The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-28 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SU',

Eint,--Percoiving that Captain J. Norton has replied to
my letter of the 17th inst., which you kindly gave insertion
to in your number of the 19th inst., I hope you will permit of
the following appearing in your valuable paper, trusting
that Captain J. Norton will at last perceive that an honest
courtesy is always the best policy. I here quote the fol-
lowing from the "Military and Naval Intelligence" of the
Times, under date February 11, 1859 :
"Yesterday some experiments took place near the Field
Works of the Royal Engineers, at Chatham, for the pur-
pose of trying some new descripions of missiles which have
been invented byCaptain J. Norton. The experiments first
made were with a new descriptions of rifle shell, called by
Captain Norton the liquid-fire rifle shell.' The .results.of
the.experiments yesterday proved that the shell in question
is one of the most extraordinary projectiles ever introduced
into the art of warfare. The interior .of the shell is filled
with a glass (a small vial) in which is contained the liquid
fire.' This chemical substance is prepared from a secret in
the possession of Captain Norton, but the chief ingredients
are phosphorus dissolved in bi-sulphate of carbon, and her-
metically sealed. The Engineer officers present expressed
themselves in satisfactory terms at the result of the experi-
ments made with Captain Horton' s INVENTIONS::
From the above quotation it is evident that Captain J.
Norton claims the invention of the "liquid fire," or incen-
diary shell, and that " his secret," although not exactly
fully known, is composed chiefly of the ingredients of
" phosphcries dissolved in bi-sulphite of carbon."
Since the above period, and until the present time, Capt. I
J. Norton has been making experiments with his "liquid-
fire" compositions at Chatham, and as he has not denied or
corrected the above quotation from the limes, and several
subsequent erroneous statements which have therein also
"appeared, and from thence copied into the leading and other
papers of the day, Lieut.-General Sir William Napier and
the public generally, believe that Captain J. Norton is the
"real and original inventor of such incendiary compounds,"
—as, if not, WHY should Sir William Napier write to Capt.
Norton a letter of congratulation ? Besides, how can Capt.
Norton explain the fact of his having himself sent copies
of this letter for publication to the newspapers, and
thereby still further lead the public mind into error :
With respect to Captain Norton's statement, as contained
in the last paragraph of his letter of the 23d inst., viz., that
during " My recent experiments at Chatham I only used
my own' shells, charged with the liquid-fire which Dr.
Scoffers gave me about three -years ago, and Mr. Went-
worth Scott filled a few of my rifle-shells with his ' own'
liquid fire."
Now, as the composition, as quoted from the Times, not
having been denied, and consequently having been used by
Captain Norton during his recent experiments at Chatham,
and that, while using such compounds, he has not had the
frankness of denying that he was the inventor of such incen-
diary ingredients, and has led the public into error, I hope,
Mr. Editor, you will oblige me by giving due publicity to
this statement, as so erroneous an impression is very injuri-
ous to Mr. J. Macintosh, who is the real inventor and
patentee of the same.
I beg to add that all the experiments which Captain J.
Norton has recently carrieil on at Chatham, and reported in
the Times, are "not official," neither are they sanctioned by
the military authorities, who, I understand, have sent in-
structions to the Commandant at Chatham to prevent any
further experiments taking place on the Government prac-
tice ground, unless previous permission had been granted
bhe Military authorities.—i am, sir, &c.,
April 27, 1859. " JUSTICE."

THE POLICY OF FRANCE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

- - ---
Sir,—On the 19th of January you. did me the honour to
insert a letter on the " Policy of France in Italy," by which
I endeavoured to awaken public attention to a series of facts
and inferences which too many persons in this country
have continued, till yesterday, to view with incredulity or
indifference. I pointed out " the first overt signs of the
approach of the most formidable crisis which Europe has
encountered since the great convulsion of 1848." I showed
what were the conspiracies that threatened the liberties and
independence of Europe. I indicated the policy and con-
duct of the Emperor of the French, " slowly advancing
towards the objects which he had in view from the begin-
ning." I hinted that the position of Russia and her rela-
tions to. France and Sardinia since the Congress of 1856
"tended to encourage rather than to dissuade from war ;' '
and I concluded that " designs did then undoubtedly exist
which might prove fatal to the peace of Europe." The
catastrophe I foresaw has now arrived. I trust it has not
arrived to find us unprepared for it ; for it may be confi-
dently asserted by those who have watched the course of
events without illusions and without disguise, from the Ist
of January to the present hour, that the progress of this
scheme has been as steady and unceasing as the movement
Of the hands on the dial of St. Paul's, and that the blow
which is now in the act of falling on Europe has been for
many months as certain as the stroke of the hammer which
tolls the hour of noon. _

Yet, in spite of these palpable signs of the times, many
persons have been misled, down to the very latest moment,
by hopes of peace which never could be realised, and by
confidence in the very men who were secretly leagued for
the worst purposes. To judge by the language of Mr.
Disraeli on the last night of the session, and by the de-
meanour of Lord Malmesbury on all occasions her Majesty's
Ministers have been living in a fool's Paradise, while the
very globe was shaking round them ; and in their attempt
to dissemble the magnitude of the perils which they must
have known to exist, they have incurred the imputation of
ignorance or credulity. There was, however, a reason, and
an important reason, which compelled them to refrain from
stating to Parliament the real extent of the danger, and the
true ground of the apprehensions they could not but enter-
tain. To make this complicated case of duplicity, fraud,
and aggression perfectly plain, it is necessary to lay bare
the whole conduct of that Power with which it mainly
originated. But France still masked her, proceedings be-
hind the military preparations of Sardinia and thediplo-
matic ingenuity of Russia, while she maintained, and still
maintains, amicable relations with this country. Anxious
to preserve those relations—desirous to preserve our neu-
tral position, the Ministers of the Crown have been re-
duced to silence on several of the most important incidents
which have arisen, in the course of these transactions ; but
it is a matter of regret that, while' the Prime 'Minis-
ter, at the Mansion-house, applied the word " criminal"
to what he conceived to be the precipitation of one of the
belligerents, he should have confined himself to a much
less direct form of animadversion on the policy of the
other.

Allow me, Sir, at the present crisis to endeavour to re-
move some of the misapprehensions which exist on these
important subjects, and to show by a few facts and dates
that the right and the wrong in this matter are not quite so
plain as they are thought to be.
When the Emperor Napoleon made his celebrated apos-
trophe to M. de Hubner on the Ist of January he acted on
his own impulse, and without the previous knowledge of
the Court of Turin ; for, although France had been urging
Sardinia ever since the termination of the Crimean war to
prepare for hostilities against Austria, and the alliance,
both political and matrimonial, had been fully agreed upon
in the course of last year, M. do Cavour was not prepared
to unmask his batteries so soon. The deed, however, was
done ; and the immediate effect of that speech was to bring
down an immense Austrian army into Italy. The Cotirt of
Vienna has _ never entertained the slightest doubt of the
ultimate designs of its adversaries ; but, although its own
military preparations were far more complete- than those of
France and Sardinia, and every week was as much a gain to
them as it was a loss to Austria, she suspended her ope -
rations out of deference to the Germanic Confedera-
tion, the uncertain attitude of Russia, and the efforts of the
neutral Powers. Those of England, more especially, were
eagerly directed to the maintenance of peace, and t 3 the
introduction of a state of things more favourable to the
tranquillity and ccrntentment of the Italian States. Through-
out the month of February the Emperor of the French,
anxious to obtain as far as possible the moral support of
this country, and to divert our attention from his real de-
signs, professed in his communications with British Mini-
sters his anxiety to obtain by pacific means those modifica-
tions in the Italian treaties and in the state of Italy which
Austria might reasonably and justly have conceded; and
he denied in the most peremptory and specific manner to
the British Ambassador that France was at that time mak-
ing any armaments beyond those which were required to
replace the stores of war eihausted by the Crimean cam-
paign. ' Relying on these assurances, which had repeatedly
been given him by the Emperor in the most direct and
uneqvivocal form, Lord Cowley consented to be the 'bearer
to the Austrian Government of certain propositions with
reference to Italy, which might, it was hoped, prove the
basis of a lasting peace. The propositions emanated from,
or were fully • accepted by, the Emperor of the French
in person, for on no lower authority would Lord Cowley
have undertaken such a mission: Having spent a few
days in London, Lord Cowley proceeded to Vienna, where
he delivered his credentials on the 28th of February.
He was received with marked distinction by the Imperial
Court;" the propositions of which he was the bearer were
met in the most conciliatory spirit ; and when he left
Vienna on the 10th 'of March, he took with him the assent
of the Austrian Cabinet to all the arrangements which had
been thus suggested. Had the intention of the- Emperor
of the French been the plain and honest fulfilment of these
conditions, which had originated with himself, nothinhe is
more certain than that the mere acceptance of the Austnau
acquiescence would have ended the controversy; for, as
Lord Derby his expressly- declared in Parliament and else-
where, the British Ambassador brought back with him all
the materials for settling the question. But this was not
the course of events anticipated and pre-arranged at Paris.
The object of Louis Napoleon in putting forward these con-
ditions was the belief that, while they were endorsed by
England, they would be rejected by Austria; and, conse-
quently, that he should not only have a casus belli against
that Power, but. that he should have entangled this
country in the demands he purposed to make
the pretext for war in Italy. The whole scheme
vilas defeated by the moderation and good sense
shown by Austria at that stage of the negotia-
tion in her dealings with Loed Cowley ; and it is
indisputable that if the propositions were sincere, and if
negotiation was possible, that was the time, and these were
the means of terminating the quarrel. On the 17th of
March Lord Cowley had his audience at the Tuileries on
his return from Vienna, and the impression accurately con-
veyeddayg
instantave hwoopehsouthr at
ohtwhietoeresultnLf wi
,wuar sbdhssca toi
ws
caecyt
'sr n
ty . e
dYi
ue
..t
by your Paris correspondent to the world on the fol-
lowingf
r om that a t
otiuturstutdhefosrchitembye
toifoun,Cbountgr,
eosns
was
cfoounntrdartyo,
some diplomatic sleight of hand, The truth is that Russia
had been incited by France to put forward the plan of a
oo
fn
refusing of Lord t Co o
entertain an Congress for the express purpose of paralysing the too suc-
wley:The
y artifice succeeded.
fecoers,sfiunlstmeaisdsi
collateral proposi-
tion whatever until a
categorical
reply had been given by
France to the terms which Lord Cowley had brought
back
from Vienna, Lord .111almesbury rushed so eagerly into this
pitfall that he actually drewup fresh bases of negotiation
before Baron Brunnow had him
made the official
the Congress. Independently of other sources of informa-
tion I may refer on this point to the language of Lord
Derby himself, who declared at the Mansion-house, on Mon-
day last, that the propcsal for a general Congress was unfor-
tunately made by Russia and accepted by France before the
return of Lord Cowley from Vienna, under a misconception
of the true result of that mission. If any such misconcep-
tion did exist, who was to blame for it ? And what induced
the other Powers to accept a proposal made by Russia and
accepted by France under that misconception ?
This fact alone, of the measures taken by the Emperor
Of the French to defeat Lord Cowley's mediation, and t
throw overboard the proposals which had originated at
Paris, is decisive as to the good faith of France in the tran-
saction. Of Austria I shall only say that, having once
given her consent to those terms, she has remained faithful
to them throughout, and the telegram which arrives while
I am writing announces that she would even now negotiate
on that basis, which France refuses to do.
But what did Lord Cowley find on his return
to Paris ? He found that the military prepara-
tions, hitherto so stoutly denied, had made rapid and
enormous progress ; that the Russiam Ambassador, hitherto

so reserved, began to hold language which betokened no
goad to Europe ; and I think I may add, that he shortly
afterwards learned from Turin, that during the whole
time of his absence on a mission of peace, suggested by
Louis Napoleon, that potentate had continued to keep up a
daily correspondence with the King of Sardinia and M. de
Cavour, promising his military assistance, and urging them
to accelerate all their preparations for war. We live at a
time when it is much the fashion to publish Imperial and
political correspondence. I trust this correspondence will
one day see the light. Until it does I can hardly expect
that the British public will credit the astonishing duplicity
of this transaction. But, sir, I must pause here, though
may ask you at some future time to permit me to resura
this chapter of contemporary history.
I wish, however, before I conclude, to express my
deliberate conviction, based on some experience of
public affairs and some knowledge of the facts and persons
concerned in this dispute, that for many months past—per-
haps for two years—a thorough understanding has existed
between France, Russia, and Sardinia, with a view not only
to the affairs of Italy, but to a general war in Europe • and
that the time has now arrived when we shall begin to learn
the bent of their sinister purposes, whether in Italy, in-the
East, or on the Rhine. They iave laboured above all
things, and not quite unsuccessfully, to throw on Austria
the odium of striking the first blow, before it could be
known whether she was actuated by imperious necessity or
by culpable passions. But if a new Treaty of Tilsit has
been concluded, with articles not less fatal to the peace and
independence of Europe, I trust that the policy of our rulers
and the public opinion of the country will take no irre-
vocable decision until the true facts of the case are fully
and distinctly ascertained.

SENEX.