he enemy, and confuse them by the suddenness of his
attack where they did not expect him. The manoeuvre was successful
even beyond his own expectation. The _Re d'Italia_, the flagship of the
Italian Admiral, which had been built in New York as the masterpiece
of naval architecture, was sunk, and the fleet utterly defeated! What
Tegetthoff did at Lissa, the English may do in future battles. Of this
I am sure, that whatever _can_ be done by courage and skill will be done
by the sons of the Vikings to retain their mastery of the sea. But it
would be too much to expect of any power that it could stand against the
combined navies of the world.

If Gibraltar be thus powerless for offence, is it altogether secure for
defence? Is it really impregnable? That is a question often asked, and
on which only military men are competent to give an opinion, and even
they are divided. Englishmen, who are most familiar with its defences,
say, Yes! Those defences have been enormously increased even in our day.
In the Great Siege we saw its powers of resistance a hundred years ago.
Yet Eliott defeated the French and Spanish fleets and armies with less
than a hundred guns. Ninety years later--in 1870--there were _seven
hundred_ guns in position on the Rock, the smallest of which were larger
than the heaviest used in the siege. And yet since 1870 the increase
in the size of guns and their weight of metal, is greater than in the
hundred years before. In the siege it was counted a wonderful shot that
carried a ball two miles and a half. Now the hundred-ton guns carry over
eight miles. Putting these things together, English officers maintain
that Gibraltar cannot be taken by all the powers of Europe combined.

On the other hand, French and German engineers--familiar with the
new inventions in war, and knowing that they can use dynamite and
nitro-glycerine, instead of gunpowder, to give tremendous force to the
new projectiles--would probably say that there is no fortress which
cannot be battered down. To me, who am but a layman in such matt