THE scene is a gently heaving purple sea, and the time is the morning of a calm autumn day. The porpoises are splashing in the sun, and the flying-fish are whirring from wave to wave like silver dragon-flies, and the white sea birds rise and fall and float on snowy wings. Far to the south-east a blue Cape looms through the haze with one long white building half way up. All these things may be seen any day, but there is a sight to be seen this morning, the like of which a man has never seen before.

On the sparkling morning waters there lies in single line a mighty fleet, thirty-eight sail of the line, besides frigates; while upon them, coming down before the wind, advances another fleet, inferior to them in numbers, but evidently far superior in audacity. Of this last flotilla we count fourteen in one line and thirteen in the other; we see the foremost ship of the fourteen outstrip the others and engage three of the enemy at once; then in twenty minutes the whole brave show is wrapt in smoke, and fire, and destruction, and the wind is laid with the concussion. When that smoke clears away a deed will have been done which will make the ears of him that heareth it to tingle; for this is the 21st of October, 1805, and that faint blue promontory away to the south-east is called Cape Trafalgar.

We

Shall I go on? I think not. have given out our text; now for our No. 10.-VOL. II.

sermon. Every Englishman knows the rest of that chapter; but we wish to call your attention to one fact in connexion with that victory-namely, that 8,000 British in 27 ships beat 12,000 Spanish and French`in 33 ships, and that of these last only 13 got back into port. And then we wish to put this question, "Could we do the same thing again?"

Just think of the conditions under which such a victory became possible, and the quiet, patient, practical efforts by which such successes must be preceded. Maritime supremacy, like everything else that is worth having, can only be obtained by proportionate effort; and though we are the countrymen of Jervis, Collingwood, and Nelson, the maritime supremacy which their splendid victories secured to this country will assuredly slip through our fingers if we imagine that it can be retained on any other terms than those by which it was acquired—that is, by maintaining at all costs adequate armaments. At the outbreak of the French Revolutionary War there were three powers of considerable maritime pretensions-France, Spain, and Holland; and it was against the coalesced forces of the three that we had then to contend. Of these the Navy of France has alone recovered from the blows that we then struck; and, in the event of hostilities breaking out, France is now the only power that can be looked upon as in any degree our rival.

1

8

Indeed, so far has her Navy and that of this country outstripped those of the other nations of Europe that, perhaps, with the exception of Russia, there is now no country whose steam navy could, even if they were inclined to join in the strife, give any material assistance to either party. Russia, it is true, pos

sesses somewhere about ten screw line-ofbattle ships and eleven frigates; which, if they are good ships, presents an imposing appearance; but from the fact that they are to a great extent manned by agricultural labourers, they can hardly come up to the French or English standard of excellence-so that in spite of their numbers we may dismiss them cavalierly. Whatever be their worth, however, the probabilities are that they would go to reinforce France in case of a quarrel; and so, by simply considering the navy of France, we shall get pretty nearly at the strength of possible combinations against us,-minus Russia and her ten liners. It would be a great error to imagine that a diminution in the number of our antagonists has at all altered the conditions of a possible struggle in favour of this country, and we are much mistaken if we cannot prove that, quality as well as numbers being taken into consideration, the present navy of France, singlehanded, promises to be quite as much of a match for England of the present day, as the united navies of the three powers were for England of the Revolutionary war. The mere fact that at the outbreak of that war the number of our line-of-battle ships was 148, and those of France only 77, while at the beginning of last year both nations possessed an equal number, is sufficient to show the probable accuracy of our estimate.

At the close of the war this disproportion between the two navies had considerably increased-England then possessing 218 ships of the line and 309 frigates, while France had only 69 ships of the line and 38 frigates. Until the time when sailing vessels ceased to be the force with which a naval contest was to be determined, though subject

of course to fluctuations, England never ceased to preserve a decided naval superiority over her neighbour. During the earlier of those years the proportions may be roughly stated as somewhere about three to one, while in the later ones it had dwindled down to two to one. Wonderful as have been the changes effected by the introduction of steam in all that relates to our manufactures and social economy, they certainly have not surpassed, if they can be fairly said to have equalled, those that it has occasioned in all that relates to the navy. Ten years ago, and for all practical purposes, not one of the ships which are now alone thought worth taking account of existed, while those which then were the pride of the country and the guardians of our shores are now, unless capable of conversion, looked upon as comparatively little better than lumber.

In 1818 our steam mercantile tonnage was 1,633 tons, but in 1859, 416,132. This called our Government's attention to the fact of the success of steam, and they took it up. The history of the steam navy since then may be given in a few lines. In 1811 they made an abortive attempt to build paddle corvettes. In 1840 they tried it again with some success (in the Vesuvius and Gorgon, which were at Acre); but, the Rattler, 800 tons, the first screw corvette, which was built the same year, seeming to possess none of the disadvantages of the paddle frigates (we all know what they are), others on her model were constructed, and the foundation of our present navy was laid, and the system of naval tactics altered. This we have heard too often already. Let us turn for a moment to another alteration in ship-fighting, more interesting because

more recent.

The old British and French ships of war do not present a greater contrast to the Duke of Wellington and La Bretagne, than does an old 32-pounder to the new rifled ordnance. Some idea may be formed of this difference, and of the superior range and accuracy of the new gun, when we state

And Sir W. Armstrong declares himself confident, that with one of his guns at the distance of 600 yards an object no larger than the muzzle of an enemy's gun may be struck at almost every shot, while at a distance of 3,000 yards a target of nine feet square, which at that distance looks a mere speck, has, on a calm day, been struck five times out of ten shots: a ship, therefore, which offers a much larger surface, would be hit at much greater distances, and towns might be shelled by ships five miles off. There is every reason to believe that so far the French have not been behind in the race, and that their artillery is at least equal to that of Sir W. Armstrong. The process, however, by which they manufacture it, and the results that have been obtained with it, have been so effectually kept secret, that it is difficult to speak with any accuracy on this very interesting subject. The best informed, however, affirm that these cannon are calculated, with the same charge of powder, to project a missile twice the weight of an ordinary ball thrice the distance, and that, unlike our own, it is not intended to fire solid shot from them, but shells, which explode on striking an object. These latter are said to be made with leaden bands round them. This, if true, favours the idea that the principle on which they are rifled is the same as that adopted by Sir W. Armstrong. Great as is the improvement which this ordnance shows when compared with that which it has supplanted, it seems destined that even it is to be distanced by a more formidable competitor. The experiments of Mr. Whitworth at Southport have shown

that he has produced a cannon which, while it exceeds Sir W. Armstrong's in range, promises to rival it in accuracy. The principles on which he has proceeded in his manufacture are original. The Armstrong barrel is made of rods of wrought iron, welded into a tube, the pitch of whose rifling is one turn in 10 feet, and the rifling itself 38 sharp grooves. Instead of the rolled bar-iron, of which Sir W. Armstrong's guns are made, Mr. Whitworth's gun is bored from a solid cylinder of homogeneous iron. The barrel is of hexagonal shape, making one complete turn, which varies as the diameter of the gun. This constitutes the only rifling, and it extends from one end of the barrel to the other. The projectile, which is of a longitudinal shape, tapering towards both ends, is cut at the middle so as to fit with accuracy the sides of the barrel. In the very important item of weight, the superiority in the larger kinds of ordnance still remains with Sir William. But we shall be much mistaken if Mr. Whitworth's scheme of reducing the diameter of the projectile, and consequently the bore which enables the same relative strength of metal to be obtained in lighter guns-will not result in the production of heavy ordnances, whose weight, for their size, will be less than any that have yet been produced. In the lighter kinds, Mr. Whitworth even now can well bear comparison with his rival, as his 3-pounder, of which we have heard so much, can be easily manoeuvred and served with 2 horses and 2 men. This gun, at one elevation, in the course of 10 shots, showed a mean range of 1,579 yards, with a longitudinal deviation of 12 yards, and a lateral one of 52, whilst, at an elevation of 35 degrees, it showed on an average of 5 shots a mean range of 9,580 yards, with a longitudinal deviation of 81 yards, and a lateral one of 19.33. This superiority in point of range must in a great degree be attributed to the fact we have before noticed, that the chamber for the shot which exists in the Armstrong gun is dispensed with, thus enabling the rifling to extend from