trustworthy and valuable public servant, cheerfully obeying the orders of his superiors, and enforcing them upon those employed upon the public works, whether they be military or civil labourers.

It is well known, especially to those officers who have been attached to the Sappers, that the latter look upon Civil Clerks of Works, perhaps not without reason, as a grade somewhat superior to that of a Serjeant, but inferior to that of an officer, and although this feeling ought doubtless not to exist, it actually does so, and the proposed scheme for the abolition of the present Civil Clerks of Works, and the substitution of Serjeants of the Royal Engineers, will, if carried out, entirely remove any traces of it, and will throw open to those non-commissioned officers, who are inclined to study, and devote themselves to their profession, opportunities of distinguished and lucrative employment. I feel sure much benefit would be derived by the formation of a special training school at Chatham for those Serjeants of the corps who seek such an appointment, could these be taught one uniform system of carrying out minor details, and those who shew an aptitude, the higher branches of architecture and building.

Upon the value of the third result it is unnecessary to dilate. I will merely remark that in addition to their multifareous professional duties, the non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Engineers go through precisely the same drill, inspection by General officers, &c., &c., &c., as the regiments of Infantry, and their interior economy is conducted in a similar manner. Their value as artificers is well known.

In the recent "builders'. strike" at a critical period, the only artificers the government could obtain were the Royal Engineers.

In conclusion I must remark upon the proposal to augment the Corps of Royal Engineers by 108 subalterns.

The Corps at present contains 207 subalterns, the average rate of promotion from that rank to a Captain during the last 6 years, which period includes a portion of the promotion caused by the Crimean War, and by the fictitious system of "seconding" officers, is only 12 per annum, a rate which is far surpassed by their contemporaries in the Line, and even by the doctors. It is therefore very improbable that the superior class of young men necessary to officer the Corps of Royal Engineers would be found for the pittance of 58 7d per diem, the liberal pay of a subaltern until he is in the first 120 (with a small allowance to include a servant, quarters, coals, candles, and travelling within five miles of his station) if he had the almost certainty of remaining at least 17 years a subaltern, a period by no means exaggerated when the average age of the

Lieutenant-Colonels of Engineers does not at present exceed 47

years.

The time-honored system of augmentation is doubtless the correct one, each rank receiving a slight increase, and none being benefited at the expense of the others. Another reason can however be adduced to prove how fatal to the public interests would be an augmentation by subalterns only. In (I believe) all European armies (that of England excluded) the proportion of Captains to the Royal Engineers to the Subalterns is 2 to 1, in the British Army the proportion is nearly 2 Subalterns to 1 Captain on the continent, moreover, the Royal Engineers are extensively employed on the Staff of the Army, the reverse being the case in England.

Many a subaltern of the Royal Engineers is now employed on duties which should be performed by Captains or Field Officers; this is necessarily the case at Chatham, Dublin &c., &c., and at many foreign stations. Not long since the Commanding Royal Engineer at Bermuda was a subaltern. In such an anomalous position the subaltern officer is frequently obliged to meet upon points of duty, and transact business with Officers of the Royal Artillery and Infantry, far senior to himself in the service. They not unnaturally look down upon his position in it, and however sound his opinions may be, and however able an officer he is, do not attach that value to them they would do, if he were of the rank his length of service fairly entitles him to. Sir J. Burgoyne has often commented upon this point, and has doubtless in his long experience, seen the incredible mischief it has been productive of.

Whatever increase is made to the Corps of Royal Engineers, let it be one which will be fair to all its grades, and the public will find that the trifling extra expence it may cause, will be amply compensated by the increased number of officers to superintend the erection of the extensive works, now being carried out in the United Kingdom and her Colonies, instead of their being left (as the paucity of officers often force Commanding Royal Engineers) to the sole supervision of Clerks of Works and Contractors. I am, &c.,

S. C.

EDITOR'S PORTFOLIO;

OR,

NAVAL AND MILITARY REGISTER.

LORD MALMESBURY's opinion of the practical worthlessness of the declaration made by the Paris Congress on points of international law is now adopted by the leading statesmen on the other side of the House, as well as his own, and become a doctrine. Indeed, the resolutions of the Congress were never allowed any weight, as they were repudiated almost as they were promulgated. Three nations of Europe referred their quarrel to the arbitrament of the sword, instead of a friendly power, as soon as a cause arose. We have made another breach in the "revised code," by recognising the blockade in America, and it cannot be denied that we still recognise privateers. MR. HORSFALL proposes to grant belligerents a charter of protection for their commerce during war, so that they may carry on their trade with the same security as in peace, but what guarantee could be obtained for the maintenance of such an arrangement, if we could even be persuaded that it was for our advantage? LORD RUSSELL has acknowledged that there is no probability of the Paris resolutions being observed by France, in the event of her having to contend with us at sea, and SIR CORNEWALL LEWIS has gone further, declaring that all treaty arrangements are rescinded by war and come to a legal termination. We cannot, indeed, accept this view in reference to what must rather be called a compact than a treaty; but there can be no doubt that it describes the practical result. It is idle to suppose that an enemy with maritime resources would allow us to sweep her squadrons from the sea and blockade her coast and still leave the sea a safe highway for our trade, because the merchantmen blocked up in her ports might claim the same immunity, if they could only get out. Let us imagine an yustralian gold ship meeting the Gloire' or 'San Jacinto' in

such a posture of affairs. We cannot think that such a golden opportunity would be neglected from deference to a sentimental compact. It is true, the capture or plunder of the ship would be piracy, but how could the penalty be enforced? Not only must we catch the culprits, and get over the difficulties in the way of conviction, but the enemy would hold a pledge against our acting with rigour in any prisoners in his hands. The Federals found it impossible to carry out their threat of hanging Confederate privateersmen, because the Confederates threatened to hang man for man of Federals, and the same considerations must always operate. War may be rendered less cruel, by the forbearance of commanders and armies, but it cannot be onducted on new principles, and no regulations will ever be respected, which take from the power strongest at the moment the smallest advantage. If we could be certain that the Convention of Paris would stand the shock of war, the arguments against the proposition of MR. HORSFALL Would, indeed, be outweighed, by some which, though unaccountably unnoted in the debate, might be urged in its favour. It is more important to us to preserve a free course for our commerce than to destroy that of our antagonist; and the latter object would be as effectually achieved by a blockade, as by suppression at sea. England is the only power that could, at the same time, blockade the ports of an antagonist, sweep the seas of her fleets, and carry out great naval expeditions; England alone could keep afloat both a military and mercantile marine; and commerce would supply her with the sinew of war in a far greater degree than it would sustain her antagonist. But, in fact, the enemy has but to put his goods in a neutral bottom, and they are secure; he is thus only deprived of the profit of transit, which, as all his naval resources are required for attack or defence, he could in no case retain. It would be an advantage to us to deprive him of the support of his mercantile marine by allowing it to pursue its accustomed course, for while we secured immunity for our own, his trade would really obtain no greater scope than it would obtain in neutral ships, as all vessels alike are cut off by blockade.

Until, therefore, a power shall arise with a navy strong enough to seal up the ports of England, the adoption of MR. HORSFALL'S proposition would give us a vantage greater than any we ever possessed. The objection to it is, that it will never be accepted by other powers, or, if accepted, would be thrown to the winds on the first temptation. There is but one way of looking at warto regard it as the last resort of an outraged nation, and then go into it, and do your enemy as much damage as you can.

:

In the debates on the Army estimates, MR. SELWYN nearly succeeded in marring the scheme for making Sandhurst College self-supporting his proposal to reduce the vote by £12,700 was actually carried one night and would now be an accomplished fact, had it not been resisted by SIR CORNEWALL LEWIS. The object he had really in view was to give a wider scope to the principle of competition, by opening the contest for gratuitous commissions to candidates from the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, on the same footing as the Sandhurst Cadets. By the existing regulation, no one can compete for these commissions who has not passed a year at Sandhurst, and as their number, after making the deductions for QUEEN's Cadets, promotions from the ranks, and the India service, is about 170, it is necessary to enlarge the institution in order to command a fair proportion of competitors. This requires that there should be accommodation for 336 cadets, which will not only supply the requisite number, but produce a revenue sufficient to defray the expenses of the college, and the £12,000 odd was to provide the necessary buildings. We cannot agree that a case was made out for the reduction of the vote. The arguments for a university education have a plausible air, but they tell equally for public schools, and the three universities are not contending for the suppression of the so-called monopoly, but for its extension to themselves. They choose to appear as the champions of a free system, but all they want is a share of the spoil. It may be true that the education they provide is of a more liberal because more