M E MO RIAL TO THE UNITED STATES' CONGRESS AND GOVERNMENT, CONCERNING PROPEAN NAVIES AND THE AMERICAN NAVY; THE BREECH-LOADING AND STEADY SHIP-GUN, AND THE MPROVED WAR-STEAMER WITH SUBMERG]ED PROPELLEIS INVENTED BY WILLIAM BESCHKE, AND MODELLED BY HIM PARTLY THROUGH THE PECUNIARY AID OF MR. E. N. SCHERE, PHILADELPHIA. 1 8 5-2. ABBREVIATIONS. 1. 0. & G.-An Elementary Course of Instruction on Ordnance and Gunnery, prepared for the Use of Midshipmen at the Naval School, Philadelphia; together with a Concise Treatise on Steam, adapted especially to the Use of Those engaged in Steam-Navigation. Parts I. and II., with an Appendix. By JAMES H. WARD, Lieutenant U. S. N. -Philadelphia: CAREY & HART, 1846. (New Edition.) 2. M. & N. A.-Treatise on Marine and Naval Architecture, or Theory and Practice blended in Ship-Building. By JOHN W. GRIFOITHS, Marine and Naval Architect.-New-York: D. APPLETON & Co.-Philadelphia: GEO. S. APPLETON.-London: JOHN WEALE, 1X851. 3. D. M. M. E.-Appleton's Dictionary of Machines, Mechanics, EngineWork and Engineering. In 2 Volumes.-New-York: D. APPLETON & CO. 1852. 4. Ap.: Appendix.-Pt.: Part.-P.: Page.-Vol.: Volume. Kna & BanRD PRs. SANSOM STRZET, PHILAD. EUROPEAN NAVIES. 1. THE BRITISH NAVY. Six years ago, the British Navy had, according to the Navy-List for January, 1846:-495 sailing-vessels with 16,918 guns, viz. 115 ships-of-the-line with 9952 guns, 120 frigates with 4710 guns, 132 sloops with 1682 guns, 39 schooners and ketches with 84 guns, 84 other vessels with 485 guns, 5 transport-ships with 5 guns, besides 141 war-steamers with 698 guns, viz. 22 steam-frigates with 220 guns, 80 steam-sloops with 400 guns, 24 steam-packets with 48 guns, 15 steam-ships with 30 guns; all together 636 war-vessels with 17,616 guns. In a late article published by the London-Times, Jan. 23, 1852, the British Navy is Supposed to consist of 480 sailing-vessels and 187 steamers, all together 667war-vessels, of which the proportional number of guns is 17,330. 2. THE FRENCH NAVY: 46 ships-of-the-line with 4380 guns, 45 frigates with 2304 guns, 26 corvettes and sloops with 658-guns, 161 other vessels with 1156 guns, -together 278 sailing-vessels with 8498 guns; besides 7 steam-frigates with 90 guns, 17 steam-corvettes with 116 guns, 44 smaller steamers with 224 guns,-together 68 war-steamers with 430 guns,-making all together 346 war-vessels with 8928 guns. (Annales Maritimes, Juin, 1845.) According to a late article in the London-Times, January 23, 1852, the French Navy counts 224 sailing-vessels and 104 steamers, all together 328 war-vessels with a proportional number of 7144 guns. 3. THE RUSSIAN NAVY: (In the Baltic Sea:) 30 ships-of-the-line, with 2400 guns, 20 frigates with 840 guns, 40 sloops with 820 guns, 26 steamers with 104 guns; (in the Black Sea:) 17 ships-of-the-line with 1360 guns, 10 frigates with 510 guns, 12 sloops with 168 guns, 18 smaller vessels with 158 guns, 6 steamers with 36 guns,-together 147 sailing-vessels with 5756 guns, and 32 steamers with 140 guns,-making all together 179 war-vessels with 5896 guns. (McGregor's Commercial Statistics.)4. THE DUTCH NAVY: 81 sailing-vessels with 2177 guns and 21 steamers with 142 guns, together 102 war-vessels with 2319 guns, and 9 ships on the stocks. (Dutch Almanac for 1851.) THE UNITED STATES' NAVY: 59 sailing-vessels with 1984 guns, and 10 steamers with 45 guns, together 69 war-vessels with 2029 guns, besides 5 steamers without any guns. The following particulars are copied from " The American Almanac and Repository of Useful Knowledge," for 1852, Boston, Little & Brown. (Pages 126, 127; 178, 179; 201; 319; 322.) VESSELS OF WAR OF THE UNITED STATES' NAVY, SEPT. 1, 1851. Guns Guns. 1 Pennsyl'a., Ship-of-the-Line, 120 38 Plymouth, Sloop 20 2 Franklin, " 74 39 St. Mary's, " 20 3 Columbus, " 74 40 Jamestown, " 20 4 Ohio, " 74 41 Albany, " 20 5 North-Carolina, " 74 42 Germantown, " 20 6 Delaware, d" 74 43 Ontario, " 18 7 Alabama, " 74 44 Decatur, " 16 8 Vermont, 74 45 Preble, " 16 9 Virginia, " 74 46 Marion,'" 16 10 New-York, " 74 47 Dale, " 16 11 New-Orleans, " 74 48 Dolphin,- Brig, 10 12 Independence, Razee, 54 49 Porpoise, " 10 13 U. States, Frigate 1st Class, 44 50 Bainbridge, " 10 14 Constitution, " " 44 51 Perry, " 10 15 Potomac, "' 44 52 Relief, Store-Ship, 6 16 Brandywine, " " 44 53 Lexington, " 6 17 Columbia, " " 44 54 Southampton, " 4 18 Congress, " " 44 55 Supply, " 4 19 Cumberland, " " 44 56 Fredonia, " 4 20 Savannah,- " " 44 57 Phenix, Schooner, 2 21 Raritan, " " 44 58 Wave, " 1 22 Santee, " " 44 59 Petrel, " 1 23 Sabine, " " 44 60 Mississippi, Steam-Frigate, 10 24 St. Lawrence, " " 44 61 Susquehannah, " 8 25 Constellation, " 2d Class, 36 62 Saranac, I 6 26 Macedonian, " " 36 63 San Jacinto, " 6 27 Saratoga, Sloop, 20 64 Fulton, Steamer, 4 28 John Adams, " 20 65 Union, " 4 29 Vincennes, " 20 66 Vixen, " 3 30 Warren, d" 20 67 Alleghany, " 2 31 Falmouth, " 20 68-Michigan, " 1 32 Fairfield, it 20 69 Water-Witch, " 1 33 Vandalia, " 20 70 Powhatan, " 34 St. Louis, " 20 71 Massachusetts, " 35 Cyane, " 20 72 John Hancock, " 36 Levant, " 20 73 General Taylor, " 37 Portsmouth, " 20 74 Engineer, " NUMBER AND CLASSES OF MERCHANT-VESSELS BUILT, AND THE TONNAGN THEREOF, IN THE UNITED bTATES, FROM 1815 to 1850, INCLUSIVE. CLASSES OF VESSELS. Stoops and Total Nr. Total Tonnage. Years. Ships. Brigs. Schooners. Canal-Boats. Steamers. of Vessels. Tons. 95ths. 1815 136 224 680 274 1,314 154,624 39 1816 76 122 781 424 1,403 131,668 04 1817 34 86 559 394 1,073 86,393 37 1818 53 85 428 332 898 $82,421 20 1819 53 82 473 242 850 79,817 86 1820 21 60 301 152 534 47,784 01 1821 43 89 248 127 507 55,856 01 1822 64 131 260 168 623 75,346 93 1823 55 127 260 165 15 622 75,007 57 1824 56 156 377 166 26 781 90,939 00 1825 56 197 538 168 35 994 114,997 25 1826 71 187 482 227 45 1,012 126,438 35 1827 58 133 464 241 38 934 104,342 67 5 Sloops and Total Nr. Total Tonsage. Years. Ships. Brigs. Schooners. Canal-Boats. Steamers of Vessels. Tons. 95th. 1828 73 108 474 196 33 884 98,375 58 1829 44 68 485 145 43 785 77,098 65 1830 25 56 403 116 37 637 58,094 24 1831 72 95 416 94 34 711 85,962 68 1832 132 143 568 122 100 1,065 144,539 16 1833 144 169 625 185 65 1,188 161,626 36 1834 98 94 497 180 68 937 118,330 37 1835 25 50 302 100 30 507 46,238 52 1836 93 65 444 164 124 890 113,627 49 1837 67 72 507 168 135 949 122,987 22 1838 66 79 501 153 90 889 113,135 44 1839 83 89 439 122 125 858 120,988 34 1840 97 109 378- 224 64 872 118,309 23 1841 114 101 310 157 78 760 118,893 71 1842 116 91 273 404 137 1,021 129,083 64 1843 58 34 138 173 79 482 63,617 77 1844 73 47 204 279 163 766 103,537 29 1845 124 87 322 342 163 1,038 146,018 02 1846 100 164 576 355 225 1,420 188,203 93 1847 151 168 689 392 198 1,598 243,732 67 1848 254 174 701 547 175 1,851 318,075 54 1849 198 148 623 370 208 1,547 256,577 47 1850 247 117 547 290 159 1,360 272,218 54 36 3,230 4,007 16,273 8,358 2,692 34,560 4,444,909 31 NUMBER AND CLASSES OF MERCHANT-VESSELS BUILT, AND THE TONNAGE THEREOF, IN THE UNITED STATES, DURING THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1850. CLASSES OF VESSELS. Sloops Se Total Nr. Total Tonnage. States. - Ships. Brigs. Sch'rs. C'l.Boats. St'rs. of Vessels. Tons. 95ths. Maine, 127 75 115 3 6 326 91,211 73 New-Hampshire, 8 2 10 6,914 32 Vermont, 1 1 77 41 Massachusetts, 51 19 46 3 2 121 35,836 14 Rhode-Island, 5 5 3 1 14 3,587 15 Connecticut, 3 7 27 9 1 47 4,819 79 New-York, 26 4 50 112 32 224 58,342 73 New-Jersey, 1 1 35 17 3 57 6,201 68 Pennsylvania, 7 1 39 107 31 185 21,409 93 Delaware, 12 3 1 16 1,848 82 Maryland, 16 5 125 4 150 15,964 80 District of Columbia, 8 8 288 17 Virginia, 1 1 27 5 34 3,584 04 North-Carolina, 1 2 23 2 5 33 2,651 59 Georgia, 2 3 5 683 82 Florida, 2 2 79 75 Alabama, 3 3 113 66 Louisiana, 1 16 3 4 24 1,592 38 Kentucky, 34 34 6,460 69 Missouri, 5 5 1,353 82 Illinois, 2 7 3 1 13 1,691 21 Ohio, 4 11 16 31 5,214 62. Michigan, 5 6 3 14 2,061 63 Texas, 1 1 105 54 Oregon, 2 2 122 42 Total, 247 117 547 290 159 1,360 272,218 54 6 INHABITANTS AND AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES, GREAT-BRITAIN, FRANCE, EUROPEAN RUSSIA AND HOLLAND. United States. — Increase of Population during sixty Years: 1790, -3,929,872. — 1800,-5,305,952.-1810,-7,239,814. - 1820,-9,638,131. - 1830,-12,866,920.-1840,-17,063,353.-1850,-23,144,126.-Area of the U. States: 3,260,073 Square-Miles. The following Statements are according to bcCulloch's Geographical Dictionary, with Corrections. Great-Britain. -Population: 1841,-27,019,555; 1851,-27,452,262.Area: 116,700 Square-Miles. France.-Population (1846): 35,401,761.-Area: 202,125 Square Miles. Russia.-(In Europe, including Poland and Finland.) Population (1846): 60,303,266.-Area: 2,041,809 Square-Miles. Holland. —(With Luxemburg.) Population (1848): 3,236,741.-Area: 13,890 Square-Miles. Areas.-United States, 3,260,073 Sq. Miles. Great-Britain, 116,700 Sq. Miles. France, 202,125 " European Russia, 2,041,809 Holland, 13,890 " 2,374,524 885,549 Sq. Miles. Thus the area of the United States over-balances by 885,549 sq. miles tke combined areas of Great-Britain, France, European Russia and Holland. THE FIRST COMMERCIAL NATION IN THE WORLD. The London-Corrrespondent of the New-York Herald states, that the Commercial Tonnage of England is 3,130,000 Tons. If so, the United States will stand as the Filrst Comntercial Nation in the World, as their Tonnage on the 30th June, 1850, was as follows: Registered Tonnage in Foreign Trade,.. 1,585,711 Tons. Vessels in Coasting-Trade,. 1,797,824 " Fishing-Vessels,.. 151,918 " Whale-Fishery,. 146,016. " Total Tonnage,... 3,681,469 Tons. (Illustrated Family-Almanac for the United States, 1852, New-York and Boston. Page 44.) TONNAGE OF THE UNITED STATES. (For the Year ending June 30, 1850.) Registered Tonnage,.. 1,585,711 Tons. Enrolled and Licensed Tonnage,.. 1,949,742 " Registered Tonnage in Whale-Fishery,.. 146,016 " Total Tonnage,. 3,681,469 Tons. (American Almanac, &c. for 1852. Page 180.) During thirty-six years, from 1815 to 1850, thirty-four thousand five hundred sixty merchant-vessels have been built in the United States. Two thousand six hundred ninety-two of these vessels were steamers-nearly eight per cent or one thirteenth of the whole number. The First Commercial Nation in the World, having built so many merchant-vessels, should have, as a matter of course, according to the duty of self-preservation, and according to common sense, an adequate maritime protection, for eventual cases of maritime warfare, a Navy of proportional strength,-the First Navy in the World. But, notwithstanding such obvious and imperious reasons, for proportionally increasing the Navy of the United States, it has been even reduced, by 8 vessels and 316 guns, during these five years. According to the American Almanac, &c. for 1847, (page 130,) the United States' Navy had: 1846, 77 vessels and 2,345 guns, 1851, 69 " " 2,029 " Reduction of 8 vessels and 316 guns. Now the Navy of the United States is inferior even to the little Navy of Holland, of which country the area stands to theirs as 1 to 234, and-the population as 1 to more than 7 souls. This inferiority is of not less than 22 sailing-vessels, 11 steamers, and 290 guns; thus: Holland: 81 sailing-vessels, 21 steamers, 2319 guns. United States: 59 " " 10 " 2029 " Balance: 22 sailing vessels, 11 steamers, 290 guns. Every American must blush at such an inferiority to such a little Nation and Navy. But, how does our American-the only Republican-Navy stand in proportion to the Monarchical Navies of England, France, Russia and Iolland?. low far does our Republic stand behind these Monarchies in maritime power? Every American, every Republican must shudder at the fearful odds against our Liberty and Independence. The number of steamers is of only seventeen per cent in the American Navy, but of twenty-five per cent in the Dutch Navy, of twentytwo per cent in the Russian Navy, of forty-six per cent in the French Navy, of thirty-nine per cent in the English Navy. The proportions of the number of guns in the American Navy to that of those in these European Navies are as follows: twenty American guns to twenty-three Dutch guns; one American gun to three Russian guns; two American guns to seven French guns; one American gun to eight English guns. The number of sailing-vessels stands in the following proportions: three American vessels to four Dutch vessels; two American vessels to five Russian vessels; one American vessel to four French vessels; one American vessel to eight English vessels. But still more striking are the disproportions in the number of warsteamers: one American steamer to two Dutch steamers; one American steamer to three Russian steamers; one American steamer to ten French steamers; one American steamer to eighteen or nineteen English steamers. Must we not shudder at these terrible odds? Is there no danger for our National Life and Existence? Do we want stronger proofs of our National Indolence? 667, English war-vessels with 17,330 guns, 328'French " " 7,144 " 179 Russian " " " 5,896 " 102 Dutch " " " 2,319 " make 1,276 Monarchical war-vessels and 32,689 guns; deducting 69 Republican " " " 2,029 " remain 1,207 Monarchical war-vessels with 30,660 guns, 8 bver-balancing us, against which we have absolutely nothing of any material defence for our Maritime Commerce and National Wealth, as the First Commercial Nationin the World, for our Republican Life and Independence! "Oh! Never mind that!"-says national vanity with self-conceit,"if a war should break out, we would soon convert our merchant-vessels into war-vessels, and our mail-steamers into war-steamers." Silly school-boys may amuse themselves with such idle talk, but citizens, men of knowledge and judgment, should not thus trifle with these matters of utmost national importance. People may just as well say: " If a fire should break out, we would in less than no time convert our omnibusses into fire-engines, and our wheel-barrows into hosecarriages." Our Public Press, with very few honorable exceptions, instead of investigating and exposing the weakness of our Navy, mislead Public Opinion to false ideas, by innuendos and suppositions. Instead of recommending the creation of a useful and efficient steam-navy, the construction of strong iron or wooden castles floating on the water, theybuild castles in the air and indulge in childish dreams of landing somewhere in Ireland, within a fortnight, armies on board of merchant-steamers, converted into war-steamers by being " fitted up" for warlike purposes, and thus becoming "fearful engines of destruction" on account of having some big " Paixhan-guns" put on board, as " means in readiness, at all times, to protect our interests and our national honor." Out of many proofs of such newspaper-bravery, which make our Country and our Nation ridiculous at home and abroad, a leading-article copied from the New-York-Sun, February 5, 1851, may stand here as follows: " We have been handed, by a friend, a communication on the subject of our ocean mail steamships, written by a gentleman of naval experience, but on reading it over we find that, though it contains some good thoughts, we would not be acting judiciously to publish it in the shape in which it is written. It happens also, to be, in its best features, little more than a re-iteration of views which we have repeatedly laid before the public. We perfectly agree with the writer that our present ocean mail steamers would require considerable fitting up to make them serviceable as war vessels, and we also know very well that paddle-wheel steamers could not safely be brought into close action in a naval fight after the fashion of the old tactics. For this reason, we have proposed the establishment of a fleet of screw-propellers, to be used in carrying the commerce of the country in time of peace, but convertible into war-steamers with the greatest despatch in the event of war. We must, however, have lines of steamers of the greatest possible speed, to carry the mails between our own ports and every foreign port of sufficient importance to warrant a mail line." "These, necessarily, will always bear but a small proportion to the other class, and in case of war, would be employed in quite different service. They would be used chiefly as transports and auxiliaries; and the greater part of their merit would be their ability to run fast, so as to avoid an enemy, and not their fitness to engage him at close quarters. But still, their great speed would make them fearful engines of destruction. If one of the Collins' steamers was armed withfour or eight Paixhan guns, and withlexpert hands to manage them, what frigate would be a match for her? She could lay off and batter the frigate to pieces; or, did she fall in with a fleet of merchantmen belonging to the enemy, not one of them could escape. One of Collins' steamers fitted out for war service, would be more effective in destroying an enemy's commerce than a whole squadron of war vessels propelled by sails; and a fleet of such steamers would be the most effective force in clearing the seas of privateers." 9 "But, as auxiliaries, such vessels would, be invaluable. They would carry stores and supplies to our fleets everywhere, and with the greatest despatch and safety. By their agency we could land an army of ten thousand men on the coast of Ireland within twelve or fourteen days from their departure from New York. The same could be done with Cuba, Jamacia, or any of the West India Islands. They could be used along our coast as sentinels to watch the movements or approach of an enemy. They would be in naval service something like what scouting parties are in operations on land. We believe, at the same time, that every one of our ocean steamers should be built under the supervision of a well qualified naval officer-but by- private contract-and that every attention should be paid to giving them the greatest strength, and making them easily fitted up for war purposes. Great speed, however, should be a sine qua non, in their construction. None but experienced officers ought to be placed in command of them." C" By manning them only with our own citizens, and leaving open the way to promotion, provision could be made for training the men in naval exercise. This would give us a class of first rate seamen, who would be almost invincible in war. From among the men graduating on board our mail steamers, officers could be selected for our Mercantile Steam Marine; and this arrangement would have the best effect in stimulating the ambition and genius of our seamen. But, as we have before insiste, our government must encourage our merchants and ship-builders in the construction of screw-propellers of the best model and class, all to be convertible into war vessels. These will not only possess great speed, and place our commerce superior to any in the world, but they would give us a naval supremacy that would make our powzerfeared and respected. It is not our policy to support a great, useless, idle navy, but it is our duty to have the means in readiness at all times, to protect our interests and our national honor." According to this article, "a gentleman of naval experience" has declared that " our present ocean-steamers would require considerable " fitting up" to make them serviceable as war-steamers;"-well! Mr. Editor agrees therewith, but then adds for himself: " and the greater part of their merit would be their ability to run fast, so as to avoid an enemy, and not their fitness to engage him at close quarters." How such a "merit"-by running fast and avoiding the enemy-proves their effectual qualities as war-steamers, and how " they would give us a naval supremacy, that would make our power feared and respected," and how they can "protect our interests and our national honor," all this remains a great editorial New-York-Sun-mystery for the Public; nor does a newspaper-bravado care to know or to consider, that "four or eight Paixhan-guns" weigh about 25,000-or 50,000 pounds, (besides the weight of a proportional quantity of shot and ammunition,) and require 50 or 100 well-exercised and disciplined men, to use them properly. "The use of these equipments should be rendered familiar by continued instruction and practice, because these are what, if neglected in peace, cannot be readily supplied in the event of sudden war." (0. & G. Pt. 1. Page 101.) What the writer of that article means by a " greatuseless idle navy," he should have distinctly explained by a description of what he would suppose to be a useful and active one. Anything that fulfils its purpose, is useful. Now, we will explain, what the purpose of a navy is, or at least should be. The navy serves the country by warfare and protection, as the marine does by commerce and navigation: the, navy defends and pro1' 10 tects, the marine supports and enriches, each in its proper sphere, the country; which owes to either in return, equally, gratitude end respect. But as their purposes are different, their duties are likewise different from each other: while the marine is useful only when it is active, the navy is or may be useful either actively by fighting an enemy, and passively by preventing any material or moral injury, that may be done to the country, of which the navy thus protects the interests and maintains the honor, at home and abroad. Therefore, the Navy deserves a designation like the appropriate inscription of the Arsenal at Augsburg, Germany: PACIS FIRMAMENTO, BELLI INSTRUMENTO. If the Officers and Men in the naval service of our Country do not expose now, in time of peace, every day their lives, which they must continually expose in time of war, they do nevertheless deserve the gratitude and respect of their fellow-citizens, of whom only ungrateful and unjust ones may call them "useless and idle," while the true patriots will gladly bestow upon them what they deserve, in war and in peacegratitude and respect! Whatever has been said, or will be said, in this little work, of the inferiority and deficiency of our American Navy, only refers to its material, but not in the least'to its personal portion; a distinction which must be made by all unprejudiced people. In order to prevent any mistake in that respect, the author takes pleasure in translating a page from a German work, and in quoting from English and American papers, corroborating his opinion here expressed: "Amongst all the institutions of the United States, the Navy is the most national, and it enjoys the greatest popularity. It can, according to its nature, never be opposed to the progresses of the Country, but it can well protect its industry and commerce, and it has more than any institution aided in founding the national glory of the Americans. Its Officers have, with a judicious modesty, abstained from participating in any political controversy, and banished from their ranks all party-feelings. They always knew only their duty towards their Nation, and performed it with glory for themselves and their Country. From the first period of the Revolutionary War the American Navy has struggled with equal success against the greatest difficulties and dangers, which threatened that so youthful power. It comprised the spirit of enterprise and the courage of a newborn People, and fought with a youthful vigor the unequal struggle against its gigantic Mother-Country. To whatever causes the British may. attribute the many victories of the Aniericans in the last naval war with Great-Britain, one Truth must have been impressed on them-that the Americans equal them in seamanship, and show on all occasions a like familiarity with the ocean and a contempt for its perils, worthy of their beingdescendantsof the greatest European maritime power. The Navy of the United States is yet young and proportionally small, but it possesses every element, that must- at last render it great, and make it vie even with the English: a free unlimited commerce, and the best situation for a maritime power on the whole earth. But in the worst case for the Eaglish, the reputation of the mother will pass over to the daughter, and the "Storm will be addressed in English," as in the days of Blake and NTelson." "The Americans know their obligations to their Navy, and the spiritual influence of the latter upon the officers and sailors of their Marine. Although watchful and jealous of every state-expense, they have raised the salaries of the naval officers and men, proving their gratitude for the 1! Navy by the zeal with which the Senators and Representatives have seconded this measure. In a great number of public dinners, which are given every year in the- United States, I remember two toasts only, brought out by all parties, the one with dignified silence, the other with thundering applause: The Memory of Washington! and: The American Navy!"-(Descriptions of Travels and Countries, &c., Stuttgart & Tubingen: Cotta. 1837.-XII. The Americans, in their Social, Moral and Political Relations. By F. P. Grund. Pages 407 and 408.) "OPINIONS OF THE BRITISH PRESS OF THE NAVY OF THE tUNITED STATES.-The British United Service-Journal speaks thus of our Navy: —" "'From its infancy to its present state, most bravely, most gallantly, have the officers and men in the naval profession of America held up the honor of their flag. There is scarcely one action in which the slightest imputation can be cast on any individual. They have never avoided their enemies, excepting when it would have been the height of imprudence to have faced them. They have fought with the most determined valor. They have, in many cases, been successful over a nation which held, undisputed, the command of the ocean; and this very circumstance of combating an enemy flushed with almost victory, adds a great laurel to the Navy of the United States."' "This is a very different tone altogether from that which used to characterize British journals, when thd victories of our Navy were attributed to the number of English sailors enlisted in our service, computed at one-third its effective force; a fact which carried with it this remnarkable feature, that the other two-thirds of Americans were more than a match for an equivalent number of English sailors in the British service. The British journals are assuming every day a more liberal tone when speaking of the United States; and in paying the above compliment to our Navy, they do no more than justice to its character. Courage has ever distinguished the Anglo-Saxon race, and that quality is always conspicuous in their descendants, whether of British or American birth. The energy of the American character, the general intelligence, and the republican pride of American citizens, are elements which no doubt add much to the efficiency of the American Navy. Hence it should be the endeavor of Congress to preserve this efficiency, by promoting the qualities which produce it. The abolishment of the punishment of flogging was a great step towards sustaining the character of the service, and a little more attention on the part of Congress to the wants of seamen, would establish the American Navy as the very best in the world."-(P. Ledger, Phil. Jan. 22, 1852.) The eulogies in the two foregoing quotations are evidently given only to " the Officers and Men" of the American Navy, and neither to the system of its administration, nor to the material qualities of its body. "'America knows that every one will do his duty!"-Undoubtedly, every American engaged in the naval service of his Country will rather blow up than give up his Ship. However, it is likewise the duty of the Country, to furnish those, who devote their lives and their honor to its service, with the necessary material for that purpose, not only in sufficient quantit;, but 11so in the best possible quality and shape, according to the progreg of time and in proportion of the great wealth of the First Commercial Nation in the World. It is a suicidal system of mere and mean national avarice, it is cruel and inhumane, to expose those noble sons of our Country, in the eventual case of a war with one or some of the first European maritime 12 powers, to the dreadful but inevitable alternative, either to be vanquisihed or to die! There is no exaggeration at all in this. Let naval fighting capacity be represented in the average-number of ship-guns, of sailing-vessels of war, and of war-steamers, which are used in the different navies, and let these average-numbers be distinguished-for the sake of brevity -by national names, as men with equal individual fighting capacity. According to former authentic and correct statements, the numerical disproportions are as follows: American: 20 guns, Dutch: 23 guns, St 6 sailing-vessels, " 8 sailing-vessels, l 10 steamers, " 21 steamers, 3)36 average-number, 3)52 average-numbe;, =12 Americans: =17 Dutchmen. American: 2 guns, Russian: 6 guns, id 2 sailing-vessels, " 5 sailing-vessels, I 2 steamers, " 6 steamers, 2 X 6 average-number, 2 X 17 average-number, =12 Americans: = _34 Russians. American: 2 guns, Freneh: 7 guns, 2 sailing-vessels, ", 8 sailing-vessels, "' 2 steamers, " 20 steamers, 2X 6 average-number, 2 X 35 average-number. =12 Americans: =70 Frenchmen. American: 1 gun, English: 8 guns, 1 sailing-vessel, " 8 sailing-vessels, a 1 steamer, " 18 steamers, 4X3 average-number, 4X 34 average-number, -12 Americans: =136 Englishmen. 12: 17+34+70+136=12: 257=1: 21 15. Thus twelve Americans stand against seventeen Dutchmen, thirtyfour Russians, seventy Frenchmen, and one hundred thirty-six Englishmen, - twelve Americans against two hundred fifty-seven Europeans!- one Republican against more than twenty-one Monarchists! The combined Monarchical maritime or naval power, or fighting capacity, of Holland, Russia, France and England together is more than twenty-one times as great as ours!-the only Republican one in the World! "But we have a powerful Press!" Yes! indeed, our American Republican Press is at least of powerful weitibt. "It is estimated that in the United States there are about 250 daily papers published, and about 2500 tri-weeklies, semi-weeklies and weeklies; anl that the aggregate number of copies of newspapers, annually distributed through the United States, is the enormous figure of 412,800,000." -(Ill. am. a lm. m. c., 1852. Page 46.) 13 If 1276 Monarchical war-vessels and 82,689 Monarchical shipguns could be over-balanced by the powerful weight of these newspapers, we would gladly agree with our American National Indolencers, and with that good old woman, who made, in a public paper of New-York, about two years ago, the proposition of sending some 500,000 copies of the Bible to Europe, as an aid to the People in their struggle for Liberty! " Ultima Ratio Regis" (Last Remedy of the King) is the motto engraved on Prussian ordnance: it expresses the main principles of all Monarchs, who use only striking arguments, in the shape of shots and weapons, to prove their " Rights," and such arguments cannot be refuted except by similar ones; even our Republic was compelled several times to use them, as " Ultima Ratio," and must ever be ready to do so again, if necessary; but with the present inferiority of our Navy we cannot venture a war even against little Holland, or against any other superior maritime power, as Russia, France and England, whom our National Vanity induces us to consider as our peers! The "I First Commercial Nation in the World" should have, on a very moderate pretension, a Navy at least one-fourth as strong as the combined Navies of Holland, Russia, France and England, viz. 4) 932 sailing-vessels, 344 steamers and 32,689 guns,=233 sailing-vessels, 86 steamers and 8,172 guns. We should have a Navy of at least some three hundred war-vessels and eight thousand guns, manned with Americans of National Republican Principles and Vigor: then only we could call ourselves a "Maritime Power," worthy of our intelligence and wealth, a power inferior only to the English, of which inferiority in quantity, and not in quality, we need not be ashamed; while now we must be ashamed of our inferiority, in quantity and in quality, not only to the English, French and Russians, but even to the Dutch. The natural consequences of our inferiority in maritime power are most injurious to us, materially and morally: our Maritime Commerce, our National Wealth, is exposed to be destroyed in a short time, if we should have a war with some European power; and our dignity, our National Honor, flattered continually at home by newspaperBravery, is violated abroad! At the opening of the First Session of the Eighteenth Congress of the United States, in December, 1823, President Monroe declared:, "' That we should consider any attempt, on the part of European Powers, to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety." A similar, but more expressive and positive declaration was made, in December, 1846, by President Polk, in his Message to Congress: "The spirit and habits of the American People are favorable to the maintenance of international harmony. In adhering to this wise policy, a preliminary and paramount duty obviously consists in the protection of our national interests from encroachment or sacrifice and our national honor from reproach. These must-be maintained at any hazard. They admit of no compromise, or neglect, and must be scrupulously and constantly guarded. In their vigilant vindication, collision and conflict with foreign powers may sometimes become unavoidable."-" To promote the cause of peace, as well as to prevent any attempted European interference in the affairs of the North 14 American Continent,-both objects of deep interest to the United States,-any such foreign interference must be resisted by the United States. My views upon that subject were fully communicated to Congress in my last Message."-(Pennsylvanian: Philadelphia, Dec. 9, 1846.) Notwithstanding these solemn declarations before the World, by two of our Presidents, in 1823 and 1846, against "any attempts of European Powers to-extend their system," &c.-and against "any such foreign interference" on the North-American Continent, &c.not only " attempts" have been made, but facts have been executed: the Pseudo-Kingdom of Mosquito has been established on the Territory of the Republic of Nicaragua, in Central-America, by British authority, nay even our National Honor has been openly "outraged" there; for instance, a few months ago, the British sloop of war Express, fired into the American merchant-steamer Prometheus, at the order of the British Consul, Mr. James Green, whose government declared him even to be " also a principal officer of the Mosquito government" at Greytown, in the "Kingdom" of Mosquito. The Prometheus, and with her our National Honor, was thus "outraged" at St. Juan de Nicaragua, where An American Consul resides, Mr. A. Follin, whose presence was of no more avail to protect her and our National Honor, than that of the other American Consuls, Mr. W. F. Boone, at Realejo; Mr. C. Hempstead, at Belize; Mr. S. H. Weems, at Guatemala; nor that of the American Charg6 d'Affaires, Mr. J. B. Kerr, at Guatemala, Nicaragua.-Query: Why are these gentlemein there? "INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT FROM WASHINGTON." ~THE OUTRAGE UPON THE PROMETHEUS-OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE-SETTLEMENT OF THE AFFAIR, ETC." Washington, February 12, 1852. The Prometheus correspondence has been sent into Congress. The first despatch is from Mr. Webster to Mr. Lawrence, dated Dec. 3, instructing him to inquire whether the conduct of the captain of the Express was in consequence of instructions from his government, and PROTESTING AGAINST THE OUTRAGE. Several despatches follow, in which it appears that the British Secretary, being uninformed of the circumstances, requests a delay until he receives a report from the Admiral of the station. On the 10th of January, this information having been obtained, the following letter was addressed by LORD GRANVILLE TO MR. LAWRENCE. The undersigned, her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has the honor to acquaint Mr. Abbott Lawrence, Envoy Extraordinary, and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, that her Majesty's government have just received from the Vice Admiral commanding her Majesty's naval forces in the West Indies, a report upon the subject of the Prometheus, which is to the following effect:-That, on arriving at St. Thomas, the Admiral received a despatch from the commander of her Majesty's sloop Express, stating that on the requisition of Mr. James Green, her Majesty's Consul at Greytown, who is also a 1principal officer of the Mosquito government at that place, he had, by force, compelled the American steamship Prometheus to pay the port dues demanded by the authorities of Greytown'. To this despatch Vice Admiral Sir George Seymour had immediately replied by saying that neither he, nor to his knowledge. her Majesty's consul had received any orders to allow her Majesty's ships to be employed in such service, 6r in enforcing the fiscal regulations of Mosquito; the sole object of the presence of a British ship of war at Greytown being to defend the town and inhabitants from aggressive attempts to deprive the Mosquito government of possession, pending a settlement by negotiation of the question relative to its future position. Sir George Seymour had further expressly forbidden the commander of the Express from again employing force to compel the levy of duties for the Mosquito government. The undersigned has now to state to Mr. Abbott Lawrence, for the information of his government, that her Majesty's government fully approve of the Vice Admiral's conduct in this matter, and that they entirely disavow the act of violence committed by the commander of the Express, and also the requisition from her Majesty's consul, under which the com. mander acted, so far as he acted by any authority derived from the British crown. Under these circumstances, her Majesty's government have no hesitation in offering an ample apology for that which they consider to have been an infraction of treaty engagements; and her Majesty's government do so without loss of time, and immediately upon the receipt of the official intelligence above alluded to, inasmuch as- in their opinion it would be unworthy of the government of a great nation to hesitate about making due reparation when the aets of their subordinate authorities have been such as not to admit of justification. As her Majesty's government have full confidence that the government of the United States is actuated by a similar feeling, they hope that this mutual confidence will induce each other, in all cases of such disputes, and until due time has elapsed for the necessary explanations to be received, to defer taking any steps which might lead to collisions, and thus much aggravate the original difficulty. The undersigned requests, &c. G RANVILLE. Foreign-offce, Jan. 10, 1852. To the above Mr. Lawrence replied, EXPRESSING HIS GRATIFICATION, and trusts that the questions out of which the difficulty grew, will be speedily settled."-(Evening-Argus, Philadelphia, Feb. 12, 1852.) Our Nation is called a " Giant," and as a Nation we are a Giant, but as such we should behave, that is, as a great one, and not as merely a big one, who being insulted and struck by a naughty boy of a high-born and high-bred Lady, does not whip him for that, but merely PROTESTING AGAINST THE OUTRAGE, says: "Now!. I'll tell your mother!" And he goes a great distance to see her at her residence, and takes off his hat and says with humble politeness: " Madam! Did you tell your little boy to strike me?" —No!-,-" Well, Madam! then, I am very much obliged to you, indeed, Madam! allow me the honor of EXPRESSING MY GRATIFICATION to you, Madam!"And off he goes, saying:'That's what I call an'apology!' but thinking by himself:'Now, if she had said: Yes! I guess I would have once more-protested.' And he resolves upon keeping out of the way of the naughty little boy and his brothen, who all now laugh at the big fellow, able to whip them all together, if he only wouldgive up his indolence, and avail himself of Art. 2. of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, according to which " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This very right he should use for himself against all such naughty boys, and like them never go abroad without being well armed. But he behaves meekly, as a good Christian, according to St. Matthew, Chap. V. 39: " Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." 16 Our Nation is a Giant, but should not be a Goliath, who cannot defy the Navies of Europe, as the Philistine did' defy the Armios of Israel," lest he may be smitten, if not slain, even by the little Navy of Holland, just as the little David of Israel " smote the Philistine and slew him." Our Nation is a Lion, but should not be like the sick one in the Fable, suffering to be kicked even by a jackass, and then only PROTESTING AGAINST THE OUTRAGE! However, as long as our Navy remains in its present inefficiency and inferiority, we must swallow every "OUTRAGE" against our National Honor, and content ourselves'with PROTESTING; for, what else can we do? Unable to perform our "preliminary and paramount duty" of protecting "our national interests from encroachments or sacrifice, and our national honor from reproach,"-we are not only continually exposed to similar "OUTRAGES," but in the eventual case of a war our Navy must fight in despair, without any hope of victory, the struggle of death, the consequence of which must unavoidably be the destruction of our Maritime Commerce, of our National Existence, of the only Republican Freedom in the World! God forbid such dreadful calamities! God grant that we may become wise in time and act accordingly! Fellow-Citizens! Let us be what we should be! not only the First Commercial Nation, but also the First Intellectual Nation in the World! Away with all National Vanity and Indolence! Away with popular flattery and newspaper-bravery! Away with false security and misplaced economy! Do open your eyes and your ears to Truth,,to conviction, to facts, to realities! Let us investigate and recognize our faults, our defects, our wants, the necessity of action, the requisitions -involved in our duty of self-protection and self-preservation! In the performance of the latter, with respect to our Navy, we are certainly far behind the English, and still, they even do not.feel safe, in their own country surrounded by the sea, protected by a Navy of six hundred and sixty-seven war vessels, with 17,330 guns. No body of common sense will think or say, that the old veteran-hero, the Duke of Wellington, knows fear, or that Englishmen are cowards. Let us consider and appreciate, to learn wisdom from, what is contained in the following leading-article, copied from " The Illustrated London-News," Jan. 17, 1852. "THE NATIONAL DEFENCES." "The threatening position of affairs all over Europe naturally recalls attention to the state of the national deences of this country. Every powerful-state on the Contine4t is armed to the teeth; and France, our nearest neighbour, has on foot, ready for immediate service, offensive or defensive, nearly half a million of men.'We know of.nothing in the sentiments or traditions of the French, that should lead the English people to rely with too implicit a confidence on their peaceable intentions towards any of their neighbours, whether strong or weak;-towards England, against whom the grudge of ages, though possibly weakened, is by no means extinct; or towards such neighbours as Belgium, Svwitzerland, and Prussia, whose territories, or a portion of them, were once considered parts of France. She still avowedly covets these territories, and through themedium of some of her foremost men openly asserts her intention to resume them. 17 While the disposition of no inconsiderable number of the French people is thus menacing, there is nothing in the personal character, or in the public necessities, real or supposed, which may be thought to influence the actions of the unscrupulous and unfeeling tyrant who now wields the supreme power in that unhappy country, to justify us as a nation in placing any reliance either upon his prudence or his honour. If he saw, or thought he saw, that he could strengthen his own position in France by a daring attack upon this country, we may be quite certain that, if our sole defence were in our justice, it would avail us nothing. The man who has been guilty of acts of such astounding despotism as those which we have this week recorded, would not scruple to be guilty even of the wickedness of inventing a pretext for a war of aggrandisement with England, if it suited his purposes best; or with Belgium, Switzerland, Prussia, or Italy, if more were to be gained by it. But the danger does not exist in France alone. The simple truth is, that the whole Continent is one mass of armed tyranny and wrong. Everywhere the most barbarian and barbarous absolutism prevails. Everywhere brute force is the governor of the nations. Everywhere there are multitudinous armies, ready to be let slip by monarchs who have raised, but who scarcely know how to manage them. The personal character of a Sovereign enters but little into the favourable chances for peace, when armies with such aspirations and traditions as those current in France are considered. Louis Napoleon might be as humane and just as he is now proved to be the reverse, without rendering the posi. tion of his army a whit less dangerous to the repose of the world. Under these circumstances we may well ask whether it is safe, or politic, or merciful, or even sane, that Great Britain should remain unarmed and defenceless? The most peaceful member of the Peace Society, who bolts his doors at night lest thieves should break in to rob or murder him, acts more zealously on the defensive than the great and wise English people who have no such scruples against war as he has. What no individual in England would consider himself justified in neglecting in his own private defence, the nation as a whole neglects in the most extraordinary manner. As a nation, we are not by any mealis prepared to prevent an attack of those robbers and murderers on a large scale, who declare unjust wars against their neighbours. This comntry has so long slumbered in security; has looked back with such fond self-complacency at the history of her past triumphs when all the world was leagued against her; has been accustomed so long to think herself inviolable; has attached such glorious reminiscences to the names of her Nelson and her Wellington; and has had such unbounded confidence that future Nelsons and Wellingtons, and fleets and armies to back them, would spring into existence whenever they were required, that she has gone to sleep on the pillow of her glory, and allowed her neighbours to increase their powers of offence without increasing her own means of offence or defence. For many years she has incurred, without a thought, a risk that she ought never to have run. The public mind, however, is now fairly awakened to the importance of the subject. What the warning voice of the illustrious Wellington failed to accomplish in 1847, has been accomplished in 1852 by the reckless acts of the unscrupulous adventurer who has fixed himself upon the neck of'France, like the old man of the sea upon the neck of Sinbad the Sailor. For the first time since the peace of Waferloo, the people of England are fully aware of the fact that Europe is not pacified, and that the great work of tue last war may have all to be done over again by the living generation. It is openly conceded that England is not in a fit state of defence. By sea and by land we have been equally remiss; and the emphatic letter of the Duke of Wellington to Sir John Burgoyne, which made such a sensationthough, unfortunately, a fruitless one-when it was first published, about five years ago, is still more emphatic and more true at the present time.'You are aware,' said the gallant Duke to his correspondent:' That I have for years been sensible of the alteration produced in maritime warfare and operations by the application of steam to the propelling of ships at sea. 18 ~This discovery immediately exposed all parts of the coast of these islands, which a vessel could approach at all, to be approached at all times of the tide, and in all seasons, by vessels so propelled, from all quarters We are, infrict, assailable.'I have in vain endeavoured to awaken the attention of different Administrations to this state of things, as well known to our neighbours, (rivals in power as well as former adversaries and enemies) as it is to ourselves.'I have above, in a few words, represented the danger. We have no defence, no hope of defence, but our fleet..'The whole Jbrce employed at home, in Great Britain and Ireland would not afford a sufficient number of men for the mere defence and occupation, on breaking out of war, of the works constructed for the defence of the dockyards and naval arsenals, without leaving a single man disposable.' As we stand now, and if it be true that the exertions of the fleet alone are not sufficient to provide for our defence, we are not safe for a week after the declaration of war.'I am accustomed to the consideration of these questions, and have examined and reconnoitred, over and over again, the whole coast from the North Foreland, by Dover, Folkestone, Beachy Head, Brighton, Arundel, to Selsey Hill near Portsmouth; and I say, that, excepting immediately under the fire of Dover Castle, there is not a spot on the coast on which infantry might not be thrown on shore at any time of the tide, with any wind, and in any weather; and from which such body of infantry so thrown on shore would not find, within the distance of five miles, a road into the interior of the country, through the cliffs, practicable for the march of a body of troops.' But the remonstrance from which we have just quoted has not been made iiin vain. At the close of his brilliant and useful life, the gallant Duke has it again in his power to be of service to his country; and public opinion, which in England is proverbially so slow to be aroused, always does its business thoroughly when once its lazy indifference has been conquered. This point has been at length attained in the matter of the national defences, and the consequences will be, that every department of our naval and military service will be' overhauled,' if not remodelled, and that we shall not only increase the amount of our land and sea forces, if proved to be necessary, but that we shall turn our existing forces to better account than we have hitherto done. In the art of war, as in the art of trade, Englishmen will act upon the principle of getting the most they can for their money. If it turn out that men in red coats engaged in battle, are more likely to be' picked off' than men in blue coats or green ones, we shall abandon the red coat, as military men have suggested. If it be proved that the British soldier is too heavily encumbered-on service with arms, baggage, or accoutrements, we shall relieve him of the load. If, on investigation, it be found that our muskets are not capable of the proper execution, or that their construction has not kept pace with the progress of scientific improvement in other countries, we shall discard them, whatever shock we may inflict on the prejudices of men in office, and at whatever present cost to the country. If it be deemed prudent that a militia should be called out, there are energy and patriotism sufficient in the youth of the nation to compose an irresistible force. The point of indifference has been passed. Great Britain will show, though rather late, that she is prepared for all contingencies, and that she is as safe from a sudden surprise as from a deliberate and forewarned attack. She will thus keep all enemies at bay, and preserve herself as inviolable and as invincible as she has ever been. With her free institutions, and the indomitable spirit of her people, she may defy all foes, come whence they will; and, by proving herself ready for war, will do infinitely more towards maintaining peace than by continuing the easy slumber into which her past successes have so unfortunately lulled her." 19 The leading article of the next number (Jan. 24, 1852,) of the same paper, amply develops that part of the above referring to France, and it may have here a proper place, to give our fellowcitizens some matter for thinking a little farther than they can see towards Europe. "WHY FRANCE IS DANGEROUS TO HERSELF AND TO HER NEIGHBOURS." Why is it that since the memorable year of 1789 France'has been in a continual state of turmoil and uneasiness, a burthen to herself, anff a peril to her neighbours? How is it that the warlike spirit of her people is continually fed? and that, unlike other nations of Europe, in this industrial and mechanical age, she finds a constant excitement in the aspirationi of military dominion, hostile alike to her own improvement and to the well. -being of all other states that are not separated from her either by the, Atlantic Ocean or by the whole breadth of a continent? These inquiries are not barren ones. They are of the utmost importance to all Europe and at the present time, when her destinies are, we will not say confided to, but lodged in, the hands of a reckless and obstinate tyrant, they are of more than ordinary interest to the whole world. Many causes have indubitably conspired to make France what she is. Her people are impulsive, more than reasonable. They are net contented to amend proved evils by slow, although it may be by sure, processes; but, with an impatience which they share with all the cognate Celtic races, they destroy when it should be their business to renovate. In 1789, and the remarkable years which followed, France, suffering under the abominable nuisances of her ancient feudal system, and under the fearful evils entailed upon her by the military extravagance and domestic misrule of Louis XIV., the' glory' and curse of his country, and by the corruption of morals and government which prevailed during the Regency, and the long and unhappy reign of Louis XV., was reduced to an extremity in which revolution was inevitable. Everything gave way before the tempest. Nothing whatever was left; not a shred of the old institutions survived; and, in their impatience of evils which had reached a point at which they were intolerable, the men of that era made a clean sweep of all before them. They left not a stone standing of the ancient edifice of their Government, and effected not simply a political but a social revolution. Of the extent of that revolution, as it affected the whole life and character'of the people, these eaArl*reformers, if such they may be called, were not themselves aware, for it required time to show the immensity of the change which they had operated. Whether it were for good or for evil, they could not tell. Their business seemed to be to destroy and they did it effectually. In the work of re-construction, events have since shown that they made a lamentable failure. What they could not do, none of the statesmen who have since arisen in France have been able to accomplish. Attempt has succeeded attempt, during the last sixty years, to found a political and social system in that country; and in the year 1852 the French are as far removed front stability as they were in 1793. These unhappy Frenchmen love liberty, but they do not comprehend it. They hate authority, and rebel against it; but they invite a tyranny, and bend their necks to its yoke and their backs to its whip, as if they were determined in certain circumstances to be even more submissive than beasts of burthen. Their military notions make tyrants of them at one time, and slaves at another. They are indoctrinated with warlike ideas. The only institution in France which Iras survived revolutions, and prospered upon them, is the army. The French understand the authority of the sword. Because one of the most pestilential tyrants that was ever permitted to desolate' the world was a great winner of battles, they deify the scourge, and place their confidence in an untried man, merely because he bears the same name as the departed conqueror, and because they have a vague notion that power and greatness 20 are somehow or other associated with it. This military feeling is, we believe, produced by the operation of other causes than those of national pride and vanity. We believe that a deep-rooted social misery lies at the bottom of it; and that it is to the unhappy state of the laws, which do not so much regulate as compel the division of property, that the world must attribute the constant discontent of the people of France with every form of government which has been tried in that country for the last two generations. This discontent is ignorant of a remedy, and seeks it at one time in the active overthrow of a Monarchy, at another in passive acquiescence with the newest system that may be forced upon the country, and at all times in a desire to try the chances of foreign wars, especially of such wars as promise an extension of territory. In the Number of this Journal issued on the 8th of September, 1849, we drew the attention of our readers to this subject, and showed, by the reports of the inspectors appointed by King Louis Philippe, that the compulsory subdivision of estates in France produced the insolvency and pauper ism of the agricultural classes. In abolishing the law of primogeniture and the old feudal system, the founders of French liberty-that word and thing so grossly misunderstood-instituted a new tyranny. They compelled the subdivision of the soil. A man with a large or small farm, as the case might be, was forced by the new law to divide his lands equally among all his children. The result was inevitable-divisian and subdivision, until farms became too small for profitable cultivation, and until pasturage became in many cases impossible. Ttiere were in France, at the time the inquiry was instituted by Louis Philippe, no less than 10,834,794 landed proprietors, holding for the most part little plots of ground which they cultivated with the spade. Of this nnmber only 6681 derived an income of more than ~400 per annum from their lands, while there were 369,603 estates of the annual value of only ~12; 737,136 of the value of ~8; 873,997 of the value of ~4; and 2,600,000 of an annual value not exceeding ~2. The great bulk of these proprietors, as stated in the official reports alluded to, were strangers to a meat diet, and' stood alone,' as the inspectors forcibly remarked,'in unassisted misery-in ill humor with everything, and especially with all that were higher or happier than themselves.' The breeding of cattle diminished in every part of France; and in 1840 an act was passed, on the remonstrance of the butchers of the capital, legalizing the public sale of horse-flesh as an article of diet. Since the time at which we wrote, some very striking facts in support of the views we then expressed have been brought to light, and published by the statists of France, official and non-official. We owe to the industry of a writer in the last number of the Westminster Review an able resume of the subject, from which we shall cite a few of the most remarkable facts. They will show how dangerous it is for France and for Europe that such misery should exist. In a report made to the late Legislative Assembly by M. Ch.garay, on the 29th of April, 1851, that gentleman stated, on behalf of himself and of his colleagues appointed to inquire into the subject, that the landed proprietors of France were nearly all in a state of hopeless bankruptcy. The commission, founding their calculation on the net produce of the direct land-tax, which they considered to be one-twelfth of the whole rental, and which was ascertained by the public records to be 160,000,000 francs, estimated the net annual revenues derived from real estates in France to amount to 1,920,000,000 francs, or ~76,800,000 sterling. The amount of mortgage debt upon this estate was published by the French Government for the years 1820, 1832, and 1840. On the 1st of July, 1820, the mortgages on this annual revenue of ~76,800,000 amounted to 8,863,000,000 francs, or ~354,520,000. On the 1st of July, twelve years afterwards, the mortgages had increased to 11,233,000,000 francs, or A~449,320,000; and on the 1st of July, 1840, to 12,544.000,000 francs, or ~501,760,000. If the same rate of increase as that which prevailed from 1832 to 1840 has continued up to the present time, the mortgage debts would amount in 1852 to the sum of 14,510,000,000 francs, or ~580,400,000. In the year t845, the Government of Louis Philippe, being anxious to as 21 certain what interest was paid by the embarrassed proprietors of real estate, requested information of the various' conseils gdnerauz' throughout France. The result was, that'of sixty-one general councils fifty-seven declared that landed proprietors always paid more than 6 per cent. on mortgage debts. Seventeen estimated at 6 or 7 per cent., costs included, the rate of interest habitually paid; twelve estimated it at from 7 to 10 per cent.; while some spoke of 12, 15, 20, and even 22 per cent., when the mortgages were of small amount.' With these figures we gain some insight into the unhappy condition of the most numerous class in France, the class that provides soldiers, the class that votes for Louis Napoleon, the class that is dissatisfied with the existing state of things, and clings to any hope, however wild and forlorn, for a remedy; the class that could not be worse off in-war, but that expects it would be better. We borrow the following additional particulars from the article in the Westminster Review, from which we have already quoted:The real estate account of France may be stated as follows:Francs. Francs. Net revenue 1,920,000,000 DeductDirect land-tax 160,000,000 Additional centimes 80,000,000 Interest on mortgage debt 1,015,700,000 1,255,700,000 Balance left proprietors 664,300,000 But, fearful as these figures are, theyl do not tell the whole truth. M. Blanqui, of the Institute, not the Red'Republican, but the statist and philosopher, says,' that many of the so-called proprietors of the French soil are in want of everything-of clothing to cover them, of food to nourish them. An immense proportion of the taxes is imposed on miserable huts, whose occupants are too poor to repair the thatched roof which lets in the rain and cold to the family.' In an official return to the Government it is stated that in France there are 348,401 dwellings with no aperture but the door; 1,817,328 with only one window; and 1,328,937 with only two windows. These miserable huts shelter in all a population of no less than 16,000,000. But space fails us to pursue the subject to a greater length. We have, however, cited sufficient to show why the great bulk of the French are always dissatisfied, why any Goverment is so difficult to establish, and where at the same time the military spirit finds its pabulum. It is these miserable proprietors, most of them far worse off than the English agricultural labourer, and not having, like him, the last resource of the union workhouse to apply to in extremity, who swell the acclaim that hails Louis Napoleon and his tyranny. Ignorant and reckless, desiring to live, but not knowing how, they give their votes to the man'-ho represents the only name and the only principle they can understandthe name of Napoleon, and the divine right of the sword. Louis Napoleon has all the upper and educated classes, and a great portion of the bourgeoisie' of the towns, against him, but he relies upon the millions. With such millions, in such distress, and with such a ruler, France must continue to be dangerous to herself and to all the world. Corroborating the two foregoing articles, the following still more amply shows, how France stands to England, consequently also to the United States, as the eventual case may be. [From the Philadelphia Ledger, February 18, 1852.] We copy from the London-Times an article on the rumored invasion of England from France, a rumor which has somewhat stirred the people of the "fast-anchored isle." The danger of such an invasion is doubtless greatly exaggerated; the ability of Louis Napoleon to effect iis fully considered in- the article we copy. The army of France comlses 453,984 22 men, 96,901 horses, and 1236 pieces of artillery. The French navy has 224 sailing vessels, 100 steamers, and 4 sail and steamships. The article we copy supposes that this force, which is the entire of the navy of France, augmented by 291 merchant steamers, and 366 sailing ships of the same description, could transport 151,000 fighting men to England in 30 to 34 hours. The French fleets can find ample accommodations in the 26 ports between Brest and Boulogne, and can be perfectly protected by the forts in the harbors. The'despatch with which a French army may be put on board a fleet, may be inferred from the fact that ten thousand men were landed at Civita Vecchia., in the late war upon the Roman Republic, with all their arms and baggage, within ten days of the receipt of the order at Paris. To meet this force Great Britain is estimated to have a generally disposable force of 110,546 men, 480 ships, and 187 war-steamers. The Times, however, puts the grand total of the military force far below this calculation, and in point of effectiveness very far from what it ought to be, provided that invasion is among the probabilities of the day. [From the London-Times, January 23, 1852.] MILITARY AND NAVAL STRENGTH OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND. THE CHANCES OF INVASION. As Englishmen are noted for their business-like habits, their general coolness of judgment, and their sound common sense, we now submit to them, in their national capacity, a plain statement of facts and probabilities, respecting a question of infinite importance. It has often been said that we were exposed to ruin from a French invasion. Panics have often been created, and as often subsided, in the absence of any actual visitation, but we are not aware that the case has hitherto ever been stated in a clear, dispassionate manner. Such a statement, however, we now introduce to the reader-a statement drawn up with as much preciseness of calculation and as great an indifference to the interests involved as is shown in the purchased report of a professional accountant. The Baron P. E. Maurice is a native of Switzerland and a captain of engineers in the service of the Confederation. As a piece of military practice, he has computed and tabulated the probabilities of the case before us with elaborate minuteness, as far as the rules of science are concerned,.but with no more sympathies than a naturalist might feel in a fight between a polecat and a buzzard. We shall do our best to imitate'his serenity, and present the reader with a plain exposition of this national affair. Some points, it is evident, will hardly come within the scope of an arithmetical estimate, but the chief of them admit of being stated with the same perspicuity and the same reliance upon vouchers as the report of an ordinary railway company. We shall first give the baron's calculations in his own form, and then remark upon them in detail. Captain Maurice alleges-and is at the pains to prove by summary, that the French army musters 458,984 men of all arms, 96,901 horses, and 1,236 guns; that this number could be doubled under strong inducements, out of soldiers who have served their time, and that the existing stores in the arsenals could be readily augmented by an annual supply of 330,000 muskets and 1000 cannon, from specified manufactories and founderies. He further states that the French navy comprises, in vessels actually afloat, 224 sailing ships, 100 steamers, and 4 sail and steamships combined. Referring us, in continuation, to the map of France, he observes that in the 550 miles of coast between Brest and Boulogne there are 26 ports, which he enumerates and describes, of various sizes and capacities; and he remarks that the base of operations constituted by ihe coast line between these two poilts possesses, in respect of the security and facility of its communications, every strategetical advantage that could be desired, being fortified by three lines of citadels on the continental side, and by Paris itself at its apex. Assuming then, an invasion of England to -be decided upon, Captain Maurice estates the requisite strength of the invadil.g army at 151,800 23 men of all arms, including 110,000 infantry, 22,000 cavalry, 13,750 artillery, 8,000 engineers, and 3,050 for the wagon train. Applying the proved rules of military science to the equipment of this force, he adds 57,806 horses, 7,376 carnages of all kinds, and 536 pieces of cannon, field and siege. Into the particular composition of the different brigades and equipages, we need not enter, nor are we called upon to do more than state, very simply, that quarters could be found for such an army between Brest and Boulogne. The succeeding question, as Captain Maurice acknowledges, is both difficult and novel, concerning, as it does, the ascertainable capacity for transport possessed by ships of war. He says, however, that he has "good authority " for computing that such vessels could carry for short distances, in addition to their own complements, something like the subjoined number of troops, according to their respective rates:.Men with arms Guns. and baggage. A ship of 120. 800 "' 90 t0.. 790 " 74 to 90. 600 " 60...... 500 " 40 to 60.. 350 to 400 A corvette, 1st class,. 250 " 2d class,.. 50 to 60 War steamers, 450 to 640 horse power, 1,200 to 2,000 " 220 to 320 ".. 400 to 6,00 " 160 to 180 ".. 300 He further states that these steamers could, by taking a somewhat smaller number of troops, carry 100, 60, or 20 horses with their equipments respectively; that a merchant steamer could embark 76 horses with their riders, and a merchantman of from 500 to 800 tons, 60 horses, and 10 carriages. A steam-frigate, he adds, can tow two ships of 90 or 100 guns at a slow rate, and a ship of 800 tons at a moderate speed Finally, he observes, as a species of test for these calculations, that 6 steamers of the first class, above mentioned, 2 of the second, and 1 of the third, with a couple of transports in tow, did, in 1849, embark at.oulon, carry to Civita Vecchia, and there disembark, with their whole material and baggage, 10,000 men within ten days of the receipt of the order from Paris. Applying these results to the question before him, Captain Maurice shows that the strength of the French navy, as given from the returns, would suffice, if augmented by 291 merchant steamers and 366 sailing vessels of the same description, to transport across the channel 151,800 men, 43,572 horses, 3,646 carriages, and 636 guns,- leaving 22,830 horses and 4,623 carriages to be supplied "by requisition" from the resources of the country invaded. There exist, therefore, in France, both the forces for composing an army of invasion, and the means of carrying them over the water to the opposite shores. In what way, then, might an invasion be conducted with the best prospects of success'? To this question, after admitting the " openness to disputation " of most of the points involved, Captain Maurice gives the following reply: He says that the powers of steam would enable the French to take a much broader base of operations than could be attempted by Napoleon, and that the whole coast between Brest and Calais might be thus employed. He assumes, however, Brest find Cherbourg as the two points of departure, and since from these points the distances are, to Plymouth 166 miles, to Bristol 270, to Rye 138, and to Portsmouth 84, he sets the longest time required for passage at 30 or 34 hours. For points of debarkation he selects three places-Bristol, Piymouth, and Rye-at each of which he would land a division of the invading army, which, by this separation, would not only obtain horses and means of transport more easily, but would still further damage the weak points of the defence by compelling the' English to divide their already inferior- force To the 24 "army of Bristol" he assigns 32,161 men, 11,108 horses, 1,194 carriages, and 100 guns, to be conveyed from Brest in 4 ships-of-the-line, 10 frigates, 26 steamers, 66 merchant steamers, and 78 transports. The "army of Plymouth " would comprise 43,137 men, 18,012 horses, 2,814 carriages, and 166 guns, to sail also from Brest, in 10 ships-of-the-line, 19 frigates, 30 steamers, 66 merchant steamers, and 85 transports. From Cherbourg would depart the "army of Rye," mustering 76,502 men, 28,686 horses, 4,368 carriages, and 270 guns, embarked upon 10 ships-of-the-line, 9 frigates, 124 smaller vessels, 38 transports, 45 steamers, 159 merchant steamers, and 199 sailing vessels of the latter description. Supposing these squadrons to have crossed the Channel, with or without encounter, the army of Bristol would establish itself at that point, and operate from the Avon to the Thames, thus cutting off all communications between the northern and south-western counties of England. The army of Plymouth would disembark at Whitesand Bay, collect engineering materials from Dartmoor Forest, and commence the siege of Plymouth from the land side, the fall of which town would place Devonshire and Cornwall, with all their secondary ports and resources, at the command of the invaders. The army of Rye would operate directly upon London, from which it would only be three marches distant, and the general movements of the three corps would be so concerted as to allow them to advance concentrically on the metropolis. After taking Plymouth, the second division might appear before Portsmouth on its march; and' we have little doubt,' writes Captain Maurice,' that an army debouching by the Southampton road on the peninsula terminated by Gillicka-point, and extending itself from Elson to Alverstoke, would succeed in forcing Gosport, the defences of which are weak; and Portsmouth, with its docks and arsenals, thus taken in reverse, must necessarily be surrendered or burned.' Such Is the plan of invasion drawn out by Captain Maurice, and we have been careful in specifying its details, that our readers might verify his calculations according to their respective opportunities. But is England to be idle all this while? Far from it. Captain Maurice proceeds to estimate our means of defence, and not illiberally, as will soon be seen. He gives us 480 ships of war and 187 war steamers. He computes our cavalry upon an average strength at 12,311, our artillery at 11,041, and our infantry at 126,794; and, after deducting 39,600 for troops on foreign service, he assumes a generally disposable force of 110,546 for the defence of the British isles, or 73,608 for Great Britain only, one-third being detached for Ireland. He notices also our great facilities of railway and telegraphic communication, and specifies all our small fortifications with great attention. On the alarm of invasion he considers that the guards, to the amount of 6568 men, horse and foot, would be retained in Windsor and London, and that the garrisons of Portsmouth, Plymouth and Chatham, must needs take 3000 troops more. Revising, therefore, his calculation by the latest estimates, and taking account of the pensioners and dockyard brigades, he allows us a disposable army of 64,432 trained soldiers. These, he presumes, must be divided into three corps, to encounter the three invading forces, and he reckons accordingly, that, on the signal being given, three British armies of 21,477 men and eighty-four guns each, would be despatched to Bristol, Plymouth and Rye, as fast as steam could carry them. But how fast is that? Here, also, Captain Maurice has entered into most elaborate reckonings. Each of our corps cdarmee would weigh, he says, 12,000 tons, and the whole of them would require either 456 trains and 600 locomotives, or 129 trains, with 344 locomotives, or some number between these figures, according as the amount to be conveyed at once was or was not sacrificed to speed. Allowing them time for the assembly of the troops and the distribution of the battalions, and computing the performance of the locomotives by the usual data, he says that the several armies of relief could only reach TBristol, Plymouth and Rye, in nine, ten and nine days respectively; but these days, we should observe, are reckoned at only twelve hours each. Hence he infers that, in any case, an advanced guard of the invading army could disembark on the'coast before the army of 25 defence could arrive, and either take up the rails, or prepare at leisure a masked battery to play upon the trains as they arrived, and destroy engines, and make the whole cargo prisoners. As to what might come of the actual shock of war, Captain Maurice contents himself with observing, that each of the English corps would be inferior in numbers to its opponent, and that we could " scarcely bring into the field the necessary force of artillery." " Scarcely," indeed. Now, let us coolly examine these several conclusions. In the first place,.have the resources or chances of the invader been overrated? Up to a certain point, evidently not. Captain Maurice brings his invading army, without the smallest error, to the water's edge. That France could march to the coasts of the channel 151,800 fighting men, with all their munitions, in a few weeks or days, is what nobody will dispute. Neither could there be the slightest difficulty about embarkation, if vessels were only in readiness. What can be performed by 10,000 men can beperformed just as easily by 100,000; in fact, the whole thing was done once at Boulogne under Soult's eye, in less than thirty minutes. But could vessels be in readiness for this enormous mass of passengers? We very much doubt it. Captain Maurice, it is true, provides in his scheme the desired means of transport, but to do so he assumes that every single vessel in the entire French navy, Steamer or sailer, and every single merchant steamer belonging to the country, over and above 366 trading ships, are pressed into this,service. There is not to be in any port or on any station, home or foreign, one solitary man-of-war left for any purpose whatever! On this point we think we need say no more. Now comes the critical question of all. Could these squadrons, or any such, succeed in crossing the Channel without material damage, in despite of the English cruisers? The inquiry clearly admits of no absolute reply,'but the chances seem to be less in our favor than we have been used to think. As to positive surprise, such an event,is surely impossible with'armaments of such magnitude as those we have been describing. Granted'that ten or twelve steam frigates, each carrying 2000 men, might slip across unseen under favor of fogs or night; how difierent in all respects is the.case of three expeditions, averaging three hundred and thirty vessels each, one third of which is in tow, and all heavily laden? Suppose, however, that one or more of them were actually encountered, could the main body of the transports be prevented from effecting a landing? Captain Maurice thinks not. In giving us the benefit of every doubt, he assumes, surely with some touch of satire at our arrangements, that " the Rye squadron" might be met by "the home service squadron," which, in 1845, consisted of six line-of-battle ships, six frigates, and several war-steamers, and against this he fairly sets off the ten line-of-battle ships, nine frigates,'and seven large war-steamers of the invading force. But, with a navy of six hundred ships of war, couldn't we make rather a better show in the Channel? On the whole question, he is of -opinion, and in this he is confirmed by the almost uniform testimony of our officers, that considering the great?extent permitted by steam to the practicable base of operations, and the concert which might be made to pervade every portion of the plan, it would not be possible even for a very strong channel fleet to prevent, with anything like certainty, either by blockades or cruising, the passage of hostile armaments. But if Captain Maurice has favored our opponents in estimating their chances at sea, he has, at least, been equally liberal to ourselves on land. lie gives us, after deducting guards and garrisons, three armies, for Great Britain only, of 21,477 men each, trained soldiers; on which computation:we will only remark that the last estimate laid before Parliament, showed a grand total of 31,161 cavalry and infantry stationed throughout Great Britain, guards, garrisons, depots and recruiting companies, all included. Neither can we well see how a " pensioner," if fairly such, can be reckoned an "effective soldier" too. As to the " eighty-four guns" which each of our divisions is to carry into the field we can only say that the present artillery resources of the whole United kingdom could not furnish the guns - 2* 26 for a single one of the corps, nor do we conceive that more than twenty could be imnmeldiately despatched from all the available strength at Wool wich. Nay, it is a point, we believe, on which military men profess no doubt, that as far as any effectual opposition on our side is concerned, a body of 10,000 or 20,0()0 men could be thrown on our coasts, could establish themselves, throw up entrenchments, and keep us at a respectful distance with their guns, until a second or a third reinforcement had been ferried across the Channel." However contemptuously and ironically some (or many?) oversecure American National Indolencers may smile or laugh at,the ap-prehensions, exposed and explained, in the above three articles and in the other statements: no person free from prejudices and susceptible of truth will or can deny that they are but too well founded on realities, which only blind scepticism nlay-try to refute, although in vain, by false arguments. When NAPOLEON in 1812 went to Russia with an Army of 610,000 men,d 182,700 horses, and 1372 cannons, —leaving behind 600,000 National Guards in France, 160,000 men in Spain and 60,000 men in garrisons,-neither he or any one else would have believed, that, within only twenty-three months after his departure from Paris, the Russians and their allies should be there as conquerors. (May 9, 1812, -March 31, 1814.) As well as Great-Britain, the United States may be invaded by a French Army, who, attracted by the most favorable prospects of "' Booty and Beauty," may be in 1852 or'53 more fortunate than the British were in 1814 and'15, under Cockbiurn, Ross and Packenham, against whom the cotton-bales of New-Orleans were a better protection than all the aggregate volumes of 412,800,000 American newspapers, instead of 300 American war-vessels with 8000 guns, could be against Louis Napoleon and his fellows. The author takes this opportunity to state an interesting occurrence, which he positively knows, having been informed of the same, not only by the general newspaper-cries, but also by the very persons who caused it. In February, 1839, a French Steam-Frigate Le Veloce, of 12 guns, commanded by Captain Bechimel, made unexpectedly her appearance in the port of Baltimore. When coming opposite Fort McHenry, Captain B. sent a boat on shore to the fort, with the order to inquire whether a salute fired by the frigate would be duly returned by the fort; but, to the utter astonishment of the Frenchmen, they found only two men, of inferior rank, in the fort,- and without one charge of gun-powder on hand! Of course, the intended salute was not fired, as it could not be answered. " Monsieur le Captaine! Qu'est-ce que vous pensez de cette condition de notre citadelle?" (Captain! what do you think of this condition of our fort?) the author asked Captain Bechamel, who answered with a true French politeness: "Vous ktes bien heureux de ne pas avoir besoin de meilleures precautions." (You are very happy not to need any better precautions.) But the question is: may we not once need better means of natior al defence? We are ever boasting of our great wealth, while we rec( ive every day accounts of the greatest misery prevailing in Europe. According to a " Statement of the Debt of the United States, on the 30th November, 1850," (American Almanac, &c. for 1852, Pages 189 and 190,) it was then of only $64,228,238 37, which dan be paid with the proceeds from the sale of our public lands. Thus we are the very richest Nation in the World, having from a yearly average-reve 2T nte of $50,000,000 a surplus-balance of $6,600,000 remaining, (June 30, 1850,) but no maritime power! The following is a list of the debts of some of the principal European powers: England, $4000,000,000; France, $780,000,000; Russia, $8300,000,000. (Young America! New-York, October 7, 1848.) Suppose now, this powerful and debtful Trio, England, France and Russia, with 1,174 war-vessels and 30,370 guns, owing $5,080,000000, come to pay us a visit and request us to pay their debts! Of course, they would do so with gallantry, and fire " salutes" accordingly, without caring whether or not we answer them from our " forts," (which may be, like " Fort" McHenry in 1839, ungarrisoned and unpowdered,) whereupon the Trio say: " Brother Jonathan! You are a very rich fellow, according to your own official and newspaperboasts; we are very poor gentries, as we have $5,080,000,000 less than nothing at all; you have no maritime power, but we have plenty of it, as you see; you are a very good Christian and will always act as such, according to St. Matthew, Chapter V, 39 and 40, viz. not resist, &c., but give us what we will take if you don't give it, not your " coat" and your " cloak," but " Booty and Beauty," (you know what we mean?) to pay our debts and our trouble in coming so far to see and haye your great treasures. Now don't protest! Our "'UltimaRatio" Striking Arguments prove our Rights in what we do."T=&HERE 18 WISDOM!-g According to the "American Almanac," &c., for 1852, (Pages 187 and 188,) the Expenses of the United States for war-purposes were as follows: Under the Direction of the War-Department, (including part of the Department of the Interior, from March 4, 1849, to June 30, 1849.) Year ending Year ending June 30, 1849. June 30, 1850. Army proper,. $9,544,745,30 $6,277,786,18 Military Academy,.. 135,706,28 156,550,08 Fortifications and other works of defence, 607,487,10 660,324,40 Armories, arsenals, and munitions of war, 832,654,83 745,411,29 Harbors, roads, rivers, &c., 145,698,02 93,225,79 Surveys,... 41,771,82 37,255,78 Pensions, Indian Department, Claimsr&c., 2,332,444,61 Arming and equiping the militia,. 175,136,35 205,683,64 Payment to militia and volunteers,. 3,331,136,60 1,137,601,18 Relief of individuals, and miscellaneous, 144,155,77 87,400,82 Total, $17,290,936,68 $9,401,239,16 Under the Direction of the Navy-Department. Year ending Year ending June 30, 1849. June 30, 1850. Pay and subsistence, including medicines, &c,.... $3,45,892,43 $3,181,756,62 Increase, repairs, armament and equipment, 2,467,006,17 1,562,200,52 Contingent expenses,... 774,934,09 542,506,92 Navy-yards,... 1,441,262,29 1,209,184,69 Navy-hospitals, asylums, and magazines, 29,622,36 9,621,14 Relief of individuals, and miscellaneous, 1,070,844,86 120,281,62 Marine Corps,... 481,722,59 321,673,15 Pensions,..... 147,533,41 Dry docks,... 787,519,07 Steam-mail-service,... 188,569,45 Total, $9,869,818,20 $7,923,313,18 The Total Expenditures have been: for the year ending June 30, 1849, $57,631,667,82; for the year ending June 30, 1850,-$43,002,168,69. These figures give the following average annual expenses: For the War-Department, $8,346,087,92 For the Navy-Department,.... 8,896,565,69 Total for War-Purposes, $17,242,653,61 The total average annual expenses being $50,316,918,25, those for war-purposes form a little more than one-third of the whole, and that for maritime-war-purposes a little more than that for land-war purposes: so that the expenses for the Navy stand to the total expenses about as one to five and five-eighths, which is a striking disproportion, considering its great importance as the principal protection of the First Commercial Nation in the World. The necessity of a speedy increase of our Navy, particularly by warsteamers, having been clearly, positively, statistically, rationally, and unrefutably established, it remains to investigate how this can be done. Half measures will never wholly accomplish any purposes: a " fitted up" merchant-steamer will never be a match for a regular warsteamer. She may be good enough, perhaps, to defend herself against another likewise " fitted up," but not able to act offensively, which is very often necessary in warfare. A peaceable citizendoes not become a real soldier by putting on a soldier's coat and arms: he will only be a soldier in peace and a citizen in war; just so is a "fitted up" merchant-steamer only a kind of a war-steamer in peace, but remains a "fitted up" merchant-steamer in war. The very best clock, made for domestic use, can never be converted into a real chronometer for maritime purposes. Besides, no common steam'er is convertible into a war-steamer, but she must have a particular construction for that purpose. "All commercial steamers of any considerable size should be so constructed that they may at any time be converted into war-steamers," &c. —(i. & N. A.-P. 378.) Thus not every steamer is "convertible," as many people suppose, who will judge of things which they don't know. False economy is unjudicious, in private and in national concerns; but, while it is, or may be, excusable and of little consequence in private life, it is not so-in affairs of national importance, whera ill-timed and mis-placed economy, degenerated into national avarice, affects and exposes the happiness of many millions of individuals. And such national avarice ought not to mislead any government to rely merely on "fitted up" merchant-steamers, instead of regular war-steamers, for national defence. Let private people, merchants, do so for their vessels, thus increaring by an additional force that of the Navy as the principal national means of protection. It is a great national prejudice with us in America, to suppose "our" Navy, because it is " ours," to be superior to any in the world, while facts prove the contrary, viz. that it is inferior in every respect, excepting of course all personal reference. We are proud, for instance, particularly of our big "Pennsylvania," because she is indeed a beautiful ship. But as virtue, and neither size nor beauty, is the first female quality, so is usefulness the first naval quality: therefore, our big and beautiful "Pennsylvania" is worth less than a first rate Steam-Frigate. (See the following page, quotation 3.) 29 One of the principal disadvantages, prevailing in the United States" Navy, is that one-fifth, viz: eleven of the number of its sailing-vessels are ships-of-the-line, which carry 860 guns, —more than two-fifths of its whole number of (2029) guans. 1. " Let us turn our eyes to the history of the Old World, and see what have been the effects consequent upon a formidable Navy, made up principally of ships-of-the-line. That it was the principal cause of the loss of the Spanish Armada of 1588, few will deny. We are told that from the year 1756 to 1760, France had taken from England 2539 vessels; and during the same period England had captured from France 944 vessels; during this time she had 120 ships of the line, all of which were in active service; France had not a single ship of the line at sea; a more conclusive evidence could scarcely be adduced of the inefficiency of this class of vessels, inasmuch as it is notorious that English valor was above suspicion, when the terms were equal. Were it necessary, we might show the issues of the present century, with the history of which doubtless our readers are familiar, and need not be repeated. But -part from these, there are other reasons why the construction of ships of the line should be abandoned."-They are " the dullest sailers that navigate the ocean. We have it from no less authority than the officer who commanded one of the best, if not the very best ship of the line belonging to the Navy of the United States, that with a head wind and sea, she could not make more than six knots per hour, and she drifted to leeward more than any vessel he ever saw, and at the same time rolled less; this is not the result of observation of a single day, but of a whole cruize of two years or more."-" To make the ship of the line a fast sailer, would be an expensive undertaking, even if it could be accomplished without hazard."-(M. & N. A. P. 361.) 2.' While we readily admit that the Navy of the United States, as far as the models of her ships may stand connected with the operations of a Navy, is equal to any on the globe, we do not admit that in this matter we should remain in a state of eternal childhood. Inasmuch as American commercial enterprise surpasses that of all other nations, in like manner, the American Navy should be the most efficient on the globe, Unless there is a greater improvement in the sailing qualities of the ships of the United States Navy, than' there has been? commercial enterprise will not only raise the means for the support of commerce, but it will also build the ships that are to protect it."-(M. & N. A. Page 366.) 3. "In this age of fire, water and vapour power, it must be admitted that the War-Steamer is most reliable as an engine of war, or a messenger of peace. It must not, however, be supposed that power for weal or wo in a War-Steamer consists in the number of guns mounted in dread array. In the steamer, as in other vessels of war, a small number of large calibre, located in selected positions, will accomplish wonders. But the main object in their construction is not to muke mere floating batteries; this kind of vessel belonged to an obsolete age; a war-steamer is formidable in proportion to her speed and the weight of her shot; a single swivelgun, carrying a 10 or 12 inch shot, is more formidable than a broadside of 42-pounders; and a War-Steamer, carrying 12 eight or nine inch guns, and 2 twelve inch pivot-guns, would be of much greater service than the Pennsylvania, with her three gun-decks and spar-deck, provided she could use them all."-(M. & N. A. Page 377.) (I perfectly agree with Mr. Griffiths in these views, which I quote here in corroboration of mine. I have been often on board the "Pennsylvania," and published a description of her in Europe as well as here: consequently I must likewise know her naval qualities.-W. B.) 80 " PENNSYLVANIA.' - Length. Weight. Cwl. Lower-deck, 4- 8 inch shell-guns, 8 feet 10 inches, 63 cwt. 252 " 28-32 pounders, 9 " 2 " 61 " 1700 Middle-deck, 4- 8 inch shell-guns, 8 " 10 " 63 " 258 " 30-32 pounders, 9 " 2 " 61 " 1832 Upper-deck, 4- 8 inch shell-guns, 8 " 10 inches. 63 " 252 " 32-32 pounders, 8 " 4 " 51 " 1632 Spar-deck, 4- 8 inch shell-guns, 8 " 4 " 53 " 212 i 4-32 pounders, 8 " 4 " 51 " 204 " 10-32 " 6' " 7 " 32 " 320 Together, 120 Guns, with a Total Weight in tons, 333.2 = 6662 (0. & G. Pt I. Ap. Page 39.) ~ 4. "With regard to the relative excellence of the models of naval and commercial steamers, the latter very far surpasses the former in the United States. As we had occasion to remark in relation to commercial steamers, that to be profitable they must be fast, so we say of WarSteamers, to be serviceable, they should be fast. He who is behind in this age of the world, is ever chasing lost time, a part which the American character repudiates. We would not be misunderstood in this matter; we do not say, that commercial steamers are better vessels, but that they are better models for this great desideratum, viz: speed, and consequently are preferable forWar-Steamers. Instead of being behind, they should be even faster than those of merchant service. It is evident, that the two kinds of vessels require the same models, inasmuch as they both aim at the same important points, viz: stability, speed and easy draught of water. A steamer for commercial purposes must be able to go in and out at the ports for which she is destined; and a War-Steamer should be able to enter almost any port where fuel may be obtained. All commercial steamers of any considerable size should be so constructed that they may at any time be converted into War-Steamers; this could be accomplished, and the Government at all times would have a respectable force in steamers, that would be in advance of other nations; this could be accomplished without material cost of construction; -it would only be necessary for the Government to know the quality of the vessels built, in the same manner that the underwriters do, and this to the Government would be but furnishing employment for those already under pay, thus (we have assumed that naval officers would be selected for this mechanical operation, as has always been the case,) not only millions of dollars might be saved to the Government, but the mortifying reflection that her steamers were behind the age, notwithstanding they had cost more than enough to place them in advance -they were comparatively slow, though they had cost enough to render them efficient."-(M. & N. A. Pages 377, 378.) 5. "In defining the proper shape for war-vessels, we are well aware that we are navigating a dangerous coast: the dogmatical supremacy, assumed by this branch of the Government, woud lead the casual observer to believe that here was the consummation of the perfect qualities to be found, and nowhere else: but a careful and close observation has taught commercial men, that this (once the right) arm of our National Power is diseased, and that unless a cure is speedily effected, amputation must inevitably be rendered necessary. England has learned this Truth: that her Navy, itself considered, could not keep pace with her maritime interests; hence she found it necessary to foster such a direction of individual enterprise as could'be made available for national purposes; how far a similar course may be made available for the better security of National Honor on the part of the United States, it is not our purpose to examine, or our province to discuss. We say this, that a few War-Steamers, capable of carrying a 31 battery as has been designated in this chapter," —viz. 14 guns,-" and provision and water for one month, and capable of being driven 15 miles per hour, (which should be considered a moderate speed for a war-steamer,) would be more formidable and efficient than all the registered Navy of the United States."-" A steamer, that shall be adapted to al the purposes of war, cannot be built of a smaller tonnage than 2500. War-steamers need not draw a heavy draught because they are large: 16 feet is a sufficient draught for a steamer of 3000 tons." (M. & N. A. Page 380.) 6. " With regard to the application of power for propelling war-steamers, the side-paddle-wheel is objectionable, on account of its exposure to shot and the inequality of the dip on the two sides; the smallest roll affects a material change in the dip of the bucket; even if the vessel should not roll, but remain perfectly stable, this change would take place, and cause a loss of power; with the side-wheel a larger amount of dip is necessary, in order to secure a continued unvarying resistance from the wheel. The propeller in some respects might be considered preferable for war-steamers, but the seeming advantage arriving from its security against shot by its peculiar location is counteracted by to difficulty in making repairs;" &c.-" We are persuaded, however, that there is a wide field for improvement in the propulsion of steam-ships." (M. &. N. A. Pages 381, 382.) " Hunter's Wheel"-which "consists of aplain drum, 10~ feet in diameter by 42 inches in depth," and "is revolved horizontally,"-" hasnever been adopted in any other vessels than those of the United States Government. The first vessel, to which it was applied, was the war-steamer " Union," of about 1000 tons burthen.'This vessel cost $114,000, and had a mean seagoing speed of 4~ knots per hour. She was a complete failure; and after performing a little steaming on our own coast, was finally condemned, and sent to Philadelphia as a receiving vessel. Soon after the completion of the " Union," the Treasury-Deparment decided on steam-cutters, and applied Hunter's wheel to the " McLane," "Dallas," " Spencer," and " Bibb," vessels of 147 feet deck, 23 feet beam, 14 feet hold, and 9 feet draft; the average-cost being about $90,000 each. All those vessels were complete failures, and Hunter's Wheel was:as soon re- placed by screw-propellers or common paddle-wheels. Notwithstanding, however, the number of experiments which had thus been already made, and the uniformity and totalness of their failure,-notwithstanding the deductions of science and the results of practice,-the Navy-Department decided upon the construction of another war-steamer to be propelled by.Hunter's Wheel. The new vessel was the " Alleghany." She was of iron, and has made her first, and probably last cruise."-" A board, composed of two Chief Engineers of the Navy, the Engineer of the Washington-Navy-Yard, the Chief Naval Constructor, and a Commander in the Navy, recently examined and reported upon the vessel by order of the Secretary bf the Navy. Their report was the total condemnation of Hunter's Wheel, and a recommendation to substitute for it the common paddle-wheel."-" The following are the dimensions of the "Alleghany." Length on deck, 185 feet. Beam on deck, 33* feet,-at wheels, 25 feet. Depth of hold, 19 feet. Mean draught of water, 12 feet. Immersed amidship-area, 262 square-feet. Displacement, 1,020 tons. -The mean speed of the "Alleghany," during her cruise from Norfolk to the Mediterranean and back, as taken from her log, was, for 87'hours' steaming in calms and a smooth sea,-being the total amount of steaming done in calms-5.97 knots per hour. The knot being taken in the British and American Navies at 6,082 -feet, this speed of the " Alleghany" would become 6,878 statute-miles per hour. Mean revolutions of the wheels per minute, 30. Mean effective pressure in the steam-cylinder 14 pounds per square-inch. The engines were condensing, direct acting, and consisted of two steasn-cy]inders, 60 inches in diameter and four feet stroke, and developed 574.76 actual horses' power."-" Hmnter's Wheel combines in itself all the peculiar disadvantages of the paddle-wheel and 32 screw, viz. the loss by oblique action of the common paddle-wheel, and the screw's loss by the friction of the screw-surface on the water, together with the loss by slip,; —common to both, but excessively exaggerated in Hunter's Wheel. In addition to these, it has its peculiar disadvantage of location. Being submerged, it cannot be repaired without docking the ship,-an inconvenience in common with the screw; hut with Hunter's Wheel, not only must the ship be docked, but a water-tight iron case broken open, and all the intermediate parts of the machinery disconnected, before repairs or even an examination can be made. Of course, after the work is done, the broken part of the case must be re-made and the connections re-formed. In compensation for all these enormous losses and inconveniences, there is absolutely nothing, except that the apparatus is submerged, and consequently protected from shot,-an advantage enjoyed in common with an infinity of plans for submerged propulsion, none of which, it may be safely affirmed, are inferior to this, economically or potentially. In conclusion, it is not unworthy of remark, that the cruizing recorded in the log, from which the vessel's speed and engine-power have been taken, was performed under the command-of Lieut. Hunter, U. S. N., the Patentee." "B. F. ISHERWOOD, Chief Engr. U. S. N." " Baltimore, December, 1850." (Appleton's Mechanics' Magazine and Engineers' Journal, Jane 1851, New-York and Philadelphia. Pages 40, 41, 42, 46.) The above statement proves, that our Government cannot be accused of not having tried, at least, although very expensively and very unsuccessfully, to promote the improvement in steam-propellers. Taking the average-costs for the " McLane," "' Dallas," " Spencer," "Bibb," and "Alleghany," at $90,000 each, and adding the $118,000 spent for the "Union," the whole costs for this six-fold unsuccessful trial amount to $568,000! an experiment rather dearly paid for by our patriotic and. paternal Government, whose favor has thus been greatly misplaced or abused. They cannot, therefore, be blamed, if they will require safe -securities in similar eventual cases, for the fulfilment of any promises of every inventor concerning such improvements; but, on the other hand, no inventor can be blamed either, if he will require from the Government the same securities, for paying to him the value of his invention or inventions. The author of this pamphlet and inventor of " The Breech-Loading Steady-Ship-Gun" and of " The Improved War-Steamer with Submerged Propellers," named in the title of this pamphlet, is in such a case with the American Government. He will not claim anything if he does not fulfil what he promises; but, if his inventions shall be proved worth the sum of $568,000, spent in vain for the Hunter's Wheel-Experiments, he will claim the value of his inventions. Every honest person must acknowledge such a bargain to be a fair one. The humble author and modest inventor, William Beschke, begs leave to declare this frankly and openly, with his firm resolution,-if God grant life and health, and the United States' Government justice to him,-that he will not, if he can help it, have studied and labored, suffered for and succeeded in his inventions, once to die in penury and debts, like the noble and unfortunate Robert Fulton, who did and died so for his ungrateful country,-some $100,000 poorer than a debtless beggar! Here is truth! If my Worthy Fellow-Citizens, or their Honorable Legislative and Executive Representatives at Washington, will not pay me the value of my inventions: they shall not have them! But, as a good American Citizen, as a True Republican, I will and I do offer to our Govern 33 ment the first chance of securing my inventions for our noble and beloved Country. I must take such a stand, I must require such a security, in order to perform the duty of self-protection. I doubt not in the least the integrity of our Government. I do not fear to be cheated, or spoliated,of the due reward of my labors, of the sacrifices and sufferings, which I have undergone for the sake of my inventions: far be from me such a suspicion! It would be base to suppose our Government to be base; but I fear to be neglected as an obscure individual, and kept in long suspense. A Nation that allowed Robert Fulton to live in poverty and to die with $100,000 debts; a Government that neglected to provide Fort McHenry with a little garrison and a charge of gunpowder; a Nation and a Government not caring hitherto for an efficient Navy, when all Europe are in warlike array: such a Nation and Government may or perhaps will also neglect and not care for an efficient ship-gun and an improved war-steamer, or for me, William Beschke, who have invented them, if I neglect to take care of myself and my inventions. But I will not neglect us. These eventualities compel me to declare, for my own eventual justification, that in such case I will apply to other Governments, and I do herewith protest, in advance, against any responsibility for any consequences, having thus performed voluntarily what I deem to be my duty as an American Citizen. (I take this opportunity gladly to mention, with respect and gratitude, that my former employer and old friend, Mr. E. N. Scherr, of Philadelphia, has generously and liberally assisted me, and still does so, for executing some valuable additions to my gun, and for modelling the propeller and machinery of my war-steamer. While thus engaged I was and I am still provided by him with what I want to live and to work. In modelling my gun, at New-York, I have been obliged to suffer humiliation and starvation: God knows it! I have been deceived and spoliated of the fruits of my labors, though not entirely because my resolution and energy preventedothat, but at least partly by more than one year's delay of my due reward for the same.) Unfbrtunately, Patents when secured only in the United States, without being simultaneously secured in Europe likewise, are of little or no avail and value, particularly for such inventions of general and national importance. The following statements prove this. (Copied from the "Journal of the Franklin-Institute," &c.) "In England, patents are granted for what is new there, without regard to who was the inventor of it, if invented in a foreign country, the term new applying to its novelty in the realm. Whoever, therefore, first takes a new invention to that country, can obtain a patent, and defend his right. It consequently becomes a point of great importance, that those inventions, which are deemed worth the expense of an English patent, should not be divulged here before steps are taken to secure the right on the other side of the Atlantic "-"There are many persons who make it their special business to visit the United States' Patent Office, that they may be able to turn the inventions of others to their own advantage, either at home or abroad; at home, by making some unimportant change in the form of machines that they see there, and then diffusing them in some part of the Union, remote from the residence of the original inventor; abroad, by sending to England and France accounts of such inventaons, as they believe will sell in those countries." 2* 34 ("Extract from a Letter: London," &c.) "It may be of use to apprize inventors of mechanical improvements in the United States, that it is essential to the security of their interests, if they design to take out patents for their inventions in this country, not to disclose the secret of their inventions in the United States, until they have secured a patent here. There are many ingenious mechanics in the United States in correspondence with their friends in this country, constantly on the watch to seize anything new, and likely to be useful, to transnpit the particulars to their friends, and thus forestall the rights and interests of the original inventor." "As a commentary upon the foregoing extract, the following fact may be stated. An American had obtained a patent in the United States, and had assigned the right thereto, in England, to& fellow-citizen, for twenty thousand dollars; the assignee, however, arrived there too late, as some one had obtained the description from the office here, (U. S.) had transmitted it, and obtained a patent.""Another extract from a letter,"-"dated London," &c.-"not only confirms, but gives additional importance to the observations made in the above."-" By the way, a man has recently arrived from New-York, named S —, loaded with patents, none of which are his own; amongst them he has got J. R's, with the specifications and drawings. R- knows him, and S- was much surprized to find R- here, and still more that his patent was secured." " This is another practical evidence of the importance of the caution which I lately sent to you, and which I hope you have had published. The moment a patent worth anything is taken out at Washington, one of these-kidnappers secures the child as his own, and goes away with it to a foreign market. A patent was recently named to an English tradesman, who directly asked, if it was not an American invention; on being answered in the affirmative, he rejoined: "you are too late; my brother saw it in New-York, and when he came home had one made." The plain result of all this is, that when anything is-invented in America, which is deemed worthy of being patented in England, it ought to be secured, but not published in America, until time has been given to secure it in England. You may be assured that there are regular traders, or rather plunderers of patents, persons who make this a business and do nothing else." -"In the United States the specification must be furnished before the patent can be issued, and the very day that a patentee receives it, one may obtain a copy of it."-" The only safe procedure, therefore, when an inventor wishes to secure a patent in England, is to send over prior to, or simultaneously with, his application here (in England), furnishing to a proper agent a copy of his specification and drawings, and the necessary funds, otherwise he is likely to be superseded, in which \case he has no remedy."-" An English patent costs about six hundred dollars, for that kingdom alone, and if extended to Scotland and Ireland, about three times that amount." For these imperious reasons, having not the means to pay for American and European patents, I.will offer to the United States' Government my inventions unpatented, trusting in their patriotic wisdom and integrity, as well as I can do, without neglecting my duty of self-protection. Two years ago, the Hon. lthos. Ewxbank, our highly accomplished and efficient Commissioner of Patents, wrote in his " Report," &c., for 1849, (Washington, 1850, Page 524,) as follows: "INCREASING THE SPEED OF OCEAN-STEAMERS." "I propose that a premium of $20,000 be offered for improvements by which a vessel shall make three consecutive trips across the Atlantic, at an average speed of twenty miles an hour; and another of $20,000 for those by which twenty-five miles shall be done. Such premiums will tend to put the enterprise and ingenuity of our citizens still more on the stretch, and urge them to shoot ahead of the present craft, either by decided improvements in propelling apparatus, or by the introduction of new principles of propulsion." — " The expression concerning the above sums is rather obscure. Shall the second $20,000 be added to the first $20,000? and thus make $40,000 for twenty-five miles speed per hour; or shall the premium of $20,000 be either for twenty or for twenty-five miles? I should be very glad, if such premiums were offered, but I would rather suggest proportional ones: $20,000 for twenty miles, and then $1000 for every additional mile, up to thirty or more miles, as I calculate to do at least thirty miles per hour, but I expect to do even mnore, with my "Improved War-Steamer." After having modelled my " Submerged Propeller," about the end of last year,'at Mr. Scherr's Factory-in Philadelphia, I for the first time read the Hon. Ti0os. Ewbank's well written dissertation "On the Propulsion of Steamers." (Report of the Commissioner of Patents for 1849. Washington. 1850. Pages 595-626.) I am at a loss, whether I shall compare him to the great French Universal-Genius Voltaire, or to Jean Paul (F. Richter), the greatest Polymathic of the German Classics; or to Walter Scott, as Napoleon's Biographer; or to Charles Pickens, as the Author of "American Notes." But in order to show my heartfelt respect for Mr. Ewbank's ingenuity, I compare him to the immortal Genius, of whom Pope wrote: Nature and all her Works lay hid in Night; God said: Let Newton be! —and All was Light. Newton, who defined-and developed the Law of Gravitation, knew that a stone, free from obstruction, falls perpendicularly toward the surface of the Earth; but why it does so, how it is done, he did not know; nor will any man ever be able to conceive what the Almighty Creator has held out of reach for human conception. Mr. Ewbank is in a similar position, as Newton was; but still there is a material difference between them. Mr. Ewbank made a negative discovery, viz. that the wheel-paddles hitherto used as propellers are not what they purport to be; but Newton's definitions were positive,those of a Law of Nature-the Law of Gravitation, according to which so many things have been and will yet be explained, that otherwise were incomprehensible. Newton did not venture to explain how that law works, why an unobstructed body- is attracted by the Earth: he contented himself to know that it is done so according to the law. Mr. Ewbank's merit, in making nautical experiments, or causing them to be made, on the Harlem-River, New-York, in 1848, is obvious, inasmuch as they prove that he intends or wishes to promote improvements in steam-navigation; but they were nought, because made on principles and with instruments, which are nought also, viz. not fit for improvements. Mr. Ewbank would have done better to think, 36 because he is a thinker, a deep and sharp one; instead of making experiments with instruments constructed on wrong principles. When I had, about two years ago, resolved upon the plan to invent an improved ship-gun, I first began to study the defects of a common one, and not to make experiments with an old blunderbuss, to do which would have been a great blunder indeed. I kept on thinking how to avoid the defects, how to overcome the difficulties, connected particularly with ship-ordnance and ship-gunnery. When I had done thinking, I knew-positively knew —what must be done in order to have success; otherwise I would not have- undertaken to moder'my invention, my "Breech-Loading Steady Ship-Gun," for the sake of which I have suffered so much hardship and wrong. My first experiment was to fire my model-gun off, with a full charge of powder, positively knowing that its movable breech must resist the recoil, as a model, (i-pounder,) or as a large 84-pounder, constructed on the same principles and with correct proportions. I have altered nothing at all in the principles on which I have made my gun; the only and very trifling alteration was to make a forged iron breech, instead of gun-metal, that I had chosen to leSVen my expenses and labor, but which was too weak for standing the recoil. And likewise logically I have acted concerning my invention of an " Improved War-Steamer with Submerged Propellers." I positively know that I am -right in either case. Tallyrand said: I believe only what I know. Mr. Ewbank has been, by his false experiments, mislead to false conclusions, as I will prove. It is only to be regretted, thatxhe has not devoted his fertile ingenuity to a better fruit in the great field of mechanism, than to the " steamer whose instruments of progression are"-according to his own words -" defective in figure, out of place, or disproportionate."-" Some boats have wheel-houses wide as their decks, so as to make it doubtful in the eyes of strangers to such craft, whether the hulls are accessories to them, or they to the hulls. Who, on beholding a steamer approach, her sharp bows protruding between two enormous drums, is not reminded of a panting animal borne down between two burthens?" -" These steamers are allied to awkward and slow-moving organism." (P. 695; 624.) I perfectly agree with him in this. When I see those " enormous drums," I don't know whether I shall cry at so much useless waste of steam-labor, Nature's powerful and precious gift; or laugh at the hitherto prevailing stupidity of the oretical and practical indolencers; or. whether I shall get angry for either. When I-hear the voice of steam roaring above the water, it seems to me the roar of anger at such human folly. I say,-and I wish to be heard by all who are interested in steamnavigation: Away with all Paddle-Wheels!-Away with all WheelPaddles!But as the Hon. Thos. Ewbank is so much in love with them, that he thinks them worthy of such experiments and of his valuable patronage, so much as to bestow on them (!) his amiable ingenuity in a well written dissertation, recommending to give them (!) shapes borrowed from great Nature's beautiful and wonderful works,-just as if one would suggest to imitate in carricatures the features of human beauty, God's image!-neither my modesty, nor my respect for Mr. Ewbank, can prevent me from trying, at least, to refute 87 his erroneous arguments and false conclusions founded thereon. I must do so because he is an authority that may otherwise counter-act the adoption of my " Submerged Propellers," which are just what he contends "legitimate propellers" should not be: parallelograms or squares. I beg leave of quoting some of'Mr. Ewbank's wrong propositions? to refute them. (Page 575:) "It is with artificial as with natural motive-mechanism: an intimate relationship exists between the members." It is not so: in artificial mechanism the principal lines are straight, or circular, at least regular, and the figures they form are squares, parallelograms, triangles, circles, &c.-all regular ones; while the lines in natural mechanism,or animal organism, at least those proposed in the dissertation, are never straight, do never form right angles, or parallelograms, or squares, or triangles, or circles, or any other regular figures. Thus a material difference exists between artificial mechanism and natural mechanism, or animal organism. (Page 610:) "The principles by which steamers are to be impelled over ocean1'swith rapidity and economy of power are as definite as any that give effect to a lever or screw, and as fixed and unalterable as those of nature herself. "-Certainly! But they are not those animal natural ones recommended by Mr. Ewbank: in the &cnstruction of machines, in artificial mechanism, scientific principles prevail, which are of course definite.-" To discover them is the business, the chief business, of the philosophical engineer, and not till this is done can his achievements be free from the taint of imperfection and corresponding failure." —Youhave easy talk, dear Sir' You made experiments under U. S.' pay; but a "philosophical engineer," who must work for his daily bread, cannot experiment without great sacrifices, which require-a good deal of energy, self-denial and certainty of knowledge that few possess. Besides, a poor man is not only humiliated, but, frequently cheated, spoliated of the fruits of his labors, of the reward for his endurance and sufferings. I speak from my own experience,; but I have prevented and will prevent any further humiliations and spoliations, because I have knowledge, energy and resolution enough to do so, thanks be to God!-" It is discreditable that the true outlines of propelling blades have not been determined, and the rather since it is a proof that the full bearing of the question involved has to be felt, that the potential influence of form and proportion in propellers, as well as in the hulls of steamers, has yet to be- investigated." — Yes! It is discreditable, indeed; but for whQm? for the poor workman? who has no time to spare for speculative investigations. No! It is discreditable for Those who would rather- throw away $568,000 for the six'equally unsuccessful " Hunter's Wheel" Experiments, than to execute your nobly conceived proposition, to offer a premium of a comparatively very small sum, (which would have been to that wasted money as I to 282,) for the invention of steam-boat-propellers, superior to any paddle wheels or any of the submerged screw-propellers hitherto used. Concerning the last part of the above reproach, relative to propellers, I declare: I could have given a correct answer to that, when I was a mere boy studying the first elements of Geometry v8 and Architeeture. It is that form, either parallelogram or square, which can be in the simplest way divided into rectangular parts, and presents the largest area of resistance or pressure against the water as a fulcrum. (But, Mr. Ewbank! this you will not believe, until you can see and feel, like the unbeliever Thomas?) (Page 622:) " Admitting a very wide distinction between a natural and an artificial organ, still, were a parallelogram or a square a legitimate propeller in the highest or lowest scientific sense of the term, its absurdity, when applied as represented in the plate," (boards instead of wings, feet and lobe-tails!) " could not be so apparent, so repugnant to reason and to ordinary comprehensions." Of course it would be absurd, if birds and flies had boards instead of wings, if a frog or water-fowl had boards instead of paddle-feet, if fishes had boards instead of lobes and fins. But it would also be absurd, if horses had wheels instead of legs: must we for that reason give our locomotives legs instead of wheels? or, do horses with legs run faster than locomotives with wheels?-" Legitimate propellers" can only be those which propel efficiently; those, which propel most efficiently, are the most " legitimate" ones. However, there is no " legitimacy" or aristocracy in mechanism. "The laws of propulsion are founded in nature; nothing can change them,-nor will they yield a jot or a tittle to our pre-conceived views and opinions." Of course. However that is not the question: not those laws are to be changed, but such " pre-conceived views and opinions," —they must yield to those laws according to which "laws of-artificial and not animal-propulsion" the forms of animal propellers are not at all applicable to artificial and the only ones, which can be used in steamnavigation. The laws of artificial propulsion, of machinery, are also founded in Nature: the straight line, rectangular forms, parallelograms, squares, triangles, all rectilinear forms in crystals, &c. are natural productions; the level and the perpendicular line are rectangular to each other, in consequence of the natural law of gravitation. The rectangular forms produced by the Polarization of Light are natural ones. The eyes of flies &c. are cellular, equally and regularly divided. Nay! there are living animals, infusoria, ~ith rectilinear and rectangular forms, moving about with comparatively great velocity, as I have seen with my own eyes through a microscope, some years ago, at Berlin, Prussia. These natural facts discorroborate Mr. Ewbank's conclusion in favor of a general rule of irregular forms in Nature, because (Page 625:) "we see that those creatures possessing~the powers of locomotion in the greatest perfection are furnished, not with remarkably large propellers, but with long, narrow and pointed ones, in no case bounded by straight lines. There is a meaning, a deep meaning, too, which engineers have not yet perceived in this absence of rectangular and right-lined boundaries, this lengthening, forking and pointing, this uniform effort at angularity." (?)i' If it be conceded that Nature is an exponent of the Divine Inventor's ideas," (query: is God an Inventor?!-I say: God is The Creator!) "' and consequently of the truest philosophy of mechanics," (? certainly not in this manner,) —" that as an economist of power and material she cannot be excelled;" (oh! she need not be as economical as we must be; e. g. she need not buy coals, wood and iron, but we must buy them;)" and in the forms, adaptations and results of her machines, she is absolutely perfect; does it not become us to consult her on a subject which she has so profusely illustrated?" —" She has nowhere adopted the figure of our steamers' buckets," (nor that of my Submerged Propellers,)-" nor any thing like them, in the multiplicity of her submerged propellers, nor in her surface-paddles, nor in the motive implements of amphibia, nor in the countless swarms of minute aqueous beings."-" In the wings of birds, bats, insects, and every aerial soarer, from the condor to the mosquito, as also in the feet of water-fowl, from the largest to the smallest, the quickest to the slowest, she tenaciously holds on to angular forms and pointed extremities; thus elucidating and enforcing her views of the doctrines of propulsion, as relates to both air and water, by arguments enchanting and conclusive." Poetry is no Logic. All this sounds very poetical, but it is not logical. Is it because Nature uses neither wheels nor cylinders, neither steam nor gun-powder, for propelling her living and natural machines, that we must also propel our artificial ones without wheels? use no cylinders and no steam for that purpose? make no gun-powder to blast rocks and to throw shots? Every machinist, every " philosophical" or not philosophical " engineer," who is not secure and-firm in his knowledge and ideas, must be confused with such propositions. arguments and conclusions, as those made and published by Mr. Ewbank. I know that I shall prove by my model-propeller his great error concerning artificial propulsion. I have seen at the last Exhibition of the Franklin-Institute, Philadelphia, the model of a steamboat, to be propelled by a contrivance made on the principle illustrated by Mr. Ewbank's wood-cut, (Page 613,) showing a fish, fast swimmer, with " caudate lobes," of which he says: " This is the way nature makes her fast swimmers, and it is the one by which we should construct ours." That model is a very ingenious contrivance, very well and nicely executed, and the skilful workman deserves great credit for his workmanship; but his labor is lost, entirely- thrown away, because that principle will never perform a fast propulsion of a steamer, as I would have fore-told, if I had been consulted. In less than five minutes I discovered the modeller's mistake, without hearing any explanation of the subject. I am almost certain, that the modeller (whom I don't know) would execute in his model Mr. Ewbank's fish-tail-principle, which I declare to be entirely unpracticable for the purpose. We would never advance in steam-navigation, by following Mr. Ewbank's propositions: (page 624:) "Adopt the principles here presented, i. e. throw away the planks,"-" cut off nine-tenths of the portion of the shaft extending over the sides, leave nothing on each end but one set of arms, which lengthen and fashion after the caudate lobes of the dolphin or' sword-fish, or the wings of the swallow or frigate-bird;-and our steamers, no longer allied to awkward and slow-moving organism, will resemble, in velocity and flight, those from whom the figure and proportions of their motive organs are borrowed." I say: They must remain what they are, imperfect, if they are shaped after the moving organs of these or any other animals; because those of the turtle are as recommendable as those of birds, or flies, or fishes, viz. not at all. vIf nature ever took extra pains to teach engineers a lesson, she has done it here."-Nought! "Nature never meant it!" (says Shakespeare somewhere.) —" Nature and Philosophy are never at variance."-(P. 624.) That is only true with true Philosophy. But often philosophers are at variance with Nature and Philosophy, particularly those who act like physicians, that will not allow their patients to get better, or to get worse, or to die, according to their own natural systems,' but will have them to do so according to their (the physicians') scientific systems: these must be maintained at all events, whether the patients live or die! With Mr. Ewbank, however, t.he case is reversed. He claims from the engineer an obedience to Nature, which she never claimed and never can be granted to her at the expense of a Science, that is governed by scientific rules. Thus he further says: (Page 625:) " Admitting, to the fullest extent, that artificial organs can seldom follow literally the contours of natural ones, still, is it not remarkable that in the infinity of her modifications of propelling blades, she has rejected every thing like a parallelogram or a square?" Not in the least: not more than that she has also rejected axletrees and wheels, as running-instruments, and steam as propellingpower for animals. We find nowhere in Nature's infinity any thing similar to the wheels of a locomotive: must we for that reason reject them? and shape this contrivance and these parts of it after the body and the legs of the fast running deer or horse? No! The locomotive is neither a steam-deer, nor a steam-horse: it is a steamengine. And a steamer is neither a steam-fly, nor a steam-bat, nor a steam-bird, nor a steam-goose, nor a steam-frog, nor a steam-fish: it is a steam-ship. As such, as an artificial swimmer, she must have artificial propellers made on scientific principles. I feel quite satisfied that I have been able to invent and to model my " Submerged Propeller" independently from such " pre-conceived views and opinions," as those of the Hon. Thos. Ewbank; but even his skill in writing and his agreeable poetical style could not have induced or seduced me, to act with my invention according to his ideas. He concludes his dissertation with the following fine sentences: (Page 626:) "It is the perfection of invention thus to imitate Nature,the maturity of science and art to tread in her steps. There is matter of the highest interest and deepest curiosity in this subject of natural propellers. To any single division folios might be dedicated; every step Itaken in the iuvestigation being attended with the revelation of new truths in mechanical science." "Respectfully submitted:" "Washington, January 16, 1850." " THOS. EWBANK." With this last beautiful sentence I perfectly agree, and I deem it my duty to declare: tlmt, if I should have in the least, unintentionally, displeased Mr. Ewbank, I herewith most heartily apologize to him, with the wish and hope, that he will as a righteous philosopher honor me with his valuable friendship, after seeing my inventions. In order to have some high standard of speed for comparison between my "Submerged Propellers" and those of other steamers hitherto used, the following statements of two first rate steamers will here be well placed. The English Steamer " Great-Britain" mate 16 Z miles per hour, and the American Steamer " Georgia" made 16~ miles per hour: thus both are nearly equal in their performances. 41 DIMENSIONS OF THE SCREW-PROPELLING-STEAMER " GREAT-BRITAIN." (Launched 1844.) Tonnage, 3443 tons. Length of Keel, 289 feet; all over, 320. Depth, 323 feet Mean Draught, 16 feet. Extreme Breadth, 51 feet Four Engines, each of 30)0 horses' power. Diameter of Cylinders, 88 incl'es. Strokes, 181 perminute. Length of Stroke, 6 feet. Weight of Iron Hull, 1040 tons. (D. M. M. E.-Vol. I. Pages 594, 595. 601.) Performance of the " Great-Britain." She made nineteen miles, from the IHolms to Kingroad, in one hour and nine minutes, being head to wind. Per minute, ten revolutions of the screw made 6- knots; 13 and nearly 14 revolutions, 9 knots;,15 revolutions, 91 knots; 15J revolutions, 91 knots; 162 revo utions, 114 knots. (Mechanics' Magazine. London, Jan. 18, 1845. Page 46.) PADDLE-WHEEL-STEAMER "GEORGIA." (Finished 1850.) The Steamship " Georgia," doubtless the widest ship of her class (except the iron ship "Great-Britain") in the world, is one of the most easy vessels in her motions that floats; notwithstanding that public opinion had marked her as an unmanageable ship, on account of her being three feut wider'than another ship of the same line, the Ohio, and wider than either of Collins' line of steamers, which are much larger than the Georgia. The Cunard steamers are also much narrower, although longer and deeper. The America and Europa have but thirty-eight feet of moulded beam, and the Canada thirty-nine and a half feet, while the complexion of the practical stability of those ships is so well known, that we need not enlarge upon their performing qualities. In this particular it may suffice to add, that the Georgia, with ten feet more beam, has more practical stability than any European steamer that has ever entered American ports."-" She has run one thousand miles within sixty consecutive hours, which is equal to four hundred miles per day."-" Her mean loading-line draught of water, is 16 feet, which is about all that can be made available in running (from New-York) to New-Orleans, to which route she is re markably well adapted; and notwithstanding her light draught of water compared with her tonnage, which is equal to that of the largest that has been built in this country, we have the highest rate of speed that has been attained by steam-ships, with only about four-fifths of the power of those crossing the Atlantic."-" The area of her greatest immersed transverse section equals 677 square-feet; her launching-draught was 7 feet 9 inches; her constructed load-line of flotation furnished a draught of 15 feet 6 inches (which contemplates her without freight) water, below which her displacement is 2700 tons 592 pounds."-(M. & N. A. Pages 106; 346, 347.) With my " Submerged Propellers," I will undertake not only to outrun any other, either war-steamer or merchanlt-steamer, but to do so at the rate of twenty-five miles at least, but most probably at thirty or more miles, per hour. The propulsion is performed with the least possible friction and with the least possible loss of labor, (generally, but incorrectly called "power," which is not "lost,") so that proportionally the smallest quantity of fuel is consumed. For any warsteamer, or ocean-steamer, two engines are required as a matter of course; but they are not strictly necessary on account of my particular moving-principle. No change in the performance of the propellers takes place by the rolling of the ship, as they are constantly and equally under water, like screw-propellers, with which however they have not the least resemblance in shape. My impression, as far 42 as it can be without making practical experiments on a large scale, is that the velocity produced with my propellers will be limited only in proportion of the strength of the material, cast and forged iron, of which they are made; but this velocity is, twofold, propelling forward, and propelling around, turning the ship about herself, dancing as it were on her own pivot, with such a velocity a~ the centrifugal force acting upon the objects on board will allow. Suppose a ship of the length of the "Great-Britain," 320 feet, to turn around herself in one minute, (34 X 320=1005f,) her two extremities would run about at the rate of more than sixteen feet in one second,-a turning-velocity never required for any practical purpose. It might be somewhat advantageously used, in a battle, to fire " broadsides" in quick succession with the clumsy and awkward common ship-guns hitherto used, but not with my " Steady" ShipGun on board of my " Improved" War-Steamer, where every gun may be fired at any moment after loading, which is done in less than half the time and with half the number of men required for loading a common ship-gun. I must mention here, that neither my propelling nor my turningcontrivance has the least resemblance with what has been hitherto invented for such purposes, as far as I have been able to know by reading and seeing, or by verbal inquiry. I have seen at the Patent-Office, in Washington, the model of an invention for maritime and naval purposes, that of Prof. John C. S. Salomon, an " Improved Propelling and Steering Apparatus," (pub-' lished in the Washington " Daily American Telegraph," January 8, 1852, and in other papers,) and found it quite different from mine, which is constructed on other principles. Having now herein said of my " Submerged Propellers" as much as I could say, without exposing my invention to eventual encroachments of speculating " kidnappers" and "plunderers," I will now pass over to a concise description of the performances of my " Steady Ship-gun," in connection with my " Improved War-Steamer." For that purpose I must give a number of quotations, principally from an excellent work on Ordnance and Gunnery, a good authority, as which it has been publicly acknowledged. The "Mechanics' Magazine," London, November 29, 1846, (Page 369,) had the following editorial recommendation of "An Elementary Course of Instruction on Ordnance and Gunnery, prepared for the Use of Midshipmen at the Naval School, Philadelphia," &c.-By James HI. Ward, Lieutenant U. S. N. New Edition, with an Appendix to Parts I. and II., Philadelphia: Carey & Hart, 1846. "It is a very clever and useful production, and superior to anything of the sort we have seen in this country" (England). By these quotations I will show the inefficiencies of the present system of Naval Ordnance and Gunnery, on board the hitherto and presently used war-ships, and then develop the advantages resulting from my gun on board of my war-steamer. In order to be understood not only by Naval Officers, but also by other persons of knowledge interested in these matters, I must make such quotations, which are otherwise unnecessary. 43 (J. R. McCulluch's Dictionary, Practical, Theoretical, and Historical, of Commerce and Commercial Navigation. Edited by Henry FVethake, Philadelphia: Thomas Wardle, 1845, Vol. I. Pages 721, 722.) " Gunpowder."-" The discoverer of this compound, and the person who first thought of applying it, to the purposes of war, are unknown. It is certain, however, that it was used in the fourteenth century.. From certain archives quoted by Wiegleb, it appears that cannons were employed in Germany before the year 1372. No traces of it can be found in any European author previously to the thirteenth century; but it seems to have been known to the Chinese long before that period. There is reason to believe that cannons were used in the battle of Cressy, in 1346. They seem even to have been used three years earlier, at the siege of Algesiras; but tefore this time they must have been known in Germany, as there is a piece of ordnance at Amberg, on which is inscribed the year 1303. Roger Bacon, who died in 1292, knew the properties of gunpowder, but it does not follow that he was acquainted with its application to fire-arms." -"Dr. Thomson's Chemistry.' (0. & G. Pt. I. Pages 1-10.)''ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY." "Under the head of Ordnance is classed all that relates to the construction, equipment and preservation of guns; and the fabrication and care of shot and ammunition. Under the head of Gunnery is classed the drill of the personal attached to a gun, and its skilful and most effective use in all military service, where it can possibly be required.-In preparing a ship and disciplining her crew for service, the fitness of her battery, skilfulness of the cre/v in its use, and the preservation of her military stores, should be regarded as among the objects of paramount importance; for, she may, in other respects be well provided, be clean and neatly rigged, and have an active crew; but, if her battery is imperfect in its construction, condition,-or appointment; or, if through carelessness or want of a proper estimate of its importance, the instruction and exercise are neglected, so that her gunnery is bad, she will most imperfectly fulfil, in action, the chief purposes for which she has been employed. A ship defective in these respects is at least but an expensive pageant, and is really as harmless as a great scarecrow.""The Catapulta was the light artillery of the ancients; and as such fitted for use on their light vessels. Their heavy artillery was the Balista, too heavy for use afloat.-In the middle ages, especially during the crusades, various other means of annoying a distant enemy from vessels were devised. The English galleys used wind-mills, which turning rapidly threw by centrifugal force heavy stones combustibles, balls and other missiles. There are enumerated in books twelve different machines for throwing missiles, which had come into use in the 11th and 12th centuries; but their fornms, construction and manner of use are entirely lost to history." "In 1320, gunpowder was invented by friar Schwartz, a German."(According to other German historical accounts, gunpowder was used in Germany for blasting rocks, as early as 1100. See: Chronological HandBook of Universal History, by Dr. Rausehncick. Erfurt. 1828. Page 146.Chronologisches Hand-Buch der Weltgeschichte," &c.) " There is reason to believe, that an English monk, Roger Bacon, was acquainted with its properties in the preceding (13th) century. But the German friar, (the monastic institutions possessing in those days nearly all the science extant,) engaged with a composition of saltpetre and charcoal, accidently fired it, which threw a stone to a great distance. This circumstance suggested the use of the composition in war, as an agent for projecting heavy bodies from cannon.-The earliest uses of this new description of artillery are noticed as having occurred at Cressy, by the Black Prince, in 1346, on land; and at sea, in 1350, in an action between the Moorish King of Se 44 villa and the King of Tunis; and again by the Venitians, in 1380. On this last occasion, it is remarkable that nations generally exclaimed against its use as unfair in war. It was not then foreseen, as has since proved the case, that gunpowder would render war, especially in naval battles, less sanguinary:" This last conclusion is entirely correct, and also applicable to my inventions, both war-steamer and gun. I will prove, that with my ship and twenty of my guns, properly commanded and manned, I can destroy or sink the " Pennsylvania" with her 120 guns, before she shall reach or hit my ship with one of her greatest guns, either on smooth water or at any time when by the rolling waves the transverse lines of the ships' decks may change between the extremes of an angle of at least fifty-five degrees (550). I know that Naval Officers and Gunners will shake their heads at what I here declare; but. they will shake them still more at the following. In close action with the " Pennsylvania," my ship with twenty of my guns shall not only answer her broadsides, each of about two thousand pounds, with the same weight in shot and in the same time, but so much more effectively, that one discharge from mine shall be sufficient not only to disable her, but to destroy her past redemption. (Gentlemen Sceptics will please to suspend their objections until "further notice.") I therefore hope, or rather know, that I shall with my inventions not only serve my Fellow-Citizens, if they be wise, but also my Fellow-Men, Mankind at large: because, one such Navy, or some such Navies, will and must make maritime warfare either useless or impossible; besides, my humane feelings are greatly soothed by the following considerations: "Anciently, the object in sea engagements was to board, and in hand to hand"eombats destroy life. But the chief effort now, in fighting ships with guns, is to cripple or destroy the ship, which accomplished, men are compelled by necessity to surrender.""The first guns in use were constructed with bafs of wrought iron, hooped together by iron rings, and threw leaden balls. The next step in gun making produced brass ordnance of enormous calibre, throwing stone balls of a weight equal, in some instances, to 1200 pounds.""Until so late, however, as the year 1558, when cast iron guns were introduced,"-" cannon do not appear to have been so securely made, as not to produce, by their liability to burst, as much apprehension among those who served them as among the enemy, and until that time they had not entirely superseded the ancient artillery.""The first great naval combat"-" was fought at Lepanto, between the Turks and Venitians, in 1577. The vessels on both sides were mostly galleys armed with light cannon. But the Venitians had six ships, showing through port holes three long heavy guns on each side. These ships withstood the whole Turkish force, and contributed mainly to the result of that bloody day. This is probably the first notable instance on record, of the decisive effect of smaller numbers of heavv ordnance, over larger number of smaller calibre." "In the year 1588, Philip II. of Spain astonished the world with the celebrated Armada, which threatened the coast of England, but was defeated and finally wrecked, or otherwise destroyed, in the British seas. The fleet consisted of 132 vessels, with an aggregate tonnage of 63,120 tons; carried 3,165 guns, and 30,000 people, including mariners and soldiers. The largest of these vessels measured 1550 tons, carried 50 guns and 422 persons. Another of them, 1200 tons, carried 50 guns and 360 persons.""The English force opposed consisted of 175 ships, of 29,740 tons, and 14,500 men. The size of the English ships, and'the nature of the armament of both fleets may be inferred from what follows:" 45 "The' Grace de Dieu,' a famous British ship, built by Henry VIII., in 1520, measured 1000 tons, carried a battery of 103 iron pieces, and 19 brass pieces, and a personal of 349 soldiers, 300 mariners, and 50 gunners, total 700 men. Of her armament it is remarked, that'though appearing to mount 122 guns she had in reality only 34 worthy to be called cannon, the rest being made up of falconettes serpentines and rabinets, carrying from 1 to 3 pound balls.' This ship must have been in the fleet opposed to the Armada, and may be taken as a specimen of British batteries." "The "Royal Prince,' another famous vessel, built in 1610, twenty years after the Armada was destroyed, was of 1500 tons burthen, about the size of the largest Spanish ships, and carried 55 guns, which is what Spanish ships of her size carried. It may therefore be inferred that her battery, in its nature and weight corresponded with that of the Spanish ships. Of the 55 pieces carried by her 2 were "cannon petronel" or 24 pounders; 6 were "demi-cannon," medium 32 pounders; 12 were "culverins" or 18 pounders, (9 feet long, with 177 pounds metal to 1 pound of shot); 18 were "demi-culverins" or 9 pounders; 13 were rakers or 5 pounders, (6 feet long, with upwards of 200 pounds of metal to 1 pound of shot); and 4 were port-pieces, probably swivels. These guns were disposed: on the lower gun-deck, two 24 pounders, six medium 32's, and twelve 18's; on the upper gun-deck the battery was entirely of 9 pounders; and the quarter deck and forecastle were armed with 5 pounders and the brood of pop-guns, that in those days swelled the armament of ships." "In 1637, Charles 1. built the " Soverei.qn of the Seas," more famous than any ship which had preceded, and unequaled by any afloat in her time. She mounted on three gun-decks 86 guns. On the lower-deck were thirty long 24's and medium 32's; on her middle-deck, thirty 12's and 9's; on herupper-deck "other lighter ordnance;" and on her quarter-deck, forecastle and elsewhere, "numbers of murdering peeces." This shows an increase of the size of the ships and number of guns since the preceding reign; but it may be remarked, that the increase is principally in "lighter ordnance" and other "' murdering peeces," so that, according to our modern estimation, which will be shown, little addition was made to real and substantial efficiency." ".It may here be remarked, in the chain of improvement in naval ordnance, that the mortar was first used afloat in 1679, at the French attack on Algiers. It was then discharged from a bomb-ketch, precisely as at the present time. The ketch-rig was invented then, and is continued without change." "In the severe and obstinately protracted contests between Blake and Van Tromp in Cromwell's time, it does not appear that the ships or batteries differed in any material degree from those contemporaneous in construction with the "Sovereign of the Seas." Indeed, with a single exception, that ship remained at the time of the British Revolution, a whole reign after Cromwell's death, the most formidable ship, both in size and battery, in the British Navy. And this, if the Dutch ships were similarly armed, explains why those ships fought a battle that was protracted through three days; for, as will hereafter be seen, there were few guns, in either fleet, capable of penetrating a heavy ship's side and sinking her, even at close quarters. Armed as ships now are, and with tolerable gunnery, one or the other, or both parties, must be destroyed in a few hours at most."' "No marked alteration in the batteries of ships appears to have occurred, down to the destruction of the French and Spanish maritime power at Trafalgar, in 1806." — " The' Sanltisesia Trinidad' was built at Havana, in 1769. She then mounted 126 guns, viz: on the lower.deck, 30 long 36 pounders; on the second-deck, 32 long 18's; on the third-deck, 32 long 12's; and on the spar-deck, 32 eight-pounders. At Trafalgar, she is said, in the British 46 accounts, to have had 140 guns,-which number must have included swivels and cohorns, mounted for the occasion." " The Spanish 74's, in that action, had 58 long 24's on the gun-decks; on the spar-deck, 10 iron 36 pounder carronades, and 4 long 8's; and on the poop, 6 iron 24 pounder carronades; total 78 guns and a formidable battery. The French and Spanish ships had cohorns mounted in the tops; and one or two field-pieces, with carriages and apparatus complete, were movable on the deck." " The' Victory,' the English flag-ship, on board which Lord Nelson fell,. mounted on her three gun-decks, 90 long 32's, 24's, and 12's, and on the quarter-deck and forecastle, 10 long 12's, and two 68 pounder carronades." " The British second rates, in that action, for new and strong ships had 24's on the lower-decks, and for old and weaker ships 18's. The British ship " Tamerlan," the best armed for her rate in the fleet, had 56 long 32's and 30 long 18's on the gun-decks, and on the spar-decks twelve 32 pounder carronades, and 4 long 18's." " At a single broadside, the weight of metal thrown by the " Santissima Trinidad," was 1190 pounds, and that thrown by the" Victory" was 1180 pounds." " The United States ship " Delaware" throws a weight of 1814 pounds. We shall see"-" that nearly every shot from this ship, had she been in that action, would have penetrated the sides of every ship there; whereas, not much more than half the shot thrown by tAe ships actually there, could penetrate, even at the most moderate distances." — " The experience of our war with Great-Britain taught a lesson, which, strange to say, many people are still blind to: that if the long 18 pounders be a happy medium, the long 24's with which our frigates were armed, was a still happier medium; for the " United States," owing in measure to this difference in calibre, cut up the "Macedonia" most dreadfully, without herself receiving a corresponding damage. Profiting by this lesson, both we and the British now prefer the long 32 and some even the 42 pounders." — " There is, of course, a practical limit in this matter, though it is not exactly determined. The 32 commands the most general preference, but there are strenuous advocates for the 42. And some persons carry the reduction of number and increase in size of guns to a still more extraordinary extent, as in the 240 pounder mounted on board the steamer "Princeton." At all events a higher calibre of gun is coming into use, with as much metal as is consistent with the capacity and stability of ships, and the strength of such crews as they can berth and provision; for, these are elements which must be consulted in adapting batteries to ships, or ships to batteries."(O. & G. Pt. L Pages 14-17.) "PARABOLIC THEORY OF PROJECTILES." " Bodies fall through about 16 feet in the first second of time, and fall. ing through longer times, the spaces are as the squares of the times." At the end of the first second, a shot from a gun is 16 feet below the plane of the axis of the gun; at the end of the next second it is 64 feet, and at the end of the third second it is 144 feet below that plane. The curve or trajectory described by the shot is a parabola, a conic section. "All the properties of this curve being known, from them it was supposed easy to calculate the flight and ranges of shot with certainty. This, as applied to gunnery, is termed the parabolic theory."- I must here, for my further purposes, develop these geometrical progressions, in the fall of projectiles, a little more by the following figures, in order to have the number of feet fallen through at the end of A the fifth second, and of B the tenth second.": 47 First second, IX 1= 1; IX 16=' 16 feet. Second " 2X 2- 4; 4X 16 64 " Third " 3X 3= 9; 9X16= 144 " Fourth " 4X 4= 16; 16X 16- 256 A. Fifth " 5X 5= 25; 25X16= 400 " Sixth " 6X 6= 36; 36X1.6= 576 " Seventh " 7X 7- 49; 49X16- 784 " Eighth " 8X 8= 64:; 64 X 16=-I,024 " Ninth " 9X 9- 81; 81X 16-1,296 B. Tenth " 10 X 10100; 100 X 16 —1,600 " The proportion of A falling through 400 feet in 5 seconds to B falling through 1600 feet in 10 seconds I will take as that of my projectile A to that of a ball B. As my purpose here is only to be well understood by all interested in these matters, and not merely by Naval Officers or Gunners, no mathematical correctness and no mathematical proofs are requisite for anything I propose and explain; nor will any mathematical nicety be applicable to these propositions and explanations, founded on natural laws. A and B are of equal diameter and weight, but their shapes are very different. A is a hollow cylinder with a solid conical point; the length of the cylinder is equdtto its diameter and to the lateral length of the conical point, which thus forms a angle, or rather angles, of 600, so that the surface of the cone forms with its axis, and that of the cylinder, an angle, or rather angles, of 300, which may still be reduced; or in other words, the conical point may still be lengthened, if necessary or thought proper. B is a solid ball, equal to A in diameter and in weight. Suppose A and B propelled with an equal force in the water, which as a body interferes with their motion by friction and by resistance. A with its conical point cuts through the water, avoiding partly as it were its resistance, and only causing a certain friction: the cone presenting always an oblique surface of at least 300 with the axis or line of motion, thus gliding or "slipping" through the water with the cylinder, to the parallel surface of which the water presents no real resistence, but merely friction; while B with its spherical surface, of which the centre has a plane rectangular to the line of motion, meets not only with a greater friction, but also with a real resistance, that it can over-come only by the sacrifice of a certain portion of the propelling force, which is thus partly lost for the purpose. The action of the water, here elucidated in connection with the motion of twd differently shaped projectiles, but of equal initial propulsion, diameter and weight, is similar to the action of the air in the same connection, called atmospheric resistance, which must be considered in the calculation of the parabolic theory. "By this parabolic theory early mathematicians calculated the results which they believed ought to take place in artillery practice. But the results of practice, with velocities beyond 300 feet per second, disagreed most widely with this theory; which disagreement the philosophers persisted in attributing to unskilfulness on the part of artillerists. So uniform a discrepancy, however, finally taught, that some cause existed as an element, which in the calculations had been overlooked. This element proved to be atmospheric resistance, which acting as a constantly retarding force in opposition to the projectile force destroys the hypothesis in the theory, which assumes equal spaces to be passed. over in equal times; 48 for, the ball moving slower and slower, in consequence of this resistance, the times of passing the equal spaces must be continually increasing. The real curve described by the projectile departs, therefore, more rapidly than the parabola from the tangent line," (viz. that going directly from the axis of the gun to the aim,) "and its range is in consequenee very mnuch reduced. Indeed, the smaller balls projected with high velocities, in which case the difference between theory and practice is most observable, do not range a twentieth part the distance they would, but for this atmospheric resistance. With large bodies, and velocities not exceeding 300 feet per second, the parabolic theory and practice quite nearly agree. A stone thrown from the hand, or a stream of water from a fire engine pipe, describes nearly a parabola, because in both these cases the velocities are considerably below 300 feet per second." According to the above illustrations I admit, on a very moderate calculation, that my projectile A is propelled forward by a certain forcle in five seconds through a certain space, with a fall of only 400 feet; while the ball B, propelled by an equal force, requires ten seconds, for moving forward through the same space, and falls 1600 feet; the striking velocity, at the end of the said space, being reluced half as much for A in five seconds, as it is for B in ten seconds, by atmospheric resistance. Besides, the angle of elevation of the axis of the gum, required for throwing A, needs only be one-?burth of that required for throwing B, (which is another material advantage diminishing the difficulties of theoretical calculations particular in naval gunnery,) because A rises and falls only one-fourth as much as B does, to strike in the same height of aim. I will construct an apparatus for measuring the difference of initial and striking velocities of gun-projectiles, which instrument I will call " Velocimeter." With that I am able to ascertain these velocities by sixtieths of seconds with mathematical precision. To elucidate this, suppose the velocity of A to be a little more than double that of B, the result of the practical experiment may be as follows: A, 42 seconds; B, 9gIJ seconds. Distance, 4000 yards for either. Charge of powder, 8 pounds for either. Diameter, 8 inches either. Weight: 64 pounds either. Elevation of gun (-axis): 40 29' for A; 17~ 56' for B. Initial velocity, 1600 feet per second either. Strikingvelocity, A, 1200 feet per second; B, 800 feet per second. It is evident, that initial and striking velocities can be precisely ascertained with such a "I Velocimeter," and that experiments, made with the same for gunpowder-proofs, must certainly be more reliable and more satisfactory, than those made by Major Mordecai with Colson's Eprouvette, or with the Ballistic-Pendulum or the Gun-Pendulum, or the Musket-Pendulum, at the Washington-Arsenal. The great advantages resulting from the conically pointed and cylindrical shape of my projectile A, compared with the spherical shape of a ball B, mustbecome still more conceptible to every thinker by the following quotations. (0. & G. Pt. 1. Pages 17-22,) "ATMOSPHERIC RESISTANCE." "If the ball move with high velocity through the air, impinging upon the particles in front, these particles re-act and produce resistance.""Sixteen hundred feet per second is the maximum velocity, which it is ever considered expedient to give a cannon ball; for if, through great Initial force, a higher velocity be given, it is immediately reduced to that," 49 (1600 feet) "by the enormous accumulated resistance of the atmosphere acting on its front.""As cannon-balls increase in diameter, their force to overcome atmospheric resistance increases faster than the resistance itself increases, and the large ball is less retarded than the small one."-" Dense balls are less retarded than light balls of equal diameter, because, surfaces being equal, resistances are also equal; but the overcoming force being as the weights, the heaviest ball is least retarded."-" Dense balls will out-range those less dense of equal diameter and projected under like circumstances; for, having more force to overcome the same resistance, they must go further."" If a ball is said to have 1600 feet per second velocity, it is not meant that the ball actually passes through 1600 feet in the second; but at a given instant moves with a rate which, if continued, would produce that result. But for atmospheric resistance, a ball, moving at the rate of 1600 feet per second, would actually pass through 1600 feet in that second. Moving, however, as it-does, against enormous opposition, the velocity, which might at the beginning of a second have been at the rate of 1600 feet, at the end of that second may be reduced to 1000 feet."-" Initial velocity is the rate per second at which a ball moves at the beginning of its flight, immediately on leaving the muzzle of a gun. JRemaining velocity is the rate with which a ball moves at any specified point in its flight, afterhavlig been subjected to the retarding force of atmospheric resistance.-Striking tyelocity is that with which ahball strikes an object." (0. & G. Pt. I. Pages 28 —32; 83, 84.) "RELATIVE ACCURACY." "From experiments made in Europe, a law of accuracy of firing, or chances of hitting at distant ranges with guns of different calibre, has been deduced. The law is stated thus: at a thousand yards distant, the probabilities of hitting a given object are as the squares of the diameters of the balls, supposing all to be of equal density, and fired with equal proportional charges. By this law, different calibred guns should, in a given number of discharges, strike an object at 1000 yards in the following proportions: the 42-pounder 11 times; the 32-pounder 9 times; the 24-pounder 7J times; the 18-pounder 6 times." " RELATIVE PENETRATIONS." "Captain Simmons says: The penetrations of shot are not proportional to their momenta or quantities of motion, which are as the cubes of the diameters, but they are, density and velocity being equal, directly as their diameters."-" In the service of artillery in the field, range and accuracy are in general the only circumstances requiring attention;" -"however in naval warfare," —"shot, to be effective against a ship, must have power to break through her sides at their thickest and most solid parts.""A 32 pounder shot, to penetrate 30 inches of oak, equal to the thickness of a 74's side, requires a remaining" (striking) "velocity of 1090 feet per second. This velocity it will have if firedwith a charge of ~ at 1000 yards distant, " ~ (" 850 " " (" 8 " 500 " " "To penetrate a frigate's side, which is estimated to be 20 inches thick, a 32 pounder ball must have a striking velocity of 850 feet per second, which velocity the shot will have if projected with a charge of i, at the distance of 1200 yards." "An 18 pounder shot to penetrate a 74's side, requires a remaining" (striking) "velocity of 1200 feet. This velocity the shot will have if firedwith a charge of ~ at 600 yards distant, r" ~ " 450 " " " ~ "400 " " 3 50 Against a frigate's sides, an 18S pounder ball to penetrate requires a remaining" (striking) " velocity of about 900 feet. This it will have if firedwith a charge of * at 900 yards distant, " ~ "850 " " i" * " 800 " A" "The calibre is restricted by the impossibility of rapidly handling and loading with shot greater in weight than from 32 to 63 pounds."-" In steamers, where rapidity of loading is of less consequence" (??) "than deliberate firing and accuracy, at great ranges, the 10 inch shot, weighing upwards of 120 pounds, has been in a few cases introduced." — " Beyond 800 yards, it is regarded by experienced commanders asfolly to fire broadsides and throw away shot." — (0. & G. Pt. I. Pages 78. 79. 85. 87. 89. 90. 91. 94-97. 99. 101. 105. 108.) " Loading and Sponging Guns." "A gun having been discharged, the first operation in re-loading is, to " stop vent and sponge." The object of sponging is threefold: 1st, to remove any fragments of cylinders that may remain in the bore; 2d, to extiinguish any remaining fire; 3d, to clean the bore and prevent too great an accumulation of paste."-" If the cartridge be not sent entirely home, the priming-tube or percussion-wafer may fail to ignite it, and consequently by missing fire time must be lost, and possibly a most decisive shot. But if a charge not rammed home does ignite, a still worse consequence may fol low, namely, explosion of the gun.""Point-blanc and Ranges of Guns." " There is no term in gunnery so variously understood as that of Pointblanc. Its true definition, as used by the Americans and English, is-that point at which a shot, fired from a level gun loaded with a full servicechPrge,"-viz. the weight of the powder being one-third of that of the ball or shot, —" crosses in its flight the horizontal plane on which the trucks of the gun stand." (It would be best to take the horizontal plane of the axis of the gun for that point.) "The distance of that point from the gun is the "Point-blanc-range" of that gun."-" The Point-blanc-range of the long 32-pounder is 400 yards, that of the 18-pounder is 275 yards. At 2 dlegrees of elevation the 32-pounder throws 1200 yards, the 18-pounder 900 yalrds. At 10 degrees of elevation, all that a ship's-ports admit of, the 32pounder throws its shot to the distance of 3000, the 18-pounder to 2500 yards.""Ricochet-Firing." "Ricochet Firing from a gun that is level or not elevated more than 2 degrees, and placed near the level of the water, (the nearer the better,) may be resorted to with advantage, -i a smooth sea, and will under snch circumstances give a greater range than can be obtained by any possible elevation admitted by a ship's ports. But ricochet-shot will not retain penetrating velocities at such great distances as shot fired with an elevation. When ba:lls in ricocheting rebound with less an angle than 7 degrees, their penetrating power is lost. At the end of their flight they do not rise at any ange, but literally roll on the water, and are then of service only against boats and small craft."-" Ricochet-shot, when their velocities become low and they rise but little from the water, deflect from the line of aim at large angles," —" more than shot flying wholly in the air, because the opposite surfaces of the shot are exposed to the friction of mediums, air and water, having greatly different densities."Hollow-Shot. "Shells have neither range nor accuracy in distant firing with low charges, and they will not bear high charges without bursting in the gun. Whether this is because the force of powder breaks the shell, or splits the 51 fuze, or drives the shell with such force against the air, that it forces the burning fuze in, is not known. Recent experiments induce a belief that all these causes operate. But as shells are intended for short ranges only, and to bury in, not perforate, a ship's side, they require only low velocities."" Pointing and Sighting Guns." "Pointing a gun is giving a desired direction to the axis of its bore. This may require two motions of the gun: one in a vertical plane, on the trun nions as a centre; the other in a horizontal plane, by means of the crows and side-taCkles. These two motions will be distinguished the first as giving direction in elevation, the second as giving direction in lateral-aim, or simply in aim.-In order to obtain any accuracy in pointing, either in aim or in elevation, some means must be attached to a gun, by which the direction of tile axis of the bore may be known. The line of metal top-sight is highly deceptive as regards direction in elevation, and the line of metal side-sight is highly deceptive as regards direction in aim. When by the line of metal top-side a gun is apparently level, its axis is in reality elevated, and this deception is greatest in guns having greatest dispart. But the topline of metal-sight gives accuracy of direction in aim, provided there be marks placed on the top of the gun in a line where a plane perpendicular to the axis of the trunnions, and passing through the axis of the bore, cuts the surface of the gun. (This condition cannot be fulfilled, unless the axis of the trunnions is set at right angles with the axis of the bore. This position of the trunnions should be verified at inspection.) A sight secured to the gun in this line, and made parallel with the axis of the bore, will give the direction of the axis both in aim and in elevation. The short dispart-sight, which is ordinarily placed on guns, extending from the basering to a point between the trunnions, is constructed on this principle.In fitting a dispart-sight it will require two adjustments: one to bring it in to a plane perpendicular to the axis of the trunnions and passing through the axis of the gun, the other to make it parallel with the axis of the bore. Unless the points, where the plane perpendicular to the axis of the trunnions cuts the muzzle and the base-ring, be marked before the gun is put afloat, there will be great difficulty, or impossibility, in sighting the gun correctly on board ship."" The Tangent-Slide-Sight." " To assist the judgment in preserving the eye in the vertical plane of the axis of the gun, a tangent-slide-sight is universally introduced in the British and French Navies. In the former it is termed " General Millar's TangentSight," and in the latter "' Hausse de Jure," after the name of the inventor; Colonel Jure. The slide-piece of this side has a notch in the top, and moves up in a vertical groove. —The eye placed in that notch is certainly in the vertical plane " (of the axis of the gun), " and the direction of aim is perfectly true," (as far as lateral aim is required).-" There is another and Do less important advantage which attaches to the tangent-sight. If the object" (aimed at) "be 2000 yards distant, 5 decrees of elevation with the horizon may be necessary to reach that object. The tangent-sight enables us to know when, by the roll of the vessel, the gun is brought to the elevation with the horizon, and indicates the precise moment of firing. In practice, knowing the distance of an object, and the elevation necessary to reach it, if the tangent-sight be graduated for degrees, set the slide so high as to correspond with the number of degrees of elevation for that distance; and when, by the roll of the ship, the three points, the notch in the tangentsight, the top of dispart, and the object, are in one line: fire! and you will at least be more likely to strike the object, than if you depended entirely upon the judgment, without anything to guide or aid it." —" It is no valid argument against tangent-sights, to say, that they are of no use when the enlemy is obscured by smoke, for this is as true of the dispart-sigh' as of the tangent-sight —A prominent advantage of the tangent-sight is, that it puts the battery measurably under the control of one directing intelligence, the 52 Commander, on the quarter-deck. He, as well from his elevated position and unobscured vision, as on account of his superior judgment in estimating distances, can better determine that of an enemy than can those who are beclouded on a smoky main-deck in the heat of action, and who have such an imperfect view of the enemy as barely to know his direction. If the commander fiom his superior position, judge the enemy at a particular distance, say 800 yards, and order the tangent-sights set for that distance, and seamen fire when they barely discern that the enemy and the sights are in a line, they will be ordinarily sure of striking him. And if the commander observe his shot to overreach, or fall short, he can, by means of the tangentsight, order the battery set at a less or greater elevation to suit the case.-And if heavy broadside guns were mounted on chassis or slide-carriages, working around fixed pivot-bolts, on circles graduated, for concentration of fire at an average-distance of broadside-fighting, say from 300 to 600 yards,-the commander, by observing the degree of training necessary with the gun under his own immediate eye on the quarter-deck, and knowing also, that when one gun set at a given graduation bears, every other gun set at a corresponding graduation must also bear: he might be able to control the whole battery, in aim as well as in elevation."Difficulties! "Hitherto in marine engagements, for want of some arrangement by which to place the fire of a battery under. control of a skilful head, not one shot in thirty has taken effect on an-enemy's hull, even in some actions noted for their close and destructive character. For example: In the action between the " United States" (frigate of 52 guns,) "and the Macedonian" (frigate of 49 guns,) "but 95 of the "5 United States" shot struck the " Mlacedonian's" hull, and no damage was done to her aloft. Yet it is fair to suppose that those ships fired each fifty broadsides, or together 2500 balls," (Oct. 25, 1812.) "In the battle of Navarino," (Oct. 20, 1827,) " fought at anchor in smooth water, and at exceedingly short r.anges, the "Albion" 74 alone fired away 52 tons of shot, equal to 98-broadsides single shotted, or nearly 4000 balls, and yet did not sink a ship. The "' Genoa" 74 in that action lay 39 hours with her broadside sprung upon her antagonist, so near that the whites of the Turks' eyes were visible, and fired away 7000 pounds of powder with shot in proportion, and neither sunk nor destroyed her antagonist.-Such results, though common hitherto in naval combats, cannot but strike the mind as remarkable. Yet they are the natural consequence of the imperfect or total want of control on the part of the commander over his battery whilst in action, and of the crowded, obscured and confused state of things which, in battle, exists on'the gun-decks of a vessel. On those decks, let any one figure to himself the rapidly successive discharges of 15 broadside-guns; the thick smoke thus produced; the crowded action of 200 or 300 men who compose the crews of those guns; the deafening noise, the rushing to and fro of powder boys, boarders and others; the penetration of enemy's shot, scat-tering of splinters and explosion of shells; and he will not wonder, that, uncontrolled as these guns have hitherto been, by any mind free from such confusing influences upon the senses, by far the greatest part of the shot have been fired at random and utterly thrown away." " It is manifestly unwrise in any nation, to treat with contempt modern refinements in equipment conducive to accuracy in distant firing, while other nations are perfecting their gunnery by all the aids which science affords. -The argument, that because we did well without these refinements in the last war, we can do well without them in another war, is abslrd. With equal propriety might the Indian, who had conquered another tribe, whilst that tribe fought like his own with the bow and arrow, boast that with the same weapon he could again succeed against the same enemy, armed with weapons derived from the arts of civilization. The savage in 53 strength, activity, bravery and powers of endurance equals the white man: yet he is, with all these gifts, impotent in war against the white man, aided as the latter is, in a superior degree, by the developments of science, applied to the art of war. And what is true of savage and civilized people, is true also of two civilized nations, when either derives from superior knowledge in the arts any odds against the other."" The use of battery-equipment should be rendered familiar by continued instruction and practice; because these are what, if neglected in peace, cannot be readily supplied in the event of sudden war.""In smooth water, or on shore, the aiming of great guns is a deliberate mechanical process, requiring only a knowledge of the distance of thepbject, and the elevation given in the practice-tables as necessary to reach that distance; for, if a gun is steady, and the sights fine and properly adjusted to the gun, when the object is seen through the sights, as the visual ray in a uniform medium is always a straight line, the direction of aim must be perfect. But to form expert marine gunners, it is necessary to train the nerves, the eye, and all the faculties concerned, to catch a quick sight, under a motion such as a ship has at sea, and to fire at the instant when by this motion the gun is pointed so as to strike the object." " Beyond the distance of 1500 yards, all firing at sea must in the nature of things, owing to the motion of the vessels be uncertain in the highest degree."(0. & G. Pt. I. App. Pages 5-9.) The Exercise. In the present system of naval gunnery, the exercise is done according to verbal orders: 1. " Cast loose the battery!"-2. "Man the starboard (or larboard) sides!"-3. "Attention!"-4. "Take off the aprons!"5. "'Prick and prime!"-6. "Lay on the aprons!"-7. "Man crows and side tackles!" —8. "Level the guns!"-9. "Train on the enemy!"10. " Stand by!"-11. " Drop tackles-fire!"-12. "Cock and sponge!"13. "Cartridge-ram home! " —14. "Shot and wad-ram home! " 15. "Man side tackle falls!"-16. "Run out!"-17. "Prick and prime!" -18. "Lay on the aprons!"-19 "Handle crows!"-20. "Silence!"21. "Choke the luffs!"-22. "Man the opposite side!"-23. "Man both sides!"These twenty-three different orders of exercise contain seventy-four words, that must be uttered, requiring at least one minute, during which my gun must be charged and discharged three times. I therefore propose that the exercise of my gun be commanded by counting one! two! three! &c.-Its mechanical contrivance is so that the gunners will have much less trouble in "' shifting " and " sponging " and loading, without "ramming home," as it has an opening breach, applicable to field-guns as well as to ship-guns. It cannot be expected from me, that I publish a specific description of my inventions; but I will describe what they perform, which I do according to truth and my own conviction as the inventor, who must know their performances better than any other person. I will answer for the consequences of anything done under or according to my direction in the construction of ships and guns on the principles of my inventions. My purposes in either were greater speed in their performances and greater safety for those engaged in their service, than have been hitherto obtained. Concerning the speed of my ship I declare: it shall be double that of a common one, and it shall require only half the quantity of fuel, or horses' power fob the engines, consumed by the same. Concerning the speed of my 54 gun, I also declare: it shall be charged'and discharged twice, while a common one can be charged and discharged once only, supposing the calibre or weight of shot to be equal; and what is rather better, on account of economical advantages, I declare: that my gun shall require only half as many gunners as a common one, viz. only eight instead of sixteen and only six instead of twelve men, proportionally to the calibres. Cbncerning their safety I declare: that my gun does in no way jeopardize their lives, as common ones do; they shall consider it with love and pride, as an instrument, with which they fight victoriously and gloriously for our Country; they shall not hate it like a common one, as an enemy, constantly threatening them with danger and death by explosion, if the charge is not well " rammed home."My gun can be made either of gun-metal, (of which material I have made my model-gun,) or of good cast-iron, such as is now manufactured at Newark and Elizabethtown, N. J.-an excellent material. This kind of cast-iron is the only one of which I would have my gun made, as I have investigated its qualities and found it to be superior to any other cast-iron for the purpose. However, the best plan would always be, to make all the guns of "gun"-metal, the least liable to burst; instead of making cast-iron guns for the sake of economy! as if the lives of Naval Officers and Men were less valuable than those of other people! as if human lives were less valuable than gun-metal! Unquestionably the best cast-iron is never as good as gun-metal for such purposes. Of three varieties of cast-iron only one is not wholly rejectable according to the following description. " White cast-iron is extremely hard and brittle, and appears to be composed of a congeries of small crystals. It can neither be filed, bored, nor bent, and is very apt to break when suddenly heated or cooled.-Grey or mottled cast-iron is so called from the inequality of its color. Its texture is granulated. It is much softer and less brittle than the last variety, and may be cut, bored, and turned on the lathe. Cannons are made of it.Black cast-iron is the most unequal in its texture, the most fusible, and least cohesive of the three."-(J. R. McCulloch's Dictionary, Practical, Theoretical and Historical; of Commerce and Commercial Navigation.Edited by Henry Vethake. Philadelphia: Thomas Wardle. 1845. Vol-II. Page 116.) It is evident, that mottled cast-iron, unequal in color, must also be unequal in cohesion or strength. "That iron, the recent fracture of which presents a grey appearance, with coarse grain and not much lustre, is reckoned most suitable for making guns, because found by experience to possess greatest tenacity, and the iron with a small white shining grain the contrary."-(O. & G., Pt: I., Page 43.) Bungling work, either in material or in workmanship, is always discreditable, even if it be harmless; but it is criminal, when it exposes or endangers human lives. Bungling work I call cast-iron guns, liable to burst,-" reamed up" guns, of which the caliblre has been increased and the strength reduced. "Much prejudice" (?) "has existed against reamed up guns, since the explosion on board the "PFulton," at Sandy Hook",-" of a 42 pounder reamed up to a 64 pounder, or from a 7 to an 8 inch calibre. That gun was" —"burst with a proof charge of 14 pounds of powder."-(O. & (i. Pt. I. Page 32.) 55 Certainly it is not a mere "prejudice," but a well-founded appre. hension, that prevails against such " reamed up" guns. It is not a trifle to take away half an inch of material all around from the inside of the breech of a gun, calculated for a smaller calibre, as the resistance from a shot of 64 pounds is by 22 pounds greater than that from a shot of only 42 pounds, even if the charge be not proportionably increased. Therefore, I say: not only "fitted up" war-steamers, but also " reamed up" ship-guns must be "given up" in our Navy, because such bungling work is criminal. Bungling work I call steam-boilers of sheet-iron, which is seamed with rivets! as cloth or linen is seamed with stitches: I only wonder that not every steam-boiler, thus bungled together, must explode! But it is, alas! with steam-boilers, as it is with steam-ships: the boilers have rivet-seams or seam-rivets, as the steamers have paddlewheels or wheel-paddles; the former are not good for anything, as the latter are good for nothing. —The sheet-iron generally used for steam-boilers is excellent, but the way of joining it is miserably bungling. With such a good material none of my steam-boilers, constructed on my principles and under or according to my direction, shall ever explode, unless the mischief be wantonly caused. With the same quality and quantity of sheet-iron I can build a steam-boiler twice as strong as one of usual construction. Bungling work I call ships of sheet-iron, which is joined in the usual way. Of good sheet-iron, (like that generally used for steamboilers,) I can build either har-ships or merchant-ships of such strength, that they must not break, being suspended by their extremities, with all their requisites on board: proofs, that any of my ships must stand. War-ships must at least be twice as strong as merchant-ships, but their shot-proof-quality depends on the quality and quantity of sheet-iron used in their construction. A merchantsteamer must at least be of double sheet-iron, one-fourth of an inch thick; a war-steamer must have at least four, but she may have between five and ten or even twelve sheets of iron, an aggregate thickness of between one and three inches, strengthened,ith other shotproof material. One general rule must be observed in the construction of my ships, concerning the safety of all: every ship must have at least three principal divisions, separated from each-other by sheet-iron partitions, for eventual cases of danger by fire or water. The middle division is for the propelling-machiLery, and also for the safe-keeping of ammunition and shot in war-steamers, or of commercial goods in merchantsteamers; the two other divisions are for the steam-engines and boilers, furnaces, coal-bunkers, &c. The cylinders being horizontal, their piston-rods go through water-proof orifices in the partitions, to work the propelling-machinery. One particular rule in the construction of my war-steamers is for the safety of the gunners: every war-steamer must have shutters for the port-holes, to be opened orly when the guns are discharged; as the "pointing" or "aiming" of my " steady" guns is done otherwise than that of common ship-guns, which are "pointed and sighted" through the port-holes. Considering the difficulties in this "Pointing and Sighting," connected with common ship-guns on board a common ship, when the transverse lines of the plane of her deck continually change angles with the horizon by her rolling motion, I have devoted much attentive and inventive labor to overcome these difficulties, in making the shipguns as controllable as field-guns,-nay! even more so than common field-guns,-notwithstanding the eventual rolling motion of the ship, on the deck or floor of which the carriages of the guns are necessarily attached. Captain Ericson's mercury-contrivance adapted to a ship-gun, allows it to be discharged only at a certain elevation of the gun, brought to bear in the required direction by the ship's accidental rolling motion: which contrivance is evidently imperfect. With my contrivance for keeping the gun " steady" in a certain given elevation, measured and regulated by degrees and minutes, or sixtieths of degrees, with the utmost accuracy and speed, the gun may be discharged at any moment, whatever be the rolling motion of the ship within the extremes of an angle of 550 (or more if necessary), in which the transverse lines of the ship's deck are shifting. It must be understood, that by this contrivance the gun is kept " steady" so as not to moye or not to swing, that is, not to change its given level direction, or its given elevation in a certain angle to the level line, within a vertical plane, through the centre of which the axis of the trunnions goes in a right angle. A similar contrivance I adopt to keep likewise the telescopes of the ship " steady," but they need not any elevation fer observing other ships or objects in a distance, as ships are always' naturally on a level with each other.' Two such telescopes are requisite for every war-ship, both equal in all their qualities, and similar to Beatson's "Universal Altimeter," (an "Instrument for taking, measuring and computing Angles,") described in "Appleton's Mechanics' Magazine and Engineers' Journal," No. 1, January, 1851. (Pages 9 and 10 ) But instead of thus being " altimeters," to measure vertical angles, our telescopes must be planimeters, to measure horizontal angles; for instance the angle between tto ships, distant from each-other, at which we will simultaneously fire in their two different directions. The name of " Steady Planimetrical Telescopes" are appropriate for these instruments, indispensably connected with the use of my " Steady" Ship-Gun, as they shall also serve to ascertain distances. The shifting of the gun in the vertical plane of its axis is done mechanically, with the utmost speed, in one second for each degree, and measured or regulated with the utmost accuracy, by means of a "Rej ulator," which I have also invented for that purpose. It has a spirit-level with an air-bubble, and a division of twenty degrees, with minutes or sixtieths of degrees, which latter are distinctly ascertained by the air-bubble, moving one-fourth of an inch for one minute, so that the measuring is done with mathematical accuracy. (It is not attached to the gun.) My model-gun with its movable breech, &c., weighs fifty-three pounds, and-its carriage thirty pounds; the length of the gun and breech is fifteen inches. An 8 inch shell-gun of 53 cwt. weight, has 100 inches in length. Another 8 inch shell-gun, (64-pounder, or Paixhan-gun,) has 63 cwt. in weight, and 106 inches in length. Thus the weight of my model-gun is in proportion to that of the 8 inch shell-gun as 1 to 100: likewise is the steadiness of the for-. 57 mer in proportion to that of the latter. Suppose one bell weighing 63 pounds and another bell weighing 53 Cwt., each suspended in the usual way: it is obvious, that the light one requires only onehundredth as much power as the heavy one to be put in a swinging motion; that, therefore, the steadiness of the heavy one is one-hundred times greater than that of the light one. Thus the steadiness of my ship-gun is increased in proportion to its weight; or, in other words, the ship's rolling motion affects a heavy gun less than a light one, such as constructed on my principle, to keep it " steady" in a given elevation. This principle is executed so far in my model-gun, that its carriage, supposed to be attached to the ship's deck or floor, may be inclined forward or backward, between the extremes of an angle of fifty-five degrees (55~0), without changing the given level direction or elevation of the gun as much as one minute or sixtieth of a degree: showing that such a "steady" gun may be discharged at any time " under a motion such as a ship has at sea," when the shot of a common ship-gun must be A" fired at random and utterly thrown away." —(O. & G., Pt. I. Pages 97; 101.) The model-gun can be "regulated" between level or 00 and 15~ elevation. The same principle of contrivance for steadiness can be applied to mortars with higher elevations, up to 600, and even more. The contrivance for giving my gun its lateral direction is made on the principle of a rotary motion about a pivot-bolt vertical under its muzzle, on a quadrant with a division of ninety degrees, (each degree divided in minutes or sixtieths,) counting from the left (00) to the right (900), so that the gun's lateral direction of 450 is in a right angle to the ship's middle-line, while its lateral direction of either 00 or 900 is either to the left or to the right in an angle of 450 to the ship's middle-line. This arrangement of division, from 00 to 900 is made in order not to have two different lateral directions, a left and a right one, requisite for that purpose. By turning a cank one man performs these contrivances for "two motions of the gun,-one in a vertical plane,"-" the other in a horizontal plane," (O. & G. Pt. I. Page 90,)-with the utmost speed, taking about one second for each degree of these motions, which in common ordnance and gunnery require a much longer time and mu6h more trouble, by using quoins and crows and breechings, &c. for " pointing and sighting" in the usual way. "The gun-carriage in common use now on board ship has continued in its present form and proportions, without material alteration, for nearly three hundred years. It is however acknowledged to have great defects, which have caused many attempts to improve it. -But no new carriage has yet recommended itself so far as to be adopted as a substitute for the old one."-" Gun-Carriages require tackles to govern all the motions to which they are liable, or which it may be desired to give them. The side tackles, by being hooked to bolts midway between the ports in the ship's side, perform the offices both of running out and training. They govern the fore and aft motion, and one of the thwart-ship motions. The other thwart-ship motion is governed by the train tackle."-" A stout serviceable breeching is all important."-" By means of new arrangements, a breeching when shifted has not to be unclinched and unroved as formerly was the case, but is unshackled at the ends and taken out of the crotches and shark's mouth" (cast at the breech instead of neck and knob,) "and replaced by another breeching, in much less than a minute of time. It is 58 said, that one part of a gun's crew can shift a breeching whilst the other part is loading the gun. This is a matter of 0os8t serious consequence, and one very much attended to by those nations with whom we are likely to come in connection." (0. & G. Pt. I. Pages 51, 52, 53.) The quadrant, on which the carriage of my gun turns around a pivot-bolt vertical under its muzzle, turns itself also on a disk around a pivot-bolt vertical under the knob of its breech, so that by an entire turn of the disk the gun's lateral direction is reversed within a few moments. The purpose of this reversing-contrivance is, to use all-or at least more than half the number of -guns on board in one direction, or as I will call it, to fire a " Broadboard." This great Naval Manceuvre can, however, be executed at any moment only when the water is rather calm, when the ship does not roll and when she "heels" in the firing-direction by her own central line of gravity, which is thus shifted more towards that side by the weight of those reversed guns; or only at such moments, when the ship is so inclined, that a sufficient elevation of -the guns allows their shot to fly over the guns and over the board on the opposite side The. gunners may then all, for their own convenience, go to the other side behind the reversed gun, of which the discharges cause a great pressure of the air on board; thus the gunners avoid the latter in standing so, fir back as they can, even those who pull the (lengthened) strings of the locks. These may be pulled with equal effect in any direction, forward or backward, upwards or downwards, to the left or to the right; they can also be easily attached to, or taken off from, the locks in one moment. The locks are placed in the knobs of the breeches. For my model-gun I have made the lock in its real size, (which is the same for any other of my guns,) as a-(proportionally) smaller one would not have been sufficient to make a large percussion-cap explode by one jerk, by which the model-gun is discharged. We have seen (page 44) that three hundred years ago cast-iron. guns were what they are now: not " so securelymade, as not to produce by their liability to burst as much apprehension among those who serve them as among the enemy!" (0. & G. Pt. I. Page 4.) We must, therefore, not wonder that also the carriage of a cast-iron ship-gun is now as clumsy a concern as the gun itself, and as it was "three-hundred years" ago with the same " great defects." (Page 57.) Thus, according to logical consequence, our American Navy-the Navy of the First Commercial Nation in the World! —is inferior not only in quantity, but also in quality of ship-ordnanca and gunnery: three hundred yea) s behind the Age! The carriage of my gun fulfills all its purposes for a " steady",ship-gun. It has a contrivance with a requisite number of springs, (twelve for the model-gun,) to choke its recoil, which is less than that of a common one, and to prevent it from " running" by the ship's rolling motion or inclination. This contrivance may also be adapted to common shipguns for choking the recoil. Although my "steady" gun does not require any "pointing and sighting," as it is otherwise "regulated" and "directed,"-I have also invented an instrument for "pointing and sighting," adaptable to common guns, either in naval or field-service. With it, the vertical plane of any gun's axis can be found in a few seconds, a level sight over the gun can be taken, whatever may be its elevation, according to. 59 which a sliding-rod is raised or lowered by degrees and parts of a degree: so that the gun is "pointed" by " sight" much better than with any "dispart-sight" or "tangent-slide-sight" now in use, although not as well as my " steady" ship-gun is "regulated" by degrees and minutes, according to the " Steady Planimetrical Telescope."-I will call that "pointing and sighting"-instrument: "Vertical Planimeter," because it serves particularly to find the verticalplane of a gun's axis. (It is not attached to the gun.) A Naval Officer may use my "Vertical Planimeter" for his ipleasure, in ascertaining by sight the direction of' a gun: Gentlemen of such education and knowledge are not satisfied to be mere living tools to execute orders in directing and discharging guns, without knowing whither their iron messengers fly. Of the mechanical advantages connected with my gun I can say no more, without exposing my invention to the speculations of such " kidnappers and plunderers" (mentioned Page 34) as described hy the " Journal of the Franklin-Institute." But I must here give account of some chemical advantages resulting particularly from the " breechloading" qualities of my gun. The mechanical causes of a greater range of my shot A, resulting from its conical point and cylinder, I have explained on Pages 47, 48. The advantage of a straight surface, against which the explosive force of the powder acts, is not a particular quality of my shot A, as it can be obtained for any ball by applying a wooden cylinder (called "Sabot") between the ball and the cartridge. But what I consider a great chemical advantage, is that I can ignite my cartridge precisely in its very centre, so that the whole —" explosive and propellent"-force of the powder is developed as simultaneously as possible, thus acting against the straight back-surface of my shot, and that thus not one grain of powder is thrown out of the gun and lost. In a common gun, where the cartridge is ignited on the top or at the end, a portion of the powder is thrown out and lost, (which may be seen by firing over a white plane, snow, &c.) although the gun had a "full charge." "With gun-powder, when fired, the change from the solid to the fluid form, although instantaneous, is not simultaneous. The particles ignite in a succession which is almost inconceivably rapid, but the whole charge in a gun is not burned until the shot has nearly or quite reached the muzzle." -" Dr. Hutton, Braddock, and others attest, that a whole charge of powder in a gun does not burn simultaneously, as is proved by the fact, that many grains are often blown out from the muzzle unburnt." (0. & G. Pt. I. Pages 54. 80.) Another similar chemical advantage is, that my gun has a vent of only one-eighth of an inch diameter, half that of a common one, of which"at the upper extremity the vent is by regulation _25_ of an inch diameter, and'ttpers to 26 at its lower orifice." (0. & G. Pt. I. Page 42.) When a common gun is discharged, a large ray of fire bursts up from its vent, through which thus a portion of the explosive power escapes without action upon the shot. This is not the case with my gun. These chemical advantages, added to the mechanical ones, as I have already explained, must give a superiority to any Navy wherein my gun is used. But there are still more advantages connected with it, 60 which I have not yet explained: greater convenience and less danger in loading. The cartridge and shot need no " ramming home," as they are put in from behind only as far as necessary, whereupon the breech is hermetically closed by its own weight in one second. An untimely ignition is utterly impossible. The heaviest breech is opened by two men in two or three seconds, according to its proportional weight. (I will open the breech of a 64-pounder alone with my two hands in 4 or 5 seconds, and close it again in 2 or 3 seconds.) " Sponging" is necessary only as far as the cartridge and shot reach in the bore. By the introduction of my "breech-loading" gun, balls will soon become obsolete. The shape of my shot A, a hollow cylinder with a solid conical point, I have sufficiently explained, and I will only add, that it does not deviate in calibre or diameter from a solid ball of the same weight, as I have ascertained by my model-shot and ball, weighing each one-eighth of a pound cast of lead, or one-twelfth of a pound cast of tin or iron. As my shot A has a straight back-surface, which can be strengthened at liberty by increasing its thickness, if necessary: it cannot be said of my shots, what is said of shells, that " they will not bear high charges without bursting in thegun." (0. & G. Pt. I. Page 89.) My explosive shot A ignites only after striking the aim, through a percussion-cap, connected by a fuze with the inner part, which then is ignited after a certain given number of seconds. When my shot A is to be used as a burning projectile, it is filled with a solid substance, (made for that purpose by Mr. Samuel Jackson, the celebrated pyrotechnist, now residing at Philadelphia,) which substance, being in connection with the powder of the cartridge, is ignited by the discharge; then after hitting, the shot vomits, as it were, burningfluid, thus being as destructive as a Congreve's-rocket, but of much greater range and accuracy even than a common gun-shot of whatever kind or calibre. The velocity and consequent range of my shot A are also increased by reducing the windage, on account of its being loaded from behind. " The windage of a shot is the difference between its diameter and the diameter of the bore of its gun. Formerly, the prescribedwindage of shot was the proportional windage of 1 the diameter of the bore. Now, and since 1840, new shot for the (U. S.) Navy have a fixed windage of from l to 2 of an inch, for all calibres."-" Besides the escape and loss of fluiJ through the windage, another and greater disadvantage is, that it occasions ifaccuracy in the flight of shot." (0. & G. Pt. I. Pages 66. 68.) By a peculiar process I will make my cast-iron shot A so advantageously fit the bore of my gun, that no more windage be necessary than that of a leaden ball fitting the bore of apistol. And as the gun is opened for " sponging and loading," the air can pass through it, whereby it is kept comparatively cool, its expansion from heat ~s reduced and its windage is betterpreserved accordingly. All these numerous and great advantages, resulting from the improvements connected with my gun, will become more evident by practical experiments with a gun of larger size than that of my model-gun. Until I shall have proved by practical experiments with my gun as a 64-pounder and by the means of my " Velocimeter," that my shot A has more than twice the initial and striking velocity, and consequently 61 also twice the range, of a 64-pounds' shot from a Paixhan-(8-inch-) gun: I will only suppose, with a very modest pretension, the striking range of my shot A to be of six miles or 10,560 yards. Those sceptics, who doubt of such a range, will please acquaint themselves with the effective range of "picket-bullets," fired with the "Breech-Loading-Rifie " (Ziind-Nadel-Gewehr) used in the Prussian Army, compared with the range of a common musket-ball: as there is some resemblance between my "Breech-Loading-Gun" and that " Breech-Loading-Rifle," and between my shot A and such a "picketbullet,"-without, however, interfering in the least with each-other. (" The inventor"-of the " Breech-Loading-Rifle" —" is Mr. Charles HIartung, of Prussia, now of New-York. The assignee is John B. Klein, Esq., of Laight-Street, New-York. It is patented in the United States."-D. M. M. E. Vol. I. P. 927.) I declare according to truth, that I never saw any of Mr. Hartung's "Breech-Loading-Rifles," nor any of his " Picket-Bullets,:' and that I am in every respect the original inventor of my" Breech-Loading and Steady Ship-Gun," as I can prove, if necessary, by unimpeachable testimony. "At 35 degrees elevation,"-" the 8-inch- (Paixhan-) gun, charged with 10 pounds of powder, will throw its shell 4300 yards, and the 10-inch(Paixhan-) gun, with 13 pounds of powder, 5000 yards,-ranges greater than can be obtained with mortars of the same or even larger calibre at 45 degrees elevation."-" The heaviest mortar generally used afloat is the - 10-inch-mortar, charged with 10 pounds of powder, which throws its shell 4000 yards. The 8-inch-gun," —"with 20 degrees elevation, will throw a shell from 3500 to 4000 yards."-" Unfortunately the 10-inch-guns on the steamers are so mounted that they cannot be elevated more than about five degrees." (0. & G. App. Pages 48, 49.) Considering the great mechanical and chemical advantages resulting from the particular construction of my gun, and considering the most advantageous shape of my shot A,-which all I have sufficiently explained and illustrated,-I can with propriety maintain, that my admitting a striking range of six miles for my gun is no exaggeration, as the range of a common Paixhan-gun is almost three miles. (One mile is 1760 yards.) My War-Steamer shall have neither mnasts nor chimneys, and only one deck with twenty guns of large calibre. M]asts are unnecessary for a safe steamer; chimneys are unnecessary for good improvedfurnaces, viz. such as entirely consume theirfuel, without leaving a great portion of it unburnt, escaping in small particles as a black smoke, instead of a white vapor, that can be let through other openings than huge high chimneys, obstructing the deck of a common steamer. The deck of my war-steamer must be as low as possible, for the following reasons. When little David fought his famous duel with the big Philistine Goliath, and smote him to death, the former had, besides his personal skill, another principal advantage against his antagonist, that of being personally small: consequently, while David had for his slinging-stone a pretty large target in the big fellow's clumsy bulk, the giant had a very poor chance to hit, with his spear or sword, little David's nimble body, even if he had been able to reach him, as he could not, with his weapons, before he was smitten to death. Just so is my war-steamer with a low deck and twenty of my guns 62 more than a match for any great sadling-ship, (or any great steamer with paddle-wheels,) and common guns, of which the shot is-"fired at random and utterly thrown away." (O. & G. Pt. I. Page 97.) Therefore, as I have already stated, (Page 44,) my ship with only 20 of my guns would be against the " Pennsylvania" with her 120 common guns, what little David was against the giant Goliath,-victorious. I beg leave to call the Commanding Officer of my ship a " Commodore," and " Captains" those Officers directly connected with him for theservice of the guns on board, the number of whom and of which I will fix at twenty. And last-though not least-I have also invented for the service of my gun in particular, and for the service of my ship in general, a "Ship-Telegraph," with which the orders of the Commodore are instantly communicated by the Captains to those whom they concern.For the sake of brevity, I will number these Captains, with their corresponding Telegraphs and Guns, as follows: C. Nr. 1, T. Nr. 1, G. Nr. 1, &c.,-to C. Nr. 20, T. Nr. 20, G. Nr. 20. If in business-life "time is money," —in naval warfare time is life, time is power, time is victory: therefore, my ship-telegraphs must save time, which is particularly of great importance in discharging the guns, that must be done in one instant with all on board, whenever such a great Naval Manoeuvre is necessary. With common ships and common ship-guns it is utterly impossible, and by verbal command it would also be impossible even with my ship and my " steady" ship-guns; An ancient poet-Homer or Virgil-said, that Jupiter " moved worlds with his eyes." I say, that a Commodore must not only move his ship: and all her guns, but also discharge these guns, if necessary all simultaneously, by moving one of hisfingers, at any moment, while the ship is rolling like a cradle. For each of my guns a telegraph is attached in the Commodore's Office, and its contrivance is so, that any communication, concerning the directions and the discharge of each gun, is given instantly by the corresponding Captain through the telegraph to the -gunners at the gun, the reversed direction in one second, the vertical and lateral direction in eight seconds, the discharge in four seconds, viz. by counting One! Two!! Three!!!! Fire!!!!-In this manner, all the guns on board can be simultaneously discharged, without one second's discrepancy. To illustrate this most interesting and important Naval Manoeuvre, I will suppose the Commodore's purpose to be the chase and destruction of two Pirate-Steamers armed with Paixhan-guns. The sea is rolling the ships as usual with a moderate wind. The Commodore, on the elevated stand in his transparent Office, looks through his steady telescopes, and discovers in North-East, about 9 miles distant, the two Pirate-Steamers near each-other; but, aware of his approach, they separate, intending to escape, and making the one for the North, the other for the East; while he continues directly towards North-East, to keep them both equally within his reach. Our guns are all prepared, charged with " burners," and for each an " exploder" is ready. The Commodore says; " Nrs. 1 to 10, each, 22, 30," (direction;) whereupon, the Captains Nrs. 1-10 set their telegraphs accordingly, within 4 seconds; while he continues: "Nrs. 11 to 20, each, 67, 30," (direction;) which is likewise done in the same time. Now, the Captains guess already, that he will fire "broadsides" in two directions, at an angle of 1350 to each-other. He resumes: "All —10, 15," (elevation, ) done also within 4 seconds. They now calculate that all the shots shall strike at almost seven miles' distance.-While the gunners are setting their guns, Nrs. 1-10 at 220 30' lateral direction and 10~ 15/ elevation, Nrs. 11-20 at 670 30/ lateral direction and 100 15/ elevation: the Commodore accurately ascertains by the telescopes that his distance-calculation is correct, and through them he follows with his eyes the fast motions of the pirates during 10 minutes. Through the "planimetrical" contrivance of the telescopes he measures the angle between the two ships, and finds it already 1200, so that they now form with his ship an equilateral triangle; but as he will simultaneously hit them at 1350, they have still a " reprieve " of a few minutes, until they come into the intended angle, according to the lateral direction of the guns Nrs. 1-10 and Nrs. 11-20. Although the Commodore does not expect that the pirates will continue their directions after his 1" salutes" of 10 " burners" for each, he orders by the "steering"-telegraph: "R. R.," which means: "Ready for Reversing! " because, if he and they will continue thus to run, their angle must become still more obtuse, and then his guns must have also a more obtuse lateral direction for sending their " exploders" to the pirates. The Commodore says: " Attention! "-and every Captain keeps his eyes fixed at him, and his finger upon his telegraph; while the Commodore puts his finger to the steering-telegraph and orders: " S. 10," which means:' Stop in 10 seconds!-A dead silence prevails on board during thelse few moments. (There is no danger for any of " ours," as the pirates cannot yet reach " us" with their " Paixhans," that bear not even half the distance, it being still over six miles.) Now the Commodore moves his hand up and down, the Captains move their telegraphs accordingly: One! Two!! Three!! Fire!!!-A terrible moment!While the gunners are "sponging" and re-loading, (but now with "exploders,") the Commodore observes, wondering, why the pirates don't immediately strike their colors. Now, he,-the old philanthropist,-grows angry at the stubborn wretches, who will not "come down." "' Well!" says the noble veteran: " Now we must blow them up!"He moves: " R.," and within ten seconds all the propellers are reversed, immediately moving backward. Afew minutes are necessary to have again an angle of 1350 with the pirates, who have also been compelled to sibp, on account of their ships being on fire, which they vainly try to extinguish!-burning fluid!-while they are also engaged in throwing their powder overboard. Now the Commodore orders to stop again, and bitterly smiling with a contemptuous pity he moves his hand: One! Two!! Three!!! Fire!!!!-A still more terrible moment than before ensues. The pirates now do strike their colors, but too late: after 10 seconds two simultaneous dreadful explosions tell the brlve Americans, that thafelons are now "launched" into Eternity. Whatever has been said in this fictitious narrative, can be realized by my inventions, of which the future results for our Country may thus be anticipated. 64 CON CLUSION. I will not pretend to be a Universal Reformer of Steam-Navigation and of Naval Ordnance and Gunnery, if my conviction respecting the great and evident inefficiencies in either be proved as incorrect; or, if any other person or persons be proved more capable than I am to execute such improvements by such inventions, as I will execute by mine.But, as long as these inefcienoies do exist, since. nothing better is done by other persons, who possess greaterpecuniary means for such purposes: I amfirmly resolved to act and to struggle for the introduction of my inventions and improvements in Steam-Navigation and in Naval Ordnance and Gunnery. I feel bound with pleasure to declare, that I esteem Captain Ericson as a man of great genius and knowledge, and that I think the general adoption of his screw-propeller in our Navy must have had results as good as they can be obtained by such propellers, which are doubtless superior to any paddle-wheels; but I know thatneither Captain Ericson, nor Mr. Francis B. Stevens, have already reached the culmination-point of improvements in Steam-Navigation. Neither Captain Ericson's Propeller, successfully tried with the "Princeton" and the "Robe'rt Stockton" in England,-nor Mr. Stevens', Contrivance, " interposing a stratum of air" between the flat surface of the ship's bottom and the water, successfully tested in New-York State,-are improvements of sufficient excellence in propellency, to give them any preponderancy in Steam-Navigation. Notwithstanding all optimism in general, and all optimists in particular, whatever be their notions or their pretensions: I maintain and I can prove, that the present Steam-Navigation in our Marine and in our Navy, and that our Naval Ordnance and Gunnery likewise, are behind the Age, and that my inventions must have results hitherto unattained in these great Elements of National Wealth and Power. With a sufficient knowledge of mechanics and other sciences, with a proportional experience of thirty years' assiduous labor,-aided by an equal familiarity with the English, German and French Languages,-with respectable connections and recommendations: I have the means to -apply to any Government or Nation in the World, if my own would — as I do not expect they will-reject or under-value my valuable inventions. In offering these inventions to, I do ask no favor from, our Government, whom I thus give the first chance for securing the same to our Country. I am neither a fortune-hunter, nor an office-hunter: I am a theoretical and practical inventor, able to execute with my own hands every drawing and every model of my inventions: able to direct all the practical work of casting, forging, welding, soldering, testing and useing the same in the very best way: able to give written and verbal specifications thereof in English, German and French; but also able to cause their value to be acknowledged according to justice, which to beg as a favor I am too proud, being with my heart and soul a True Republican: an American Citizen!Respectfully submitted: WILLIAM BESCHOKE. Philadelphia; April, 1852.