England, involving no less '
an issue than the intention and use of permanent
fortifications. One party, consisting chiefly of
civilians, urges that forts should be so constructed
as to be perfectly impenetrable to shot at even the
closest ranges. The other party, numbering
among its adherents the military advisers of Go-
vernment, declares, on the contrary, that only
such power of resistance is required as will meet
tke probable hazards of war. IVe may assert from
personal knowledge that Continental nations gene-
rally favour the latter view, and smile at Eng-
land's intense anxiety to provide against the
slightest chance of loss of life in future wars. It
is an axiom in military science that no fortress
can be made totally impregnable. A siege con-
ducted by a superior force according to rules
must result in the capture of the works assailed.
The fall is only a question of time. Sebastopol re-
sisted longer than would have been possible under
ordinary circumstances, because it was never fully
invested, and was in daily communication with a
large Russian army and ships, from which it drew
supplies of men, guns, and ammunition. The cir-
cumstances were highly exceptional. It was not so
much a siege as an attempt to wrest an important
position from the hands of an equal force, ever pre-
sent, ever vigilant.
The object for which ordinary fortresses are built
is not to hide away a body of men so carefully that
they cannot be touched, but to offer such obstacles
to any plan likely to be set on foot by au enemy
that either his losses would not be compensated by
his gain, or else that he will be delayed so long at
a certain point in his career as to give time for the
field army to concentrate and strike a blow for the
country. But is there anything unusual in the con.
ditions under which our dockyards are likely to be
attacked—so unusual as to render the ordinary
rules of war inapplicable? We believe not. Ports-
mouth and Plymouth would be liable to attack in
one of three ways. First, like all fortresses, if
unprepared they might be attacked and crippled,
or, at least, bombarded, during a temporary
assault. This supposes that our fleet has been
evaded. Secondly, they might be subjected to
steady and prolonged attacks from the sea only in
case our fleet were beaten and destroyed. But in
that case they would be open to the assistance of
the whole country. Volunteers would flock in to
man the works, earthen batteries would rise on
every side, guns would be supplied in overwhelming
quantities, cliffs would bristle with artillery, and the
sea become peopled by submarine defences. Con-
sidering the abundance and concentration of Eng-
land's resources, the success of such an attempt is
inconceivable without such loss as would make the
victory less than barren. Thirdly, in the absence
or defeat of our fleet, an army might be landed on
our shores and operate against our dockyards
from the land, supported by a fleet at sea.
But when this happens, and when England's
resources in men and materiel have fallen so
low that she is unable to fight an invader
on her own territory, he would not lose time
in attacking her harbours, provided only they are
reasonably fortified, but would march on London,
and there, with his grasp on the heart of his victim,
reached through her broken sides would control
without difficulty the action of the extremities.
The first two cases, then, are those most carefully
to be guarded against, and while we should be cul-
pable to leave our great naval arsenals at the mercy
of a bold coup de main, we should be equally cul-
pable were we to throw away money in the erection
of absurdities. It has been proved with much pain
that fortifications are necessary ; let us not rush into
the opposite extreme, and, like the Chinese of old,
girdle our whole frontier liable to attack with im-
passable bulwarks. It is the act of a wise man
to insure his life, but what should we think of
him who spent great part of his income and
heaped up debts, actuated by a vague fear of
poverty for his descendants? Our dockyard
defences are already verging on the extreme of
costliness, and if further demands are made the
question must soon arise whether equal protec-
tion could not be attained in other ways than by
permanent forts. With a truly English inconse-
quence we are spending millions on Portsmouth,
Plymouth, &c., and the cry is still for more, while,
on the other hand, we are declared to be too poor
to defend the Thames, except in the most superfi-
cial manner, and we are leaving our sole land
arsenal entirely open. Russian defences are often
quoted as being all that is impregnable, but, while
it is certain that many of their iron forts are shields