17 SEPTEMBER 1870, Page 23

Our Ironclad Ships. By E. J. Reed, C.B. (Murray.)—There is

a satisfaction, not felt now for the first time in our history, in looking from our Army to our Navy. We could scarcely land a corps (Farm& in Belgium, if need should arise, without altogether denuding our own garrisons. We could not do mach more if we were to find an enemy landed on our coasts. But happily, the prospect, when we regard our naval strength, is mach more reassuring. Stated broadly, the fact is that our fleets are much stronger than anything that could be brought against us, except by some improbable, if not impossible, coalition. When we say stronger, we mean not only in regard to numbers and weight of armament, but in regard to the strength and efficiency of individual ships. Neither French nor American armour-plating seems worthy of being compared with that which protects the most recent and best of our ironclads. Stich, at least, is Mr. Reed's account of the matter, and there is, we imagine, little doubt that his opinion may be accepted without reserve. The volume before us is one, we need hardly say, of the greatest interest. It gives the "qualities, performances, and cost " of our ironclad fleet, —presents us, in fact, with the substance and outcome of a number of inquiries and experiments, which, taken in the rough, are not a little perplexing and wearisome to the ordinary reader. One turns, after the melancholy catastrophe of the 7th inst., with a special interest to what Mr. Reed says of the "Captain." Our readers will be aware that he has never regarded the invention of Captain Coles with the favour that it has gained elsewhere, and he criticizes the construc- tion of this particular vessel with some severity. His objections, how- ever, are chiefly addressed to certain defects in its defensive and offen- sive qualities ; to a supposed insecurity in the junction of the turret with the deck, and to a defect in its range of fire. It is the Monitor class of vessels that he regards as specially deficient in sea-going qualities, and the Monitors are much lower in the water. It seems clear, indeed, that the " Captain " was, as a matter of fact, top-heavy, and succumbed to what would not have destroyed other ships, but whether this defect is inseparable from this method of construction is quite another matter. The supplementary paper, which concludes the volume, drawing forth the difference between " steadiness " under canvas, and stability, or the power of prompt recovery, is particularly interesting. The " Captain " was steady, but not stable. We ought to say that Mr. Reed is not by any means made repulsive by technicalities, but is eminently readable.