TOPICS OF THE DAY.

STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY ON OUR NATIONAL DEFENCES.

THE controversy on our national defences has received powerful accession this week, in the person of Captain Edward Plunkett, a naval officer and writer of repute, and the Duke of Wellington, whose celebrated letter to Sir John Burgoyne, with some omis- sion, is published by the Morning Chronicle. Were the matter to be settled by authority, the weight on the side of strengthening our defences would be overwhelming : the known advocates on that side are Lord Ellesmere, Captain Plunkett, Sir John Bur- goyne, an Engineer officer of the highest distinction, and the Great Captain. To this list, though he deprecates alarm, may be added Admiral Bowles.

Among a host of anonymous or unknown writers, is the origin- ator of the present controversy, " P."; from whose modest reserve the veil has been torn, some of the newspapers having divulged a name perhaps known to most London readers by its initial-Fre- derick Pigou. Mr. Pigou is or has been connected with the ma- nufacture of gunpowder ; and certain critics discern in his zeal nothing but the desire to promote the purchase of that explosive. But he has been a sedulous spier into abuses of divers kinds ; and even if reminiscences of the factory should have given a bent to the studies of an observant mind, it is gratuitous detraction to- suppose that men of so much earnestness and activity cannot ex- tricate themselves from the bias of a remote personal interest. The opponents of strengthened defences are mostly unknown ; Mr. Cobden being the sole champion of note on that side. The Examiner has taken a curious position, on both sides ; the writer lending his wit on the side of Mr. Cobden, his reason on the side of the Duke of Wellington. Consistently with this in.. consistency, the writer assailed the correspondent of the Chro- nicle, " P., the initial either of Popgun or Panic." Mr. Pigou man- fully stood up against his antagonist, whose visor he tore off without remorse. " The writer in the Examiner," says P., " might, if he chose, use the initial ' F.,' which would here, per- adventure, designate Flippancy more than Foresight" : " he has contributed the best and most racy articles to the weekly press "; and " the Examiner is a great sea-officer" : phrases which in- dicate the author of England under Seven Administrations, a noted yachter, and lately-appointed Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade, as distinctly as his address card. Inferred from his paper in last week's Examiner, F.'s opinion, is, that to take heed for the strengthening of our defences is silly., but that to strengthen them is wise. Wit, we know, consists in the unexpected union of remote ideas ; and F.'s contribution to the dispute unites other ideas quite as remote. Into the ques- tion of national defences he presses umbrellas, Gaffer Thumb, sea-sickness, the total lack of a French transport fleet, and other recondite pleasantries. The argument is like the figures-it lies in the coupling of incongruities. For example- " The gist of the horrible discovery that has been made is this, that in a time of profound peace we are not in the state of preparation that would be suitable to war. The Frenchman's advice as to carrying an umbrella was, When it is fine always carry an umbrella; when it rains do as you like.' The counsel as to de- fence is analogous. In profound peace, keep up your defences as if all the world were in arms against you; in war, reduce them if you please. An excellent effect of this system would be, that war, whenever it should happen, would differ in cost very little from peace, and, therefore, people would cease to regard it with such extreme repugnance. Indeed, when England and France have raised works, planted cannon, and enrolled vast forces against each other, the feeling will pro- bably arise that such preparations should not be made for nothing, and that it will cost very little more, bloodshed only excepted, to make use of them, and turn them to that profitable commodity glory.

"The type of ancient wisdom, Ulysses, thought it prudent to banish arms from an amicable meeting, saying, the sight of the iron tempts the man. "The maxim, if you would be at peace be prepared for war, wants emendation; it should run, if you would be at peace, pay the full price of war."

A wrong reading : the maxim should run-If you would be at peace, pay the full price of insurance against the chance of war. Like most of what emanates from the same pen, this extract is amusing; but as a contribution towards the public counsel on the very important subject, it is not so useful as another less amusing part of the same paper, because it does not in any man- ner apply to the views which it professes to antagonize. The paper from which we quote is headed "The Irrational Defences"; the said irrational works, it appears from the text, being some figment of the critic's own mind ; since, while arguing on this side, he evidently contemplates what no one on the other of the two sides which he espouses has hinted at,-namely, means ado. quate to active warfare. From the most military writer to the most civil, from the Duke of Wellington to Lord Ellesmere, not one has suggested anything but such addition to our means of defence as shall secure us against calamitous contingencies and the chance of surprise. To employ his own analogy, the writer in the Examiner will not carry an umbrella until he is caught in the rain : his economy induces him rather to rely on the chance of finding, in the pelting of the pitiless storm, such itinerant umbrella-merchants as are seen in Leicester Square : he prefers buying a cotton rag on a stick, pro re nata, each time, to carrying about the decent silk; though the rag will fail him in the thickest of the pelting, and his well-appointed hat will be the sacrifice. This is not the popular notion of thrift. It is the wit's thrift ; which thus unites, by a tour de mot, the exceedingly remote ideas of economy and improvidence. He makes out that "carpe diem" is the true maxim-for the sage economist. The French fleet, it is argued, has yet to be provided : another disputant in the controversy, Mr. St. John, states, in much more specific language, that the French possess, at home, sixteen steamers, each capable of carrying about fifteen hundred men for a short voyage, besides auxiliary vessels. The disembarkation of a "large body of men," says the Examiner, "is not so simple and expeditious, especially if it be performed in boats." There have been instances, however, of tolerably expeditious disembarkation: at Walcheren, seven thousand men landed in five minutes, in the face of a prepared enemy. And the Duke of Wellington declares, that excepting under the fire of Dover Castle, any number of men might be landed on any parts of our coasts, at any time. But we must not overlook our "great ally "— "One ally of ours, whose force is always unnoticed, is sea-sickness' to which the French are more liable than any other people; and 50,000 shipped heroes would, upon landing, be 50,000 wretched helpless invalids, nauseating evenglory." Who knows, however, but what the great desideratum, the sea- sick passenger's elixir vitm, may be discovered, ay, even in chlo- roform? A well-adjusted dose of that sedative might convert a whole army into freight as manageable as casks of French. brandy, to land as strong as that spirit, and as victorious over English- men. A voyage, no doubt, is an operation to a Frenchman; but why should not he, like other patients, awake from "delightful dreams" to victory ?

We finish our extracts with the close of the paper, in which the writer adopts the arguments of the very persons whom he has been combating, and places them in language terse and elegant, though free from the vivacity which usually marks his style : but, as we have already observed, the passage, taken in union with the preceding context, is the crowning stroke of wit; the critic proceeds to knock down his own figment-

" While deprecating demands for defence proportioned to exaggerated fanciful alarms, we are far from concurring in Mr. Cobdeu's opposite argument for a re- duction of establishments.

' Est modes in rebus, sant cert.! denlque floes, Quos ultra enrage° nequit eonsistere rectum.'

For present exigencies our Army and Navy are not larger than necessary; and it must be sonic time before the interests springing out of extended commercial re- lations can enable us to dispense with any of our defensive powers. As the slen- der roots of grasses knit the surface of banks and give them stability, so free trade will bind together the particles of interest forming the great dykes of peace; but the growth requires time, and meanwhile other appliances for security can- not prudently be withdrawn.

"Indeed, we see more reason for adding to our means of defence' short of ex- travagance, than for reducing them and should be glad to see the force and effi- ciency of our steam navy augmented; and also some system adopted like that of the French National Guard, instructing the people in the use of arms, and prac- tising them in the manouivres by which bodies move with order and precision. A day's drill now and then could be no great hardship to people between the ages of eighteen and fifty; and if ten of the men so trained were only equal to one regular soldier in efficiency, the result with such numbers would be an important consi- deration for an enemy meditating invasion."

We reckon F., therefore, among the advocates of sufficient de- fences. It is clear that in his graver moments he is so ; though so fierce is the sterile of wit that it must vent itself even on the most solemn of subjects. Your true wit, of course, will sacrifice his country to his joke. The Times, which began by scoffing, and turned to reasoning, now returns to scoffing. Yesterday it repeated this popular fal- lacy— "Is our position more critical, are we more open to attack, and more obnoxious to a sudden acerbation of Gallican hostility, than we have been for thirty-two years? Why a change? We have acted neither without method and design, nor, as it now appears, without prudence and success, for the third of a century. Ours has been a deliberate, and so far a seasonable policy. There is a strength in quietness and confidence. The result proves it." What "result " ? The only , result " is, that for thirty-two years we have not had an invasion : that we shall not have any future invasion is not included in "the result." But, at the be- ginning of the revived controversy, we anticipated that argu- ment, and must now ask the same responsive questions. Are we never to have war again ? if we are, does not every year of peace bring us nearer to the next war? and if that war were to come now, would it find us prepared to put forth, in the manner needed, the undoubted strength and resources of the country? The object of some writers who labour to throw ridicule on the question while they do not altogether deny that an increase of de- fensive force may be prudent, seems to be, to make the most of a present subject for the amusement of readers, and still more to keep the ground unoccupied for Ministers. What Ministers will

i do, s not certain ; but whatever that may be will be the right thing. Meanwhile, it is safe to laugh at anybody else.

If we turn from the more entertaining parts of the controversy to plain matters of fact, we find that substantial materials towards a sound judgment multiply to our bands. The highest evidence that can be obtained is that which we reprint in another page— the Duke of Wellington's statement. It is perfectly distinct, plain, and intelligible. It is not a formal report by an official to his employer, but the genuine personal communing of the great commander with his military friend. It has, however, been well Rrepared by habits of observation, by the Duke's long residence m the Southern coast, and his opportunities for "reconnoiter- ing." It is limited to the military part of the subject; the Duke leaving the naval department to others. There is not a trace " alarm " or of old age in the document. It is purely prac- ical. To rebut it would require the most direct and substantial estimony of its error. The Duke states that our coasts are ex- iosed, and that he could not undertake to defend the country; with our present military force, against an invader. The power if making such a declaration ought at once to be taken out of the nouth of the most intrepid, experienced, business-like, and sue- :essful commander of our times. His plan for rendering our de-

fences sufficient seems moderate : it is an enrolment of militia to the amount of about 150,000 men, and such an increase of the regular army as would cost about 400,000/.; we believe that would not give more than 10,000 men.

Among the light literature of Bentley's Miscellany is a paper by Mr. St. John, which the writer believes to give a substantially accurate account of the Government plan. For all his Whig partisanship, his idolatry of that strange peacemaker Lord Pal- merston, and his rather old-fashioned .Anti-Gallican enthusiasm, Mr. St. John is not a writer to lend his name to a statement on light grounds. We find that the plan which he sets forth coincides in essentials with that suggested by the Duke of Wel- lington's letter, since published. According to Mr. St. John, the Regular troops are to be increased by 10,000 men of Militia there are to be enrolled and drilled, in England 100,000, in Ireland 40,000; the fortifications at Sheerness, Dover, Portsmouth, and Plymouth, are to be strengthened, and other towns to be placed in a state of defence.

The increase of Regular troops will principally be given, where it is most wanted, to the Ordnance ; a branch most important for defence.

We hope that a no less important branch will not be neglected —the Steam Marine; of which Mr. St. John speaks as if it were sufficient. We know that respectable evidence is to be had in favour of the mercantile steamers as an efficient auxiliary at a pinch ; but that point ought to be authoritatively ascertained. At all events, they have not the guns, still less the men ; and as the Prince de Joinville says, "a sailor is not to be improvised," especially for manceuvering ships in fight, and working artillery. The evidence in favour of the Royal Steam Marine is anything but satisfactory ; and deficiencies in that branch of the service ought to be made good. We observe with satisfaction that no military or official author- ity proposes any vast increase either of Army or Navy : both the plans now more or leas authentically before the public are moderate, and bear no resemblance to a war establishment—to any project dictated by alarm, such as would make peace not less costly than war. We presume that either would be sufficient. The true economy will lie in providing what is sufficient for the purpose. Nothing is so costly as national defeat, especially since modern warfare has made a regular practice of imposing on the vanquished nation aline, as fee for peace : France, as the Duke of Wellington reminds us, levied enormous contributions de guerre in Russia, Prussia, and Austria; when herself conquered, she made compensation in the shape of immense territorial concessions— huge fines paid in kind ; and we see what invasion is now cost- ing Mexico. The most economical payment which we can make will be the sums needed for the defence requisite to insure us against such surprise as would entail those disasters upon us at the commencement of a mar, before the nation was fairly roused to its strength.