44 files changed, 23652 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d7b82bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+*.txt text eol=lf
+*.htm text eol=lf
+*.html text eol=lf
+*.md text eol=lf
diff --git a/75617-0.txt b/75617-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e9d49e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,9868 @@
+
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75617 ***
+
+
+
+
+
+Transcriber’s Notes:
+
+
+This is Volume II of a two-volume set. Volume I is available at Project
+Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75616.
+
+Italics are enclosed in _underscores_. Additional notes will be found
+near the end of this ebook.
+
+
+
+
+THE BRITISH BATTLE FLEET
+
+[Illustration: DREADNOUGHTS ANCHORING--1912.]
+
+
+
+
+                                  THE
+                             BRITISH BATTLE
+                                 FLEET
+
+                        ITS INCEPTION AND GROWTH
+                        THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES
+                           TO THE PRESENT DAY
+
+
+                                   BY
+                              FRED T. JANE
+
+        AUTHOR OF “FIGHTING SHIPS,” “ALL THE WORLD’S AIRCRAFT,”
+                  “HERESIES OF SEA POWER,” ETC., ETC.
+
+                      WITH ILLUSTRATIONS IN COLOUR
+                 FROM ORIGINAL WATER-COLOUR DRAWINGS BY
+
+                           W. L. WYLLIE, R.A.
+
+                  AND NUMEROUS PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS.
+
+
+                                VOL. II.
+
+
+                                 London
+                       The Library Press, Limited
+                         26 Portugal St., W.C.
+                                  1915
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+  CHAPTER                                                           PAGE
+
+     I. THE BARNABY ERA                                                1
+
+    II. THE WHITE ERA                                                 54
+
+   III. THE WATTS ERA                                                117
+
+    IV. THE DREADNOUGHT ERA (WATTS)                                  133
+
+     V. SUBMARINES                                                   208
+
+    VI. NAVAL AVIATION                                               218
+
+   VII. AUXILIARY NAVIES                                             231
+
+  VIII. GENERAL MATTERS IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS                    242
+
+
+
+
+LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
+
+                               IN COLOUR
+                  FROM PICTURES BY W. L. WYLLIE, R.A.
+
+
+                                                                    PAGE
+
+  DREADNOUGHTS ANCHORING--1912                    _Frontispiece_
+
+  BOARDING A SLAVE DHOW                                               41
+
+  SECOND CLASS CRUISER OF THE NAVAL DEFENCE ACT ERA, NOW CONVERTED
+      INTO A MINELAYER                                                73
+
+  WHITE ERA BATTLESHIPS OF THE MAJESTIC CLASS                         91
+
+  EARLY TYPE OF “27 KNOT” DESTROYERS                                 111
+
+  THE “DREADNOUGHT,” 1906                                            147
+
+  “INDEFATIGABLE” AND “INVINCIBLE,” 1911                             171
+
+  EARLY “30 KNOT” DESTROYERS                                         189
+
+  SUBMARINES LEAVING PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR                              209
+
+  BATTLE CRUISER “NEW ZEALAND” ON THE STOCKS 1912                    235
+
+
+                           SHIP PHOTOGRAPHS
+
+  “INFLEXIBLE” AS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED 1881                            3
+
+  “BENBOW” SHIP OF THE ADMIRAL CLASS                                  29
+
+  SUBMARINE E2                                                       213
+
+  BRITISH NAVY SEAPLANE                                              219
+
+  HOISTING A NAVAL SEAPLANE ON BOARD THE “HIBERNIA”                  223
+
+
+                               PORTRAITS
+
+  SIR N. BARNABY                                                      45
+
+  SIR WILLIAM WHITE                                                   55
+
+  SIR PHILIP WATTS                                                   123
+
+  GENERAL CUNIBERTI                                                  135
+
+  ADMIRAL FISHER                                                     243
+
+  ADMIRAL SIR JOHN JELLICOE                                          249
+
+
+                         PLANS, DIAGRAMS, ETC.
+
+  EARLY TURRET SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA                                7
+
+  FOREIGN SHIPS PURCHASED FOR THE NAVY IN 1877–78                     11
+
+  BARNABY BARBETTE SHIPS                                              17
+
+  SOME FAMOUS RAMS                                                    21
+
+  CHARACTERISTIC BARNABY SHIPS                                        33
+
+  TURRET SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA                                     37
+
+  BATTLESHIPS OF THE WHITE ERA                                        79
+
+  SYSTEMS OF WATER-LINE PROTECTION                                    83
+
+  PRINCIPAL CRUISERS OF THE WHITE ERA                                 95
+
+  PRE-DREADNOUGHTS OF THE WATTS ERA                                  119
+
+  ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE DREADNOUGHT                            151
+
+  ORIGINAL DREADNOUGHT DESIGNS                                       157
+
+  EARLY EXAMPLES OF WING TURRETS                                     161
+
+  DREADNOUGHTS                                                       167
+
+  CENTRE-LINE SHIPS OF VARIOUS DATES                                 177
+
+  DIAGRAM TO ILLUSTRATE WEAK POINT OF THE ÉCHELON SYSTEM             181
+
+
+
+
+THE BRITISH BATTLE FLEET.
+
+
+
+
+I.
+
+THE BARNABY ERA.
+
+
+The characteristic _motif_ of the Barnaby designs has been described
+as a “maximum of offensive power and the minimum of defence.” This
+is not altogether correct; though as a generalization it is no very
+great exaggeration. In every Barnaby design proper, offence was the
+first thing sought for, but defence as then understood was by no means
+overlooked as to-day it appears to have been.
+
+The bed rock “Reed idea” was to produce a ship which could attack and
+destroy the enemy without much risk of being damaged in doing so. The
+“Barnaby idea” was that “the best defensive is a strong offensive”; and
+a strict subordination of defence to what might best serve the attack
+on the same displacement.
+
+The first big armoured ship to be laid down at all on Barnaby
+principles, the _Inflexible_, was built under somewhat peculiar
+circumstances. In the year 1871 a Committee was appointed. One of its
+findings was as follows:--
+
+    “As powerful armament, thick armour, speed, and light draught
+    cannot be combined in one ship, although all are needed for the
+    defence of the country; there is no alternative but to give the
+    preponderance to each in its turn amongst different classes of
+    ships which shall mutually supplement one another.”[1]
+
+Amongst the Committee’s suggestions had been the abolition of the
+complete belt, and its concentration amidships. This recommendation
+was mainly intended to refer to cruising ships rather than to ships
+definitely intended for the line of battle; but the idea soon spread.
+
+These suggestions had already been embodied in a modified form in the
+_Shannon_, of which particulars will be found later on. The _Shannon_,
+however, was frankly a “belted cruiser,” and no idea had then been
+entertained of adapting a similar system for heavy armoured ships.
+
+In the year 1874, however, it transpired that the Italians were
+evolving an entirely new type of battleship, the _Duilio_ and
+_Dandolo_, and adopting a central box system. By this means they were
+able to protect the citadel with 22-inch armour and mount four 100-ton
+guns in two turrets _en échelon_, so that all four could bear ahead and
+astern as well as on either broadside. The seriousness of the situation
+was increased by the fact that in most of the tactical ideas of the
+day, end-on approach figured largely.[2]
+
+Compared with these Italian designs, the most powerful British ironclad
+of those days, the _Dreadnought_, with a belt of only 14-inch to
+11-inch armour, and bearing but two of her four 38-ton guns end-on, cut
+a sorry figure.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Photo_]      [_Ellis_.
+
+THE _INFLEXIBLE_, AS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED, 1881.]
+
+It was deemed essential to build a “reply.” The largest gun actually
+available at the time was, however, the 81-ton M.L.; so this was
+adopted for the new ship. The _Inflexible_ being frankly an adoption
+of Italian ideas, she can hardly be described as the design of any one
+man; Sir N. Barnaby having been tied down to an extent with which
+(from his subsequent writings) he did not, it would appear, altogether
+agree. A smaller central citadel than that of the Italian ships was
+adopted, but the thickness was carried to 24-inch, the thickest armour
+ever introduced into an ironclad either before or since. The bulkheads
+were 20-in. The freeboard of the central redoubt was 10ft. Round about
+it, fore and aft, on an armoured raft-body were built a bow and stern,
+with superstructures curtailed to the centre line sufficiently to allow
+of unimpeded end-on fire from the big guns, which, like those of the
+Italians, were placed in échelonned turrets.
+
+With a view to satisfying the “masted turret-ship” ideal, an absurd
+brig rig was fitted to the _Inflexible_. With this it was possible for
+the ship to drift before the wind, haystack-fashion, but the rig was
+so much of the “placebo” order that it was designed to be taken down
+and thrown overboard in case of action! At a later date it was removed
+altogether and a military rig substituted.
+
+The _Inflexible_ was crammed with novelties. Like the _Devastation_
+she was the “_Dreadnought_” of her time. Chief among her innovations
+were the adoption of submerged torpedo tubes (of which she had two),
+the mounting of Nordenfeldts as a definite anti-torpedo-boat armament,
+and an ingenious anti-rolling arrangement, whereby water was admitted
+amidships to counteract the roll. This was very partially successful;
+but in 1910 the idea re-appeared in a slightly altered form and is now
+used in certain big Atlantic liners.
+
+An ingenious feature of the _Inflexible_ concerned the big guns. In the
+_Devastation_ and _Dreadnought_ types these could be run in and loaded
+inside the turret. With the much larger guns of the _Inflexible_
+this was impossible, without a very considerable increase of the size
+of the turrets. Outside loading without protection was recognised as
+unsuitable and practically impossible. A special glacis was, therefore,
+designed, which admitted of outside loading under cover, and at the
+same time ensured that, in the event of premature discharge, the
+projectile would emerge above the water-line and not below it.
+
+This device is of special interest as the “last word” of those
+muzzle-loading guns to which the British Navy adhered so long as it
+possibly could. Had it been thought of earlier, the British Navy might
+perhaps have adhered to muzzle-loaders even longer than it did. As
+things were, the _Inflexible_ device came too late to stay the tide
+which had already begun to set strongly in the breechloader direction.
+
+Details of the _Inflexible_ were:--
+
+    Displacement--11,880 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--320ft.
+
+    Beam--75ft.
+
+    Maximum Draught--26⅓ft.
+
+    Armour--Belt amidships 24--16-inch, beyond that a protective deck
+      only; 22--14-inch bulkhead, all iron; and 17-inch compound armour
+      turrets.
+
+    Armaments--Four 81-ton guns (to which eight 4-inch breechloaders
+      were added later on). Two submerged tubes and two above-water
+      launching appliances for torpedoes.
+
+    Horse-power--8,010 (I.H.P.).
+
+    Speed--13.8 knots.
+
+    Coal--1,300 tons = nominal 10-knot radius of 5,200 miles.
+
+    Built at Portsmouth Dockyard. Engined by Elder. Completed 1881.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  DUILIO.
+  DREADNOUGHT.
+  INFLEXIBLE.
+
+EARLY TURRET-SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA.]
+
+On completion she was sent to the Mediterranean, with Captain Fisher
+(afterwards Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fisher) in command of her. He
+was the chief gunnery officer of those days and the founder of the
+torpedo school. At the time it was put on record that, asked by a Press
+interviewer what he would do if the fortunes of war brought it about
+that he had to encounter a similar “last word” in naval construction,
+he replied that he would keep away from her till nightfall, and
+then send in the, then, novel second-class torpedo-boats which the
+_Inflexible_ carried, to settle the foe. Over which statement the
+historian of fifty years hence may yet place Lord Fisher among the
+prophets. To-day, some thirty years later, similar ideas obtain, but
+have got no further. Fifty years hence----?
+
+In 1882 the _Inflexible_ was the central figure at the bombardment of
+Alexandria. The damage she did was infinitesimal compared to the ideas
+which the public had formed of her. Far more actual mischief was done
+by Lord Charles Beresford in a trivial gunboat, the _Condor_, which
+steered into close range of the hostile guns and knocked them over. At
+the time this was regarded as an act of spectacular heroism; but the
+historian of the future is far more likely to discover in it (as in the
+Fisher torpedo-boats) something closely akin to the reasoning behind
+Nelson when he destroyed the French fleet at the Nile or charged into
+them at Trafalgar. The commonplace expression, “sizing up the other
+man,” and acting accordingly, is the secret. In peace time we are all
+too apt to assess hostile weapons at their theoretical potentiality.
+The victors in war are those who gauge correctly the handling ability
+of the man behind the weapon and--act accordingly.
+
+About the years 1877–78, towards the close of the Turco-Russian War, an
+Anglo-Russian war seemed probable, and four foreign ships building in
+England were purchased for the British Navy.
+
+These were the Brazilian _Independencia_, an improved _Monarch_,
+designed by Sir E. J. Reed, which went into the British service as
+the _Neptune_. Save that she carried 38-ton guns instead of 25-ton,
+she reproduced the _Monarch_ idea almost exactly. After certain
+vicissitudes she entered the British service, and eventually was fitted
+with a couple of military masts. The points of special interest about
+her were that (1) owing to some error her funnels were put in sideways
+instead of as designed; and (2) in service in any bad weather the sea
+regularly washed out her wardroom; (3) she was the first ship of the
+British Navy to carry a bath-room. As an effective warship she never
+figured to any large extent.
+
+The other three purchased ships had been destined for the Turkish Navy;
+and all three turned out worse than the _Neptune_. The _Hamidieh_,
+re-christened _Superb_, more or less duplicated the _Hercules_. She
+took part in the bombardment of Alexandria a little later, and it
+was there discovered that her guns could not train at all well in
+comparison with contemporary British naval ships.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  SUPERB
+  NEPTUNE
+  BELLEISLE
+
+FIRE ZONES OF THE BELLEISLE (4 GUNS)
+
+FIRE ZONES OF THE DEVASTATION (4 GUNS)
+
+FOREIGN SHIPS PURCHASED FOR THE NAVY IN 1877–78.]
+
+Of the fighting value of the other two ships, _Pakyi-Shereef_ and
+_Boordyi-Zaffir_, which became the _Belleisle_ and _Orion_, the least
+said the better. They turned out to be nothing but improvements on a
+type of “coast defender,” already obsolete, diminutives of the original
+Reed broadside idea applied to a _Hotspur_ type hull. In place of
+the single 25-ton gun of the _Hotspur_, they carried four similar
+guns--the old 12-inch 25-ton M.L. These guns were carried in a central
+raised battery, from which, as in the _Hotspur_, one gun could always
+bear, and from which two bearing on an exact and unlikely broadside
+might be looked for.
+
+No useful service was ever performed by these ships. The _Belleisle_
+ended her service as a target, the _Orion_ as a hulk. They proved
+conclusively that the central battery idea was obsolete and so far
+probably did good service. In the past Sir E. J. Reed had argued,
+and for that matter proved, that for a given weight of armour and
+armament eight guns, four on either broadside, could be mounted with
+equal protection and economy of weight as against two pairs of guns in
+turrets.[3] The _Belleisle_ gave the lie to this idea, however, when
+it came to be applied to half the number of guns. The step from that
+to the same thing with more guns was made easy, and the turret idea
+assured, out of the _Belleisle_ type. To the _Belleisle_ and _Orion_
+more than any other ships may be traced the first real appreciation of
+“angles in between”--the demonstration that “right ahead” or “right
+on the broadside” were ideal positions which no enemy would willingly
+assume.
+
+The _Devastation_ and her sisters had, of course, anticipated this
+idea; but to the _Belleisle_, at most fighting angles only able to
+bring a quarter of her battery into action, may be traced most modern
+developments in gun disposition.
+
+Contemporaneous with the special Barnaby ships, reference may be made
+to the entirely nondescript _Téméraire_. She may be described as an
+absolute hybrid--partly Reed, partly Barnaby, partly gun inventors of
+the era, and partly nothing in particular.
+
+Details of this ship are:--
+
+    Displacement--8,540 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--285ft.
+
+    Beam--62ft.
+
+    Draught--27¼ft.
+
+    Armament--Four 25-ton 11-inch M.L. (two in barbettes), four 18-ton
+      M.L.--two above water torpedo tubes.
+
+    Armour (iron)--Complete 11--8in. belt. Bulkheads 8--5in. Barbettes
+      10--8in. Battery 10--8in. Horse-power--7,520 = 14.5 knots.
+
+    Coal--620 tons = 2,680 miles at economical speed (nominal).
+
+The _Téméraire_ was unique in the world’s navies in that two of her
+25-ton guns were carried--one forward, one aft--on special Moncrieff
+mountings, an adaption for naval purposes of the “disappearing gun,”
+invented for forts of that era. The gun, loaded under cover, was raised
+to fire by hydraulic mechanism, and then recoiled to the loading
+position. The ship was otherwise essentially of the Reed box-battery
+type; the other two 25-ton guns being in a central main-deck battery,
+and capable of a good deal of ahead fire. The other big guns (18 tons)
+were cut off from the 25-ton by an armoured bulkhead, and merely had
+the ordinary broadside training.
+
+Like the _Inflexible_, the _Téméraire_ had a heavy brig rig. Towards
+the end of her active service career this was replaced by a military
+rig; but all her active work was done as a brig. She was built at
+Chatham Dockyard, engined by Humphrys, and completed for sea in 1877.
+
+In 1882 she was at the bombardment of Alexandria, and there did more
+execution than any other ship. Her subsequent career was uneventful,
+and in her own way she was a “monstrosity” as much as the _Polyphemus_
+was. She is generally understood to have been a “naval officers’ ideal”
+ship, rather than the regular production of the Chief Constructor.
+Whether this be true is, at least, doubtful. Certainly she may equally
+well be regarded as the forlorn hope of those who looked to see the
+general principles of the central battery system adapted to suit the
+new ideas as to ironclads. French ideas[4] also had probably something
+to do with her peculiar design.
+
+The idea embodied in the _Inflexible_ was so pleasing to the
+authorities of that period that she was duplicated in two smaller
+vessels of the same type, the _Ajax_ and _Agamemnon_, though the
+precise purpose for which these vessels were built is difficult to
+fathom. They were in every way inferior to the _Inflexible_, and
+mainly of interest as indicating the definite abandonment of the idea
+of the masted battleship, and they were also the last ships to mount
+muzzle-loading guns:--
+
+Particulars of these ships were:--
+
+    Displacement--8,660 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--280ft.
+
+    Beam--66ft.
+
+    Draught (mean)--24ft.
+
+    Guns--Four 38-ton M.L., two 6-inch 81-cwt. B.L.
+
+    Horse-power--5,440.
+
+    Speed--13.25 knots.
+
+These were followed by the _Colossus_ and _Edinburgh_, which were laid
+down in 1879. In these ships the 12-inch breechloader was adopted,
+and an attempt at what was then a very considerable speed was made.
+An auxiliary armament made its first really definite appearance, five
+6-inch guns being mounted on the superstructure.
+
+Particulars of these ships were:--
+
+    Displacement--9,420 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--325ft.
+
+    Beam--68ft.
+
+    Draught (mean)--26ft. 3ins.
+
+    Guns--Four 45-ton B.L.R., five 6-inch, 89-cwt. do.
+
+    Horse-power--7,500.
+
+    Speed--15.50 knots.
+
+At and about the same time considerable interest was being taken in
+rams. This resulted in the laying down of the _Conqueror_, a species of
+improved _Rupert_, and a type of ship destined to be enlarged upon in
+the future.
+
+Particulars of the _Conqueror_ were:--
+
+    Displacement--6,200 tons.
+
+    Length--270ft.
+
+    Beam--58ft.
+
+    Draught--24ft.
+
+    Armament--Two 45-ton B.L.R., four 6-inch 89-cwt. do., six 14-inch
+      torpedo tubes (above water).
+
+    Horse-power--(maximum) 6,000.
+
+    Speed--15.5 knots.
+
+    Coal--650 tons.
+
+The _Conqueror_ was launched in September, 1881. Some three years later
+a sister, the _Hero_, was laid down, and launched towards the end of
+1885. She differed from the _Conqueror_ only in that all four of her
+6-inch guns were mounted on the superstructure, whereas the _Conqueror_
+carried two of them on the main deck inside the superstructure.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  TEMERAIRE
+  IMPERIEUSE
+
+  BRITISH SYSTEM IDEAL
+
+  FRENCH SYSTEM IDEAL
+
+BARNABY BARBETTE SHIPS.]
+
+Although developed from the _Rupert_, the _Conqueror_ differed a good
+deal in appearance, on account of the whole of the after part of the
+ship being one huge superstructure. In her, the superstructure, as a
+very definite feature instead of a mere accessory, may be said to have
+made its first appearance, to remain as a factor of growing importance
+for many years.
+
+Contemporaneously with these ships two entirely different types made
+their appearance. One of these was the “torpedo ram” _Polyphemus_, an
+absolutely unique vessel, the outcome (though not so designed) of the
+influence of the torpedo. The ship was never duplicated, and never
+performed much service, but it would be rash to assert that the future
+may not see something like her re-appear. She was first projected as a
+“ram” pure and simple, so long ago as 1873, and designed by Barnaby to
+suit the specifications of certain naval officers as embodying their
+ideals of the warship of the future. This is the generally accepted
+theory, though Sir N. Barnaby[5] has made public a somewhat different
+view of the matter, and according to him, Admiral Sir George Sartorius,
+the naval officer principally concerned, lost his interest in the
+_Polyphemus_ when it was decided to give her an armament of torpedo
+tubes and some quick-firers against torpedo attack. So far as can be
+gauged, the torpedo tubes were likewise a naval innovation with which
+Sir N. Barnaby was also not much in sympathy. At any rate, he has put
+on record the view[5] that:--
+
+    “The introduction of torpedoes made the ship far more costly than
+    she need have been, and it is possible that the type would have
+    been continued and improved had the simplicity of the ram been
+    adhered to.”
+
+The _Polyphemus_ performed little useful service; her life on the Navy
+List was short; and she is always spoken of as a “failure.” Officers
+who served in her were, however, invariably enthusiastic about her, and
+had war occurred during the time that she was in existence there is no
+telling what she might have accomplished or how profoundly she might
+have affected naval construction.
+
+In essence the _Polyphemus_ was a semi-submerged craft, those parts of
+her which were above water being merely a light superstructure for the
+accommodation of her crew in peace time.
+
+She was of 2,640 tons displacement, length 240ft. between
+perpendiculars, beam 40ft., and a normal mean draught of 20ft. In form
+she was cigar-shaped, plated with 3-inch armour on the upper part of
+her curved sides. With 5,520 I.H.P. she had the then very high speed
+of 17.8 knots. She carried 300 tons of coal, sufficient for a nominal
+radius of 3,400 miles at economical speed.
+
+Her principal feature, however, was the fitting of five submerged
+tubes, one in the bow the others on the broadside. For repelling a
+torpedo attack she carried six 6-pounders and a couple of machine guns.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  POLYPHEMUS.
+  ALARM.
+  KATAHDIN.
+
+SOME FAMOUS RAMS.]
+
+It is here of interest to relate that some years later the U.S. Navy
+created a species of _Polyphemus_ imitation in the “ram” _Katahdin_. To
+a certain extent they had anticipated her likewise in the _Alarm_, 720
+tons, launched in 1873, which carried a 15-inch smooth-bore gun _under
+water_ in her ram, and the _Intrepid_ (launched 1873), of 1,123 tons,
+of which no details ever transpired, and it may be said that she was
+“strangled at birth.” But the _Polyphemus’s_ ancestry is undoubtedly
+American. The _Katahdin_ (first produced as the “ram” _Ammen_) was not
+launched till 1893. She was of 2,050 tons and seventeen knots, and
+having no torpedo tubes, being a “ram” pure and simple, exactly
+reproduced the Sartorious-Barnaby idea. She soon disappeared from the
+U.S. Navy List, and she never did anything. She doubled the armour of
+the _Polyphemus_, whilst lacking her torpedo armament. Since then, the
+idea has found expression in three small U.S. “semi-submerged” boats,
+with the torpedo as their main armament; but these three boats never
+got beyond the “designed” stage. No other nation ever exhibited the
+least interest in the _Polyphemus_ idea.
+
+Reference has already been made to the _Shannon_, which was the
+first armoured cruiser of the British Navy. She was launched towards
+the end of 1875 and completed two years later. In substance she
+was a development of the idea which first found expression in the
+_Inconstant_, heavy armament being preferred to the protection of
+the guns. A narrow belt of armour with a maximum thickness of 9-ins.
+protected three-quarters of the water-line. This belt commenced at the
+stern and ended in a bulkhead some 70ft. from the bow. Forward of this
+bulkhead was an under-water protective deck, and a certain amount of
+armour was concentrated on the ram under water. The bulkhead, which
+was from 9in. to 8in. thick, rose to the upper deck, and afforded
+protection to a couple of 18-ton muzzle-loaders, capable of right-ahead
+fire. The remainder of her armament consisted of seven 12½ton guns, and
+was entirely unprotected.
+
+Other details of the ship are as follows:--
+
+    Displacement--5,390 tons.
+
+    Length--260ft.
+
+    Beam--54ft.
+
+    Draught--23ft. 4in.
+
+    Horse-power--3,370.
+
+    Speed--12.35 knots.
+
+    Coal carried--580 tons = nominal economical radius of 2,260 miles.
+
+The speed of the _Shannon_ was so low, even in those days, that it
+is a little difficult to surmise for what purpose she was designed,
+especially as this design was more or less contemporary with the
+re-designing of the _Dreadnought_.[6] It found favour, however, since
+she was almost immediately followed by two larger replicas, the
+_Nelson_ and the _Northampton_, details of which were:--
+
+    Displacement--7,630 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--280ft.
+
+    Beam--60ft.
+
+    Draught (maximum)--26ft. 6in.
+
+    Armour--Belt amidships, 9in. to 6in., compound: bulkhead ditto.
+      Armour deck only, at ends.
+
+    Main Armament--Four 18-ton M.L.R., eight 12-ton M.L.R., two
+      above-water 14-inch torpedo tubes.
+
+    Horse-power--6,640.
+
+    Speed--14.41 knots.
+
+    Coal carried--1,150 tons = nominal radius of 3,850 miles.
+
+These ships differed from the _Shannon_ in that the armour belt was
+confined to a water-line strip amidships, while the after guns were
+also protected by a bulkhead. The most curious, and to modern ideas,
+eccentric feature of these ships, was that they were fitted with
+triangular rams, which, “for the sake of safety,” could be removed in
+peace time and merely put on for war purposes! As a matter of fact,
+the ships always carried their rams without rendering themselves
+dangerous to anybody. On the other hand, shortly after construction,
+the _Northampton_ was run into by a small trading schooner, which cut
+her down to the water’s edge. The ships, therefore, started with an
+unfavourable reputation, which the _Northampton_ followed up by a total
+inability to make even her moderate designed speed. The _Nelson_, on
+the other hand, proved herself a comparatively good steamer, so much
+so that at a later date she was to a certain extent modernised. Both
+ships were originally heavily masted, the idea being to perform most
+of their peace service when convenient under sail. The _Nelson_ sailed
+moderately well, but the _Northampton_ very badly. It was possibly with
+some view to remedying this that some years later, when it was decided
+that the _Imperieuse_, originally built as a brig, should be given a
+military rig, her lofty iron fore and mainmast were taken out of her
+and substituted for the two equivalent masts in the _Northampton_. The
+change, however, was not satisfactory, as thereafter she sailed if
+anything worse than ever.
+
+At and about this year protected cruisers made their first appearance
+in the _Comus_ class. Of these altogether eleven were built, the best
+known of these being the _Calliope_, which in the early nineties became
+famous through steaming out of Samoa Roads in the teeth of a hurricane,
+which utterly destroyed every foreign vessel anchored there at the
+same time. The _Comus_ class consisted of the _Calliope_, _Calypso_,
+_Canada_, _Carysfort_, _Champion_, _Cleopatra_, _Comus_, _Conquest_,
+_Constance_, _Cordelia_, and _Curacoa_. They averaged 2,380 tons
+displacement, though the first mentioned, which were the last to be
+built, were slightly larger. The original armament consisted of two
+6-ton muzzle-loaders and twelve 64-pounders. This was afterwards
+varied by the substitution of breechloaders. The ships generally had
+a speed of about thirteen knots, and were completed between the years
+1877, for the earliest, and 1884 for the latest. They had a 1½-inch
+protective deck for the engines amidships. These ships, which were
+generally officially known as the “C” class cruiser, were undoubtedly
+diminutives of the _Shannon_, or, at any rate, inspired by a similar
+idea.
+
+Besides growing downwards the idea also grew upwards, and resulted in
+the building of six ships of the “Admiral” class, of which the first
+was the _Collingwood_. These, which were the apotheosis of the Barnaby
+idea, represented an absolute revolution in naval construction, so far
+as big ships were concerned.
+
+The “Admirals” were not all identical, as they formed four different
+groups in the matter of displacement and three in armament. In all,
+however, the integral idea was the same. Amidships was a narrow belt,
+150ft. long by 7½ft. wide, which sufficed to protect engines, boilers,
+and communication tubes of the barbettes. This belt varied in thickness
+from 18ins. to 8ins, of compound armour. The ends of the belt were
+closed up by 16-inch bulkheads. Forward and aft was merely a curved
+protective deck; there was also a flat protective deck on top of the
+armour belt. The ships were of low freeboard, forward and aft, but
+had a large superstructure built up amidships. At either end of the
+superstructure, with their bases unprotected by armour except for the
+communication tubes already referred to, were many-sided barbettes
+with plates set at an angle of about forty-five degrees. These
+barbettes were about 11½ins. thick, and carried each a couple of the
+heaviest guns then available. These were 12-inch breechloaders in the
+_Collingwood_, and 13.5-inch in the other ships, except the _Benbow_,
+which mounted one 16.5 inch 110-ton in each barbette instead. An
+auxiliary armament was mounted inside the superstructure. The speed of
+these ships was about seventeen knots, and was considerably in excess
+of the average for the period.
+
+  =====================+====================+=====================+=====================+====================
+  Name.                | _Collingwood._     | _Rodney_,           | _Anson_,            | _Benbow._
+                       |                    | _Howe._             | _Camperdown._       |
+  ---------------------+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------
+    Displacement, tons | 9,500              | 10,300              | 10,600              | 10,600
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+    Length (_p.p._) ft.| 325                | 325                 | 330                 | 330
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+  Beam, ft.            | 68                 | 68                  | 68½                 | 68½
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+  Draught (_mean_) ft. | 26¾                | 27¼                 | 26¾                 | 27¼
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+    H.P.               | 9,500              | 11,500              | 11,500              | 11,500
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+  Nominal Speed,       |                    |                     |                     |
+      knots            | 16.5               | 16.7                | 17.2                | 17.5
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+  Armament             | 4--12in.,  6--6in. | 4--13.5, 6--6in.    | 4--13.5, 6--6 in.   | 2--16.25, 10--6in.
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+    Built at           | Pembroke Yard      | _Rodney_,           | _Anson_,            | Thames, I.W.
+                       |                    |   Chatham Yd.       |   Pembroke Yd.      |
+                       |                    | _Howe_, Pembroke Yd.| _Camperdown_,       |
+                       |                    |   Chatham Yd.       |   Por’th.           |
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+  Engines by           | Humphrys           | _Rodney_, Humphrys  | _Anson_, Humphrys   | Maudslay
+                       |                    | _Howe_, Humphrys    | _Camperdown_, Maud’y|
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+    Armour belt        | 18in.-8in.         | 18in.-8in.          | 18in.-8in.          | 18in.-8in.
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+         barbettes     | 14in.-12in.        | 11½in.-10in.        | 16in.-6in.          | 12in.-4in.
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+         bulkheads     | 16in.-6in.         | 16in.-6in.          | 14in.-12in.         | 18in.-6in.*
+                       |                    |                     |                     |
+    Armament           | 4--12in., 6--6in., | 4--13.5, 6--6in.,   | 4--13.5, 6--6in.,   | 2--16.25, 10--6in.,
+                       | and smaller,       | and smaller,        | and smaller,        | and smaller,
+                       | 2 sub. and 4       | as _Collingwood_    | as _Collingwood_    | as _Collingwood_
+                       | above water tubes  |                     |                     |
+  =====================+====================+=====================+=====================+====================
+
+As compared with the _Colossus_ and _Edinburgh_ class of the same date
+and era of design, the “Admirals” were somewhat inferior in armour
+protection, but because of that secured a far better speed and a
+greatly superior big gun command.
+
+In all the “Admiral” class the armour weighed about 2,500 tons--say,
+20 per cent. of the displacement. This proportion has never been very
+greatly varied from either before or since, and the popular idea that
+Barnaby designs sacrificed armour weight for other features is entirely
+incorrect. The real Barnaby ideal is better described (the conditions
+of his own time being kept in mind) as an attempt to put into practice
+“everything or nothing,” so far as protection was concerned. To-day,
+a compromise is in fashion, and Barnaby is very much out of date.
+It may well be but a phase in the cycle of naval design. Properly
+to appreciate the _Admiral_ class ideal, we have to translate it
+into the ideal which obtains to-day. Thus put, the _Admirals_ would
+be somewhat swifter than our existing battle-cruisers, their vitals
+would be invulnerable and their armaments superior to that of any
+potential enemy. They would not, in fact, very greatly differ from
+Admiral Bacon’s conception (published some five years before the
+present war) of the battleship of the future, in which he predicted the
+disappearance of much of the side armour of to-day.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Photo_]      [_Symonds & Co._
+
+THE _BENBOW_--A SHIP OF THE “ADMIRAL” CLASS.]
+
+The coming of the medium calibre quick-firer soon rendered the
+“Admirals” obsolete and even ridiculous. The medium calibre quick-firer
+profoundly modified design until the development of the big gun
+enabled it to act well beyond the effective range of the medium gun,
+and incidentally enabled it to fire nearly as fast as the elementary
+quick-firers were built to do. Thus we have come back to something very
+akin to the condition under which the Barnaby ships were designed.
+
+These ships could not, perhaps, be described as an absolutely original
+idea, save in so far as the British Navy was concerned, since the
+Italian _Italia_ was launched in the same year that the _Collingwood_,
+the first of the “Admirals” was laid down. The _Italia_, equally
+abnormally fast (or faster) for the period, carried four 100-ton guns
+échelonned in one large heavily armoured barbette amidships, but had
+no water-line belt whatever, and relied entirely upon an armour-deck
+to protect the motive power. In the “Admirals” the motive power was
+thoroughly protected by the vertical belt amidships, while flotation
+otherwise depended upon internal sub-divisions.
+
+The “Admiral” class idea was re-developed into armoured cruisers in
+a somewhat curious fashion. At that time the French Navy was second
+in the world, and French ideas of construction commanded a great deal
+of respect. French notions at that era ran largely to single gun
+positions, four guns being separately disposed in four barbettes placed
+one ahead, one astern, and one on either side. The particular point of
+this arrangement was that while British designs accepted two or four
+big guns bearing, the French system allowed for a definite mean of
+three. More practically put, this may be translated into a conception
+that an enemy would use every effort to avoid positions in which four
+big guns could be brought to bear on him, and seek those in which he
+was exposed to two only. A gun-arrangement which gave three big guns
+bearing in _any_ position seemed therefore far more reasonable on paper.
+
+It stands to the credit of Sir N. Barnaby (or else to the credit of the
+Admiralty of the era) that he recognised the impossibility of any such
+manœuvres in fleet actions, but at the same time he also realised how
+heavily it might tell in cruiser duels. Out of which the _Imperieuse_
+and _Warspite_ were born.
+
+Details of these ships:--
+
+    Displacement--8,400 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--315ft.
+
+    Beam--62ft.
+
+    Draught (maximum)--27⅓ft.
+
+    Armament--Four 9.2 24-ton B.L., six 6-inch, 89cwt., six torpedo
+      tubes.
+
+    Horse-power--10,000=16.75 knots.
+
+    Coal--1,130 tons = nominal radius of ten knots of 7,000 miles.
+
+    Armour--Belt amidships of 10in. compound, with 9-inch bulkheads,
+      8-inch barbettes. No armour to lesser guns. 3-inch protective
+      deck fore and aft, and on top of belt.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  SHANNON.
+  NORTHAMPTON.
+  ADMIRAL class.
+  “C” class.
+  ORLANDO class.
+
+CHARACTERISTIC BARNABY SHIPS.]
+
+The _Imperieuse_ was built at Portsmouth Dockyard and engined by
+Maudslay. The _Warspite_, built at Chatham, was engined by Penn.
+Both were completed in 1886 at a total cost of about £630,000 each.
+They were copper sheathed, and (like the _Inflexible_) originally
+were to carry a heavy brig-rig. This was removed at an early stage,
+and a single military mast between the funnels substituted. The
+_Imperieuse’s_ masts were subsequently put in the _Northampton_
+(which see). Both proved faster than anticipated; but the coming of
+the quick-firer placed them in the semi-obsolete category almost as
+soon as they were completed. The type was never repeated. Till recently
+the _Imperieuse_ still existed as a depot ship for destroyers; the
+_Warspite_ has long since gone to the scrap heap. Years after their
+conception a modernised version of them was to some extent reproduced
+in the _Black Prince_ class. In their own day, however, they appeared
+and that was all.
+
+The “battleship of the future” ideal of those days had to some extent
+been foreshadowed in the _Benbow_, with her couple of 110-ton guns.
+The monster gun was “the vogue” and no way of carrying it on existing
+displacements allowed of more than two such pieces being mounted.
+
+The idea of the moment became the mounting of guns capable of
+delivering deadly blows, and (corollary therewith) protection to ensure
+that that deadly blow could be delivered with relative impunity. Since
+the secondary gun had now come in, auxiliary guns and a secondary
+battery were a _sine quâ non_; but the ideal ship was to be one
+incapable of vital injury from such weapons. On lines such as these the
+_Victoria_ class was designed.
+
+The call was for an improved _Benbow_. The armament was to be no less
+and, if possible, more; while better protection was an essential
+feature.
+
+Details of the _Victoria_ type, of which only two were built, are as
+follows:--
+
+    Displacement--10,470 tons (approximately that of the _Benbow_).
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--340ft.
+
+    Beam--70ft.
+
+    Draught (maximum)--27¼ft.
+
+    Armament--Two 110-ton guns (in a single turret), one 9.2 (aft),
+      twelve 6-inch; twenty-one anti-torpedo guns, and six torpedo
+      tubes (14-inch).
+
+    Armour (compound)--18-inch to 16-inch belt amidships, redoubt and
+      bulkheads, 18-inch turret, 2-inch in battery. Armour deck, and
+      heavily armoured conning tower.
+
+    Horse-power--14,000 = 16.75 knots.
+
+    Coal--1,200 tons = 7,000 miles at 10 knots.
+
+The _Victoria_ was built at Elswick and engined by Humphrys; launched
+in 1887 and completed for sea in 1889. The _Sanspareil_, engined by the
+same firm, but built at Blackwall (Thames Ironworks) was launched a
+year later, but completed about the same time.
+
+The design of these ships closely approximated to the _Conqueror_,
+of which they were merely enlarged editions with a heavily increased
+battery.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  RUPERT.
+  CONQUEROR.
+  VICTORIA.
+  DREADNOUGHT.
+  TRAFALGAR.
+
+TURRET SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA.]
+
+The _Victoria_ on completion became the flagship in the Mediterranean
+of Admiral Sir George Tryon. In the course of evolutions off the
+coast of Syria on June 22nd, 1893, she was rammed and sunk by the
+_Camperdown_. The disaster, which cost the lives of the Admiral and
+321 officers and men, teaches no useful lesson, saving the danger of
+transverse bulkheads. Water-tight doors were shut too late. The sea
+entered. The ship gradually turned over, then suddenly “turned turtle”
+and capsized.
+
+The mystery of her loss has never been fully explained. Admiral Tryon
+gave an order for the fleet, then in two lines, to turn inboard sixteen
+points, while at six cables apart. This manœuvre, with turning
+circles as they were, was bound to create a collision. This was
+pointed out to Admiral Tryon, who, however, took no notice of the
+representations. It has since been assumed that he went suddenly mad.
+A more reasonable explanation is that he intended the ships to “jockey
+with their screws” (a manœuvre which he never employed as a rule),
+and forgot to mention the fact, though details of evidence in the
+court-martial hardly bear this out.
+
+The exact signal as made was:--
+
+    “Second division alter course in succession sixteen points to
+    starboard, preserving the order of the Fleet.”
+
+    “First division alter course in succession sixteen points to port,
+    preserving the order of the Fleet.”
+
+This signal was capable of more than one interpretation. Along one of
+them each ship in the two squadrons might easily have rammed the other
+in succession, according to some interpretations. Using screws, both
+divisions might have closed in very closely but quite safely. Acting
+other than simultaneously they might anyway have effected the manœuvre
+without disaster. At eight cables (a distance which was suggested to
+the Admiral an hour before) it might have been done quite safely. There
+have been other explanations also.
+
+In the Fleet at the time everything was believed, except the “blunder”
+theory which has gone down to history. To this day that is accepted
+with reservation. But the rest is mystery.
+
+The _Camperdown_, in turning, crashed into the _Victoria_, striking
+her forward, curiously enough directly on a bulkhead, just as the
+_Vanguard_ was struck when she was rammed.
+
+It was not expected that the _Victoria_ would be sunk. Had the
+water-tight doors been closed during the manœuvre, instead of at the
+last moment, she would probably have remained afloat. As things were,
+it was impossible to close many at the time the order was given, but
+her low-freeboard also played a part. The sea invaded the door on the
+starboard side of the superstructure and thence got everywhere on that
+side of the ship. It was that which threw her over and capsized her,
+but the chance circumstance of the blow on the lateral bulkhead should
+not be forgotten. The _Victoria_ was struck just on one of the points
+where all the odds were against her being struck.
+
+The _Sanspareil_ had an uneventful career, and was eventually sold
+out of the Service somewhat suddenly under the “scrap-heap” policy of
+Admiral Fisher in 1904.
+
+Following upon the _Imperieuse_ type, an entirely new class of armoured
+cruisers, the _Orlandos_, were designed. Just as the _Victorias_ were
+improved and enlarged _Conquerors_, so the _Orlandos_ were “improved
+_Merseys_.” Particulars of these ships, of which seven were built
+altogether, are as follows:--
+
+    Displacement--5,600 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--300ft.
+
+    Beam--56ft.
+
+    Draught (maximum)--22½ft. (actually more).
+
+    Armament--Two 9.2in. B.L.; ten 6in.; and six torpedo tubes.
+
+    Armour (compound)--Belt amidships 10in., with 16in. Bulkheads.
+      Protective deck at ends. All guns protected by shields only.
+
+    Horse-power--8,500 = 18 knots.
+
+    Coal (maximum)--900 tons = nominal radius of 8,000 miles.
+
+[Illustration: BOARDING A SLAVE DHOW]
+
+They were built as follows:--
+
+  ===============+===========+=============
+  NAME.          | BUILDER.  | ENGINED BY
+  ---------------+-----------+-------------
+  _Orlando_      | Palmer    | Palmer
+  _Australia_    | Glasgow   | Napier
+  _Aurora_       | Pembroke  | Thompson
+  _Galatea_      | Glasgow   | Napier
+  _Immortalité_  | Chatham   | Earle
+  _Narcissus_    | Hull      | Earle
+  _Undaunted_    | Palmer    | Palmer
+  ===============+===========+=============
+
+They were laid down in 1885 and 1886. The _Orlando_ was completed in
+1888, all the others in 1889. They were launched in 1886 and 1887, and
+some of them, fitted with wooden guns (“Quakers”), served to swell the
+Fleet at the great Jubilee Review of 1887. All made over their designed
+speeds on trial, but they did their trials “light.” In service all
+proved fairly useful, and the _Undaunted_, with Lord Charles Beresford
+as her captain in the Mediterranean, “made history” to the extent
+of first creating an Anglo-American _entente_, beginning with the
+U.S.S. _Chicago_, captained then by the now universally known naval
+author, Admiral Mahan. Beresford first achieved fame in the _Condor_
+at Alexandra, in 1882; but it was in the _Undaunted_ that he first
+“made history” by ending the previously existing hostility between the
+British and U.S. Navies; and establishing the naval brotherhood of
+those who speak the same language.
+
+The _Orlandos_ were the last of the essentially Barnaby ships.
+Barnaby was associated with the Navy thereafter; but the _Nile_ and
+_Trafalgar_, though produced under his régime, were not “Barnaby
+ships,” and differences of opinion with the Admiralty about them
+eventuated in his resignation.
+
+The tide of naval opinion was then setting back in the old
+_Dreadnought_ direction. More complete protection was being demanded.
+The quick-firer was just coming in and its potentialities seemed
+enormous. The secondary battery had to be protected. Destruction of
+communications on board began to take on a fresh and more serious
+aspect. In a word, the Admiralty reverted to Reed ideas, and in
+reverting exaggerated them. In such circumstances the general idea of
+the _Trafalgars_ was born.
+
+Sir N. Barnaby totally dissented from the Admiralty line of thought.
+In his view the size of a ship could not legitimately be increased
+unless her offensive powers increased in proportion; in the _Trafalgar_
+idea both speed and armament were reduced as compared to the _Admiral_
+class, and over a thousand odd tons added entirely to carry extra
+defensive armour. Over which dispute he resigned his position.
+
+Details of the _Nile_ and _Trafalgar_ as built are:--
+
+    Displacement--11,940 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--345ft.
+
+    Beam--73ft.
+
+    Draught (mean)--27½ft.
+
+    Armament--Four 13.5-inch, six 4.7 Q.F., also smaller guns, and four
+      14-inch torpedo tubes, of which two were submerged.
+
+    Armour (compound)--Belt, 230ft. long (_i.e._, 80ft. longer than
+      in the _Admirals_ and _Victorias_), 20--16in., with 16--14 inch
+      bulkheads, protective deck at ends and over main belt.
+
+    Over this a redoubt 141ft. long, 18in. thick. Above the redoubt a
+      battery, 4in. thick. Turrets, 18in.
+
+    Horse-power--12,000 = 17 knots.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 1,200 tons = 6,500 miles at 10
+      knots.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Photo_]      [_Russell & Sons._
+
+SIR N. BARNABY.
+
+A recent photograph.]
+
+The _Nile_ was built at Pembroke and engined by Maudslay. She was laid
+down in April, 1886, launched in March, 1888, and completed some two
+years later. The _Trafalgar_ was laid down at Portsmouth in January,
+1886, and launched in September, 1887. Her machinery was supplied by
+Humphrys. The armour of these ships weighed no less than 4,230 tons,
+_i.e._, some 35 per cent. of the displacement instead of the more usual
+25 per cent. or so. The then first Lord of the Admiralty took the
+occasion of the launch to remark that the days of such armoured ships
+were over, and that probably these were the last ironclads that would
+ever be built--the future would lie with fast deck-protected vessels!
+As, for three years, no more armoured ships were laid down, he at least
+enunciated a definite policy when these heavily armoured successors of
+the _Admiral_ class were put afloat. They differed from the _Admirals_
+in that turrets were reverted to instead of barbettes, and, as already
+mentioned, they were really nothing but modernised versions of the old
+low freeboard _Dreadnought_.
+
+At a later date 6-inch Q.F. were substituted for the 4.7’s; but no
+other schemes of modernising the ships ever came to a head.
+
+
+_PROTECTED CRUISERS OF THE BARNABY ERA._
+
+Four ships of the _Amphion_ Class--_Amphion_, _Arethusa_, _Leander_,
+and _Phæton_, of which the first (_Arethusa_) was laid down in
+1880--represented the first Barnaby idea of the protected cruiser. They
+were of 4,300 tons displacement, and 16.5 knots nominal speed. They
+carried ten 6-inch guns, and a 1½-inch deck amidships. According to the
+ideas of those days they were heavily over-gunned. They always steamed
+well; but it is doubtful whether Barnaby, left to himself, would ever
+have produced them. Incidentally, they were always bad sea-boats.
+
+In 1883, completed about the same time as the _Victoria_, the _Mersey_
+class--_Mersey_, _Thames_, _Severn_, and _Forth_--of 4,050 tons
+displacement, and carrying two 8-inch and ten 6-inch, were commenced:
+practically early essays at the _Orlando_ class idea which followed.
+The _Orlandos_, on only a thousand or so tons more displacement,
+carried 9.2’s instead of 8-inch, had armour-belts as well as protective
+decks, and were a good knot faster. Both the _Amphions_ and _Merseys_
+may be described as representing strictly naval Admiralty ideas--the
+_Orlando_, Barnaby ones. Each type was quickly rendered obsolete by the
+coming of the quick-firer; but the Barnaby type of cruiser, for 20 per
+cent. extra displacement, certainly offered better chances than any
+rival proposition, if only we consider matters in the light of what
+existed in those days and what promised best at that time.
+
+So ends the Barnaby era. Barnaby’s constructional ideas were blown to
+mincemeat by the advent of the quick-firer. Even to-day his ideas seem
+somewhat obsolete. Yet a few years hence (if big ships survive) they
+stand every chance of being reverted to, because to-day the big gun has
+more or less come back to where it was in 1875–1885. Barnaby, though
+he worked into its era, never realised the preponderance or possible
+preponderance of the “secondary gun.” In his era it fired too slowly to
+count for very much; in our own, range neutralises whatever it may have
+accomplished in the rapidity of fire direction.
+
+Likely enough, the reversion to Barnaby ideals, which is reasonably
+probable for the immediate future, will be merely a phase; and casual
+historians will ever put him down as the naval constructor who was
+least able to anticipate the years ahead of his creations. But a
+hundred years hence Barnaby may come into his own in a way little
+suspected to-day. A hundred years hence, when all the most modern ideas
+are ancient history, Barnaby may stand with Phineas Pett, and the Navy
+which he created stand for something infinitely more than the scrap
+heap to which a later age swiftly relegated it. Only the historian
+of the distant future can estimate him at his real value. His own
+generation never placed much faith in his ships; the generation that
+followed generally regarded them with scorn. It was probably wrong, but
+only the future can prove it to have been so.
+
+_GUNS IN THE ERA._
+
+The guns which especially belong to the Barnaby era were as follows:--
+
+  ======+=======+========+==========+==========+=========+================
+        |       |        |          |          |         | Penetration
+        | Weight| Length |  Weight  |  Muzzle  | Muzzle  |   2000 yds.
+  Cal.  |  in   |   in   |projectile| velocity | energy  +-------+--------
+  ins.  | tons. |  cals. |   lbs.   |   f.s.   |   ft.   | iron. | comp.
+  ------+-------+--------+----------+----------+---------+-------+--------
+  M.L.  |       |        |          |          |         |       |
+  16    |   81  |   18   |   1684   |   1590   |  29,530 |   22  |  15
+  ----- +-------+--------+----------+----------+---------+-------+--------
+  B.L.  |       |        |          |          |         |       |
+  16.25 |  110  |   30   |   1800   |   2148   |  57,580 |   29  |  19
+  13.5  |   67  |   30   |   1250   |   2025   |  35,560 |   26  |  17
+  12    |   45  |   25   |    714   |   2000   |  18,060 |   19  |  12½
+  9.2   |   22  |   25   |    380   |   1809   |    8622 |   15  |  10
+  8     |   14  |   30   |    210   |   2200   |    7060 |   14  |   9
+  6     |    5  |   26   |    100   |   1960   |    2665 |    8  |   5
+  ======+=======+========+==========+==========+=========+=======+========
+
+In the early part of the period, guns of the Reed era, down to the
+10-inch 18-ton M.L., were also made use of; but generally speaking,
+the Barnaby designs coincide with early breechloading types. It is
+interesting to note that the 81-ton gun figured in one ship only (the
+_Inflexible_), and that after this the 38-ton 12.5 M.L. was reverted
+to, to be replaced in later designs by the 45-ton 12-inch B.L.
+
+The M.L. guns available for early Barnaby designs were considerably
+superior to earlier examples of their type; as after the fiasco of
+the _Glatton_ trials,[7] copper gas checks were introduced. These
+were affixed to the base of the projectile and expanded on firing.
+They led to a certain increased power and accuracy; but, even so,
+only of a relative nature compared with the better results obtained
+from breechloaders. The _Thunderer_ gun disaster, which after many
+experiments was found to have been caused by doubly loading the gun,
+added another argument to the anti-muzzle-loader cause.
+
+The 12-inch, which was the first large B.L. to be introduced, compared
+as follows with the 12-inch M.L.:--
+
+  ==========+========+======+=======+==========+===========================
+            |        |      |       |          |   Penetration of iron at
+            |Length  |Weight|Muzzle |Weight of +---------------------------
+  Gun.      |in cals.| tons.|energy |projectile|Muzzle.|1000 yds.|2000 yds.
+            |        |      |  ft.  |  lbs.    |  in.  |  in.    |  in.
+  ----------+--------+------+-------+----------+-------+---------+---------
+  12in. M.L.|   13½  |  35  |  9470 |   706    |  16   |  15     |  13
+  12in. B.L |   25   |  45  |18,060 |  1250    |  30½  |  28     |  26
+  ==========+========+======+=======+==========+=======+=========+=========
+
+The enormous difference in efficiency was of course traceable to other
+causes than the adoption of the breechloader instead of the old M.L.;
+but this was, equally naturally, overlooked; which, perhaps, was just
+as well--otherwise the muzzle-loader might have persisted to quite
+recent times. Though the _Thunderer_ disaster showed that a M.L. could
+be loaded twice over by accident, this was an obviously unlikely thing
+to occur again. The impression was made by the fact that the 12-inch
+B.L. was far more powerful than the old 16-inch M.L. It was possibly
+this which directly led to the “monster-gun craze” of the Barnaby
+era, the way to which had already been shewn by the 16-inch M.L.
+Incidentally it is interesting to note that the present monster gun era
+is the third in which, after a period of adhesion to a 12-inch gun,
+greatly increased calibres have suddenly and more or less generally
+been resorted to.
+
+
+_THE COMING OF THE TORPEDO._
+
+Reference has been made in the past chapter to Sir E. J. Reed’s
+recognition of the possibilities of the torpedo; and floating mines
+were, of course, well known. It was not, however, till 1874 that either
+mine or torpedo came to be regarded at all seriously.
+
+The earliest Whitehead “fish torpedo” was produced in 1868; though it
+was then little more than a curiosity. It was a crude weapon, although
+it embodied, with two notable exceptions, most of the features that it
+possesses to-day. Its motive power was compressed air; it carried an
+explosive head with a sensitive pistol.
+
+The secret was bought by the British Government at an early stage.
+It was made strictly confidential; indeed, to the present day, the
+internal mechanism of a torpedo is more or less sacred. Most other
+nations purchased the secret also, and guarded it with like care!
+
+It is but fair to add that this ridiculous situation was brought about
+by the inventor, who particularly specified that the balance chamber
+must not be revealed even to admirals commanding fleets, but only to
+specially selected officers.
+
+A main difficulty with the torpedo was how to discharge it. For some
+while only two methods existed: the first, a mechanism of catapult
+type which hurled the torpedo into the water; the other, by a crude
+application of dropping gear, suitable, of course, for launches only.
+In either case, especially the former, there was a strong element of
+uncertainty as to the direction the torpedo would take; for one to
+describe a circle and return to the firer was not unknown.[8]
+
+The charge was inconsiderable, and range and speed were both very small.
+
+An instrument called the Harvey torpedo was more or less
+contemporaneous with the Whitehead. It was a very primitive idea,
+consisting as it did merely in attempting to tow explosives across
+the course of an enemy. It was too obviously cumbersome to cause
+disquietude, and with the invention of torpedo tubes passed into
+oblivion.
+
+The advantages of the torpedo tube were quickly recognised; and though
+the range was still little over a hundred yards or so--at any rate, so
+far as any probability of hitting was concerned--the torpedo quickly
+became a part of the armament of all important ships. So much was this
+the case that the submerged tube was developed with sufficient celerity
+to be adopted into the equipment of the _Inflexible_, of 1874 design.
+
+None the less, however, the possible results of torpedo attack remained
+uninvestigated till 1874, and even then only came to be inquired into
+after the _Oberon_ experiments, which were primarily if not entirely
+brought about by the advent of the observation mine as a practical
+thing.
+
+The mine’s arrival counted for little; the automobile torpedo being
+at the moment much in the public eye, the point that the _Oberon_
+experiments were primarily designed to test the effect of mines got
+somewhat lost sight of. The essential fact is that by 1874 the fact of
+other enemies to the ship than the gun was established. For a long time
+it affected ship design no further than the gradual introduction of an
+anti-torpedo-boat armament; but this was mainly due to Sir E. J. Reed
+having in the _Bellerophon_ design endeavoured to anticipate torpedo
+effect. In 1874, and onward therefrom for some time, the double bottom,
+combined with water-tight bulkheads, was considered a suitable “reply”
+to the “new arm,” and it was not for many years that torpedo nets were
+in any degree appreciated.
+
+In the later eighties some torpedo experiments were conducted against
+the old ironclad _Resistance_, in which the Bullivant net defence
+system proved altogether superior to the cumbersome old wooden booms
+which were in use: but, despite this, nothing was done for many a year,
+and the old pattern was adhered to.
+
+
+_ESTIMATES IN THE ERA._
+
+  ===============+=============+===========
+  Financial Year.|   Amount.   | Personnel.
+  ---------------|-------------|-----------
+       1869      |  9,996,641  |   63,000
+       1870      |  9,370,530  |   61,000
+       1871      |  9,789,956  |   61,000
+       1872      |  9,532,149  |   61,000
+       1873      |  9,899,725  |   60,000
+       1874      | 10,440,105  |   60,000
+       1875      | 10,825,194  |   60,000
+       1876      | 11,288,872  |   60,000
+       1877      | 10,971,829  |   60,000
+       1878      | 12,129,901  |   60,000
+       1879      | 10,586,894  |   58,800
+       1880      | 10,566,935  |   58,800
+       1881      | 10,945,919  |   58,100
+       1882      | 10,483,901  |   57,500
+       1883      | 10,899,500  |   57,250
+       1884      | 11,185,770  |   56,950
+       1885      | 12,694,900  |   58,334
+  ===============+=============+===========
+
+
+
+
+II.
+
+THE WHITE ERA.
+
+
+The appointment of Sir William White as Chief Constructor more or less
+synchronised with a considerable revolution in naval construction and
+ideas. The institution of naval manœuvres drew great attention to the
+sea-going quality of various types of ships. The manœuvres of 1887
+mostly centred around the _Polyphemus_, and her charging a boom at
+Berehaven. Little was here proved except that boom defences were easily
+to be annihilated. In 1888, however, the manœuvres were of a much more
+extensive nature, and a Committee was appointed to consider and report
+upon them, especially with regard to the following points:--
+
+    “The feasibility or otherwise of maintaining an effective blockade
+    in war of an enemy’s squadron or fast cruisers in strongly
+    fortified ports, including the advantages and disadvantages of--
+
+    (a) Keeping the main body of the blockading Fleets off the ports
+          to be blockaded with an inshore squadron.
+
+    (b) Keeping the main body of the blockading Fleets at a base,
+          with a squadron of fast cruisers and scouts off the blockaded
+          ports, having means of rapid communication with the Fleet.
+
+    (c) In both cases the approximate relative number of battleships
+          and cruisers that should be employed by the blockading Fleet,
+          as compared with those of the blockaded Fleet.
+
+    “The value of torpedo-gunboats and first-class torpedo boats both
+    with the blockading and blockaded Fleets, and the most efficient
+    manner of utilising them.
+
+    “As to the arrangements made by B squadron for the attack of
+    commerce in the Channel, and by A squadron for its protection.
+
+    “As to the feasibility and expediency of cruisers making raids on
+    an enemy’s coasts and unprotected towns for the purpose of levying
+    contribution.
+
+    “As to the claims and counterclaims made by the Admirals in command
+    of both squadrons with regard to captures made during the operation.
+
+    “As to any defects of importance which were developed in any of the
+    vessels employed, and their cause.”
+
+As Supplementary Instructions there were:--
+
+    (1) As to the behaviour and sea-going qualities of, or the
+          defects in, the new and most recently commissioned vessels,
+          as obtained from the reports of the Admirals in command of
+          the respective squadrons.
+
+    (2) The general conclusion to be drawn from the recent
+          operations.”
+
+A summary of the findings[9] is as follows:--
+
+    “That to maintain an effective blockade of a Fleet in a strongly
+    fortified port a proportion of at least five to three would be
+    essential and possibly an even larger proportion, unless a good
+    anchorage could be found near the blockaded port which could
+    be used as a base, in which case a proportion of four to three
+    might suffice, supposing the blockading squadron to be very amply
+    supplied with look-out ships and colliers.”
+
+Torpedo boats were condemned as being of little value to blockaders,
+though useful to the blockaded. For blockade purposes the
+torpedo-gunboats of the _Rattlesnake_ class were highly commended.
+
+Attention was drawn to the large number of deck hands employed down
+below on account of the insufficient engine-room complements, and
+the excess of untrained stokers. The case of the _Warspite_ was
+specifically mentioned. In order to break the blockade at sixteen
+knots she sent thirty-six deck hands down below at a time when every
+available deck hand would have been required above had the operations
+been real war.
+
+A special supplementary report was called for as to the sea-going
+qualities of the ships. Considerable historical interest attaches to
+this particular report, and the following extracts are especially
+interesting:--
+
+_Admiral_ class.
+
+    “So far as could be judged, these vessels are good sea-boats, and
+    their speed is not affected when steaming against a moderate wind
+    and sea; but we are of opinion that their low freeboard renders
+    them unsuitable as sea-going armour-clads for general service
+    with the Fleet, as their speed must be rapidly reduced when it is
+    necessary to force them against a head sea or swell.
+
+    “On the only occasion on which the _Collingwood_ experienced any
+    considerable beam swell she is reported to have rolled 20 degrees
+    each way; this does not make it appear as if the _Admiral_ class
+    will be very steady gun-platforms in bad weather.
+
+    “They are said to be ‘handy’ at 6 knots and over.
+
+    “In the _Benbow_ much difficulty was experienced in stowing the
+    bower anchors. This is the case in all low freeboard vessels,
+    more or less, but the evil appears to have been intensified in
+    this instance by defective fittings, and by the fact of her being
+    supplied with the old-fashioned iron-stocked anchors instead of
+    improved Martins.
+
+    “Serious complaints are made from these ships that the forecastles
+    leak badly, and that the mess-deck is made uninhabitable whenever
+    the sea breaks over the forecastle at all; it would seem that this
+    defect might be remedied.”
+
+This opinion was not shared by Admiral Sir Arthur Hood, who commented
+as follows:--
+
+    “I cannot concur in this opinion, my view being that the objects
+    of primary importance to be fulfilled in a first-class battleship
+    are: (1) That, on a given displacement, the combined powers of
+    offence and defence shall be as great as can be given; (2) that she
+    shall be handy and possess good speed in ordinary weather, combined
+    with sea-worthiness; (3) that she shall have large coal-carrying
+    capacity. I certainly do not consider that the _Admiral_ class,
+    which, on account of their comparatively low freeboard forward,
+    must have their speed reduced when steaming against a heavy
+    head sea or swell to a greater extent than is the case with the
+    long, high freeboard, older armour-clads, as the _Minotaur_,
+    _Northumberland_, _Black Prince_ are for this reason rendered
+    unsuitable as sea-going armour-clads for general service with a
+    Fleet. The power of being able to force a first-class battleship
+    at full speed against a head sea is not, in my opinion, a point
+    of the first importance, although in the case of a fast cruiser
+    it certainly is. Admiral Tryon draws an unfavourable comparison
+    between the speed of the new battleships and that of the long ships
+    of the old type, when steaming against a head sea. I admit at once
+    that vessels like the _Minotaur_ class would maintain their speed
+    and make better weather of it when being forced against a head
+    sea than would the _Admirals_; but this advantage, under these
+    exceptional conditions, cannot for a moment be compared with the
+    enormous increase in the power of offence and defence possessed by
+    the _Admirals_.”
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Photo_]      [_Russell & Sons._
+
+SIR WILLIAM WHITE.]
+
+The _Conqueror_ and _Hero_ were reported to roll a great deal. Being
+short they felt a head sea quickly, and on account of their low
+freeboard it was found impossible to drive them against a heavy sea at
+anything approaching full speed. Incidentally these ships were known as
+“half-boots.”
+
+Here, again, Admiral Sir Arthur Hood dissented. In connection with
+these points, Admiral Tryon submitted a report in which he emphasised,
+as he had done with the _Admirals_, that however fast these short ships
+might be in smooth water, their speeds fell off rapidly in a seaway.
+
+The _Mersey_ class were described as being handy, steady gun platforms
+and able to fight their guns longer than most ships.[10] The captain
+of the _Severn_, however, reported a view that the 8-inch guns should
+be removed and lighter pieces substituted. Admiral Baird agreed with
+this. Sir Arthur Hood, in his comments, stated that he was “decidedly
+opposed” to any reduction of armament, both in this case and that of
+the other cruisers.
+
+The _Arethusa_ type were reported to roll so heavily when the sea was
+abeam or abaft that “accurate shooting would be impossible and machine
+guns in the tops would be useless.”
+
+The Committee concurred with Admiral Baird that the armament of these
+should be reduced.
+
+For the _Archer_ class it was unanimously suggested that lighter guns
+should be fitted forward. Sir Arthur Hood agreed with this view, which,
+however, was never carried into effect.
+
+Particular interest attaches to the _Rattlesnake_[11] class of
+torpedo-gunboats--these vessels being really prototypes of the
+destroyers of the present day. They were reported as “safe, provided
+they were handled with care.” Their handiness was unfavourably reported
+on. It was strongly urged that the 4-inch gun mounted forward should be
+removed. This, however, was never done.
+
+With reference to any new vessels of this type, the Committee reported
+as deserving immediate consideration:--
+
+       (1) Generally strengthen the hull in this type of vessel.
+
+       (2) Raise the freeboard forward.
+
+  _or_ (3) “Turtle-back” the forecastle.
+
+In the gunboats that followed the freeboard forward was considerably
+raised; but when destroyers came to be built several years later, it
+is interesting to observe that the turtle-back forecastle was adopted,
+and it was not till after over a hundred had been built that the high
+forecastle, recommended so long before, appeared in the _River_ class.
+
+The report concluded:--
+
+    “The proportion of untrained (2nd class) stokers which were drafted
+    to several of the ships appears to have been too large; in point of
+    physique they are reported as unequal to their work, and in many
+    instances the experience of these men in stokehold (or any other
+    work on board ship) was nil.
+
+    “As a means of affording opportunities for training newly-raised
+    stokers we recommend that at least one year should be served
+    by them as supernumerary in a sea-going ship before they are
+    considered fit to be draughted as part complement to any vessel;
+    we further are of opinion that a Committee should be appointed
+    to inquire into the sufficiency or otherwise of the complements
+    allowed in the steam department of each class of ship, the
+    proportion of 2nd class stokers which should be borne, and the
+    amount of training which they should be required to undergo before
+    they can usefully be borne as part complement in a fighting ship.”
+
+An agitation as to the state of the Navy, which was commenced in the
+year 1887, mainly by the initiative of the _Pall Mall Gazette_,[12]
+finally resulted in the passing of the Naval Defence Act of 1889. This
+provided for the construction of a total of seventy vessels, consisting
+of ten armoured ships, nine first-class cruisers, twenty-nine
+second-class cruisers, four third-class and eighteen torpedo gunboats,
+to be built as quickly as possible at the estimated cost of £21,500,000.
+
+The substantial part of the programme of 1886 had consisted of two big
+turret ships, the _Nile_ and _Trafalgar_, and two armoured cruisers,
+_Immortalité_ and _Aurora_ of the _Orlando_ class. In 1887 nothing
+larger than second-class cruisers was laid down; and in 1888 the most
+important vessels on the programme were only the protected cruisers,
+_Blake_ and _Blenheim_. There was, therefore, ample material for panic.
+
+Details of the _Blake_ class:--
+
+    Length (_p.p._)--375 ft.
+
+    Beam--65 ft.
+
+    Guns--Two 9.2 in., 22-ton B.L.R., ten 6-in. Q.F., eighteen 3-pdr.
+
+    H.P.--20,000.
+
+    Designed speed--22.0 kts.
+
+    Coal--1500 tons.
+
+    Builder of Ship--_Blake_, Chatham; _Blenheim_, Thames Ironworks.
+
+    Builder of machinery--_Blake_, Maudsley; _Blenheim_, Thames
+      Ironworks.
+
+    Launched--_Blake_, 1889; _Blenheim_, 1890.
+
+Special features of these ships were a combination of the armament
+of the _Orlando_ class with greatly increased speed secured by the
+development of deck armour in place of the belts of the _Orlando_
+class. In so far as a special type of ship may be said to be the
+development of some predecessor, the _Blake_ and _Blenheim_ may be
+described as enlarged _Merseys_. They were, however, unique on account
+of their relatively great length and great increase of displacement
+as compared with preceding vessels. In them the armoured casemate, a
+leading characteristic of nearly all Sir William White’s ships, made
+its first appearance. It was employed in the _Blake_ and _Blenheim_ for
+four main deck guns, the upper deck guns being behind the usual shields.
+
+The coming of the casemate, curiously enough, attracted little
+attention, compared to its importance. It may be said to have rendered
+possible the return to main deck guns in unarmoured ships. In the
+_Orlando_ class, ten 6-inch guns were all bunched together on the upper
+deck amidships. Since these ships were designed the 6-inch quickfirer
+had made its first appearance, and the largest possible distribution of
+armament was therefore desirable. The adoption of the two-deck system
+of the _Blake_ and _Blenheim_ secured this much larger distribution,
+rendering it impossible for a single shell to put more than one of the
+five broadside 6-inch out of action, whereas in the _Orlando_ class at
+least three guns were at the mercy of a single shell.
+
+Another novelty of the type was the introduction of a special armoured
+glacis around the engine hatches. This system had, of course, been used
+before in the Italian monster ships _Italia_ and _Lepanto_, but it was
+first introduced in the British Navy in the _Blakes_.[13]
+
+The ships were very successful steamers, for all that neither made her
+expected twenty-two knots on trial.
+
+Trial results:--
+
+    _Blake_: Eight hours’ natural draught, mean I.H.P.--14,525 = 19.4
+      knots.
+
+    _Blenheim_: Eight hours’ natural draught, mean I.H.P.--14,925 =
+      20.4 knots.
+
+    _Blake_: Four hours’ force draught, mean I.H.P.--19,579 = 21.5
+      knots.
+
+    _Blenheim_: Four hours’ forced draught, mean I.H.P.--21,411 = 21.8
+      knots.
+
+The principal item of the Naval Defence Act was eight first-class and
+two second-class battleships. All these ships were designed by Sir
+William White, and may be described as battleship editions of the
+_Blake_ and _Blenheim_, so far as the disposition of their armament was
+concerned. For the rest they may be described as attempts to combine
+in one ship the best features of the Read and Barnaby ideals. In place
+of the low freeboard of the _Admiral_ class, seven of the _Royal
+Sovereigns_ were given high freeboard fore and aft, with the big guns
+about twenty-three feet above water. The eighth ship, the _Hood_, was
+modified to suit the ideals of Admiral Hood, and was to some extent an
+improved _Trafalgar_, her big guns being in turrets some seventeen feet
+above the water, in turrets instead of _en barbette_, with guns exposed
+as in the rest of the class.
+
+In them, among other special features, 18-inch torpedo tubes were first
+introduced instead of 14-inch, and a stern torpedo tube appeared.
+
+The original idea of end-on torpedo tubes was torpedo attack from the
+bow in place of the ram. The _Polyphemus_ was the first ship in which
+an end-on tube appeared (submerged). In cruisers of a later date the
+bow tube was found to injure speed, and there was always the danger of
+a ship over-running her own torpedo. On this account the bow-tube never
+secured in the British Navy that vogue which it obtained, and still
+has, in Germany.
+
+The stern-tube appears to owe its origin to an idea that a defeated or
+overpowered ship, running from an enemy, might save herself by it: dim
+ideas of “runaway tactics” had also begun to appear.
+
+Sir William White never claimed for himself that he had anticipated the
+future in any way in his torpedo armament, even when defending himself
+against criticisms, to the effect that he “gave too little for the
+displacement.” Yet his torpedo innovations, besides discounting the
+future, all helped to swell the total weight; as also did many internal
+strengthenings of the kind which do not show on paper. Possibly he
+did not realise his own greatness as the designer of a class of ship
+which was so much better than any contemporary vessel, that even in
+these days of “Super-Dreadnoughts” the _Royal Sovereigns_ are still
+looked back upon with respect, and invariably regarded as marking the
+beginning of an entirely new phase in ship construction.
+
+In April, 1889, their designer read a paper about them at the
+Institution of Naval Architects, in which the principal points which
+he claimed were that much superior command of guns was given, and that
+the auxiliary armament was nearly three times the weight of that of the
+_Trafalgars_. The following points were also mentioned by him:--
+
+    “(_a_) ‘That (it was officially decided that) it was preferable to
+    have two separate strongly protected stations for the four heavy
+    guns, rather than to have a single citadel.’
+
+    “(_b_) ‘That on the whole the 4-inch armour amidships, from the
+    belt deck to the main deck, associated as it would be with the
+    internal coal bunkers, sub-divided into numerous compartments,
+    might be considered satisfactory; but that if armour weight became
+    available, it could be profitably utilised in thickening the 4-inch
+    steel above the middle portion of the belt.’
+
+    “I would draw particular attention to the first of these
+    conclusions, since it expresses a most important distinction
+    between the two systems of protection.
+
+    “With separate redoubts, placed far apart, the two stations
+    are isolated, and there is practically no risk of simultaneous
+    disablement by the explosion of shells, or perforation of
+    projectiles from the heaviest guns. Each redoubt offers a small
+    target to the fire of an enemy, and its weakest part--the thick
+    steel protective plating on the top--is of so small extent that the
+    chance of its being struck is extremely remote. Serious damage to
+    the unarmoured turret bases therefore involves the perforation of
+    the thick vertical armour on the redoubts.
+
+    “With a single citadel, extending the full breadth of a ship, the
+    case is widely different.
+
+    “Over a comparatively large area of the protective deck-plating in
+    the neighbourhood of each turret, perforation of the deck, or its
+    disruption by shell explosions at any point, involves very serious
+    risk of damage to the turret bases and the loading apparatus. In
+    fact, such damage may be effected and the heavy guns put out of
+    action while the thick vertical armour on the citadel is uninjured.
+    Moreover, as the turrets stand at the ends of a single citadel,
+    there is a possibility of their simultaneous disablement by the
+    explosion of heavy shell within the citadel.
+
+    “This last risk may be minimised (as in the _Nile_ and _Trafalgar_)
+    by constructing armoured ‘traverses’ within the citadel; but it
+    cannot be wholly overcome, so long as both turrets stand in one
+    armoured enclosure.
+
+    “It may be thought that the risk of damage to a 3-inch steel deck
+    situated 11 ft. above water is remote; but I think the facts are as
+    stated, when actions at sea are taken into account.
+
+    “For example, if a ship of 70 to 75 ft. beam is rolling only to 10
+    degrees from the vertical, which is by no means a heavy roll, she
+    presents a target having a vertical (projected) height of 13 to 14
+    ft. to an enemy’s fire, and even if she is a steady, slow-moving
+    ship, she will do this four or five times in each minute.
+
+    “Now, at this angle of inclination, assuming the flight of
+    projectiles to be practically horizontal, even the thickest
+    protective steel decks yet fitted in battleships are liable to
+    serious damage from the fire of guns of moderate calibre, and this
+    danger is increased by the employment of high explosives. Of
+    course, I do not mean to say that this damage is to follow from
+    fire intentionally aimed at the protective deck; but with a great
+    and sustained volume of fire, such as is possible with a powerful
+    auxiliary armament, and especially with quick-firing guns, it is
+    obvious that there is a very real danger of chance shots injuring
+    seriously the wide expanse of the protective deck at the top of a
+    long citadel.
+
+    “Again, it must be noted that the chances of damage to a deck
+    placed 10 or 11 ft. above water, and with large exposed surfaces
+    in the neighbourhood of the turrets when a ship is inclined or
+    rolling, are greater far than those of a deck 7 or 8 ft. lower,
+    and with 5-inch armour on the sides protecting the deck from the
+    direct impact of shells containing heavy bursters. It is for the
+    naval gunner to estimate these chances of injury; but, unless I am
+    greatly mistaken, their verdict will be that a far greater number
+    of shots are likely to strike at a height of 8 to 10 ft. above
+    water than at a height of 4 to 5 ft.
+
+    “These considerations, I submit, amply justify the selection of the
+    separate redoubt system, in association with the thin side armour
+    above the belt, and the lowering of the protective deck to the top
+    of the belt in the new designs.
+
+    “It may be urged that, if the redoubt system be adopted, it should
+    be associated with side armour and screen bulkheads of greater
+    thickness than 5-inch steel, and more strongly backed. This is
+    perfectly practicable, but necessarily costly, involving an
+    additional load of armour, and a corresponding increase in the size
+    of the ship.”
+
+The designs were vigorously criticised by Sir Edward Reed, whose chief
+objections centred on the fact that the lower-deck protection was thin
+armour only. Sir William White combatted this idea, and proved very
+conclusively that, according to the needs of the moment, his views
+were correct. It is, however, worthy of record that at a later date
+with the _Majestic_ class (see a few pages further on), he effected
+modifications which brought his ships more into line with what Sir
+Edward Reed had advocated. It should, however, be mentioned that
+this was not done until improvements in armour construction rendered
+possible things that were certainly impossible in the days of the
+_Royal Sovereigns_.
+
+In connection with the later career of the _Royal Sovereign_
+class these items may be added. On completion they were found
+to be singularly simple in all their internal arrangements, and
+extraordinarily strong. When they went to the scrap-heap in 1911–12,
+they were, constructionally, practically as good as when built. They
+proved to be good sea boats, but at first rolled very badly, which
+resulted in their getting an unenviable notoriety in this respect. This
+was, however, completely cured by the fitting of bilge keels, after
+which the ships were everything that could be desired in the way of
+being steady gun platforms.
+
+The ever increasing vogue of the quickfirer tended to render them
+rather quickly obsolescent over things which to-day would count much
+less than they did in the past. The defects of the _Sovereigns_, as
+realised not very long after completion, were:--
+
+    (1) That the big guns’ crews were practically unprotected, and
+          easily to be annihilated by the newly-introduced high
+          explosive shells of the secondary armament of an enemy.
+
+    (2) Only four of the ten 6-inch were armour protected, which also
+          was considered a fatal drawback.
+
+In the first case nothing was ever done; but in the second, about the
+year 1900, casemates were fitted for the upper-deck guns of all ships
+except the _Hood_,[14] which on survey was found unsuitable for such
+reconstruction.
+
+The only thing that remains to add is that although in the course of
+years the ships lost the speeds for which they were designed, up to the
+very end they proved capable of doing about thirteen knots indefinitely.
+
+In addition to the _Sovereigns_ two “second-class battleships” were
+built, the _Centurion_ and _Barfleur_, of which details are:--
+
+    Displacement--10,500 tons. Complement, 620.
+
+    Length--(Waterline) 360ft.
+
+    Beam--70ft.
+
+    Draught--(Maximum) 27ft.
+
+    Armament--Four 10-inch, ten 4.7-inch, eight 6-pounders, twelve
+      3-pounders, two Maxims, two 9-pounder boat guns. Torpedo tubes
+      (18-inch)--two submerged and one above water in the stern.
+
+The _Barfleur_ was laid down at Chatham in November, 1890, launched in
+August, 1892, and completed two years later. The _Centurion_, laid down
+at Portsmouth in March, 1891, was launched a year later, but completed
+before her sister.
+
+The ships were armoured generally on the _Royal Sovereign_ plan,
+with 12-inch belts which, however, were only 200ft. long, instead
+of 250ft. The bulkheads were six inches only, and the upper belt
+(nickel steel) an inch less than in the big ships. The barbettes were
+reduced to nine inches only, but on the other hand were made circular
+instead of pear-shaped, and 6-inch shields were provided for the big
+guns--probably as the result of criticisms of the unprotected big guns
+of the _Sovereigns_. With a few early exceptions as to the shape of the
+base, and with certain variation in form, this kind of “turret” has
+been adhered to ever since in the British Navy and copied into every
+other.
+
+Both ships were engined by the Greenock Foundry Company, and designed
+for 13,000 H.P., with forced draught, giving a speed of 18.5 knots,
+which speed both exceeded on trial. This high speed and their coal
+endurance--they carried a maximum of 1,125 tons, sufficient for
+a nominal 9750 mile radius--makes them something more than the
+“second-class battleships” which they nominally were.
+
+Compared to the _Sovereigns_ they were:--
+
+  =========================+====================+==================
+    _Minus Points_:        | _Barfleurs._       | _Sovereigns._
+                           |                    |
+  Displacement (tons)      | 10,500             | 14,100
+  Principal guns           | 4--10in., 10--4.7  | 4--13.5, 10--6in.
+  Armour belt              | 12 inches.         | 18 inches.
+  -------------------------+--------------------+------------------
+    _Plus Points_:         |                    |
+                           |                    |
+  Horse Power              | 13,000             | 13,000
+  Speed                    | 18.5               | 17
+  Nominal endurance (kts.) | 9,750              | 7,900
+  =========================+====================+==================
+
+From which the existence of an elementary conception of the
+“battle-cruiser” of to-day seems fairly apparent. To-day the
+battle-cruiser, instead of having guns of reduced calibre, carries a
+reduced number, but the general principle of “moderate sacrifices for
+increased speed” obtains.
+
+The _Barfleur_ and _Centurion_ proved excellent steamers and good
+sea-boats. Their defect was their weak armament, and in 1903 it was
+decided to remedy this. In that year they were “reconstructed.” Their
+4.7’s were taken out and 6-inch guns substituted, and the six on the
+upper deck were put into casemates. As a species of make-weight the
+foremast was taken out of both ships; but this made little difference.
+The “improvements” were a total failure; the ships were immersed
+far below what they had been designed for, and they never thereafter
+realised much more than about sixteen knots. Within seven years they
+were removed from the Navy List altogether, and such service as they
+performed after modernising was entirely of a subsidiary order.
+
+For the first-class cruisers of the Naval Defence Act reduced examples
+of the _Blenheim_ were decided on. These vessels were the _Edgar_,
+_Endymion_, _Grafton_, _Hawke_, _St. George_, _Gibraltar_, _Crescent_,
+and _Royal Arthur_ (formerly designated as the _Centaur_). They were
+launched between 1891 and 1892, averaging 7,350 tons (unsheathed)
+and 7,700 tons (sheathed and coppered, in the case of the last four
+mentioned). Except the two last, all had the _Blenheim_ armament of two
+9.2 and ten 6-inch. The two latter had a couple of extra 6-inch on a
+raised forecastle substituted for the forward 9.2.
+
+No attempt was made to obtain the high speed of the _Blenheims_--19.5
+knots being the utmost aimed at. Not only, however, did the _Edgar_
+class exceed expectations on trial, but they proved most remarkably
+good steamers in service. No engine-room defects of moment were ever
+encountered in any of them, and twenty years after launch most were
+still able to steam at little short of the designed speed. Like the
+battleships, they were given 18-inch torpedoes in place of the 14-inch
+of the _Blenheims_.
+
+In the course of their service careers, the _St. George_ (or rather
+her crew) earned distinction in the Benin Expedition. The _Crescent_
+was served in by King George V, and the _Hawke_ achieved notoriety by
+ramming the _Olympic_ in the Solent in 1911.
+
+The lesser cruisers of the Naval Defence Act numbered altogether 28. Of
+these twenty belonged to the _Apollo_ class of 3,400 tons (unsheathed)
+and 3,600 tons (sheathed). They were _Apollo_, _Andromache_, _Latona_,
+_Melampus_, _Naiad_, _Sappho_, _Scylla_, _Terpsichore_, _Thetis_,
+_Tribune_ (unsheathed), and _Aeolus_, _Brilliant_, _Indefatigable_
+(named _Melpomene_ in 1911), _Intrepid_, _Iphigenia_, _Pique_,
+_Rainbow_, _Retribution_, _Sirius_, and _Spartan_ (sheathed).
+
+In all, the armament was two 6-inch and six 4.7, with lesser guns, and,
+above-water, 14-inch torpedo tubes. The speed was twenty knots in the
+unsheathed, and a quarter of a knot less in the sheathed ones.
+
+When built all proved able to steam very well, but after some years
+service certain of them fell off very badly in speed. Others, however,
+remained as fast as when they were built--the _Terpsichore_, in 1908,
+averaging 20.1 knots, and the _Aeolus_, in 1909, nearly nineteen knots.
+
+During their service, the _Melampus_ was commanded by King George as
+Prince George, while the _Scylla_, under Captain Percy Scott, gave
+birth to the “dotter,” and the “gunnery boom” which followed. In
+1904 and onwards seven of them, scrapped from regular service--the
+_Latona_, _Thetis_, _Apollo_, _Andromache_, Iphigenia, _Intrepid_, and
+_Thetis_--were totally or partially disarmed and converted into mine
+layers.
+
+[Illustration: SECOND CLASS CRUISER OF THE NAVAL DEFENCE ACT ERA. NOW
+CONVERTED INTO A MINE-LAYER]
+
+The remaining eight cruisers of the Act--_Astræa_, _Bonaventure_,
+_Cambrian_, _Charybdis_, _Flora_, _Forte_, _Fox_, and _Hermione_--were
+increased in size up to 4,360 tons, and given a couple of extra
+4.7, and 18-inch in place of 14-inch tubes. Instead of their 4.7’s
+being mounted in the well amidships, they were placed on the upper
+deck level, a much better position in a sea-way, but they never
+proved themselves quite such good ships for their size as did the
+earlier type. They served to illustrate the general rule that slight
+improvements on a design are rarely satisfactory, and that while every
+staple design has its defects, it is extremely difficult to remove
+one drawback without creating another. Moreover, such improvements
+invariably cause increased cost, and an essential with the small
+cruiser is that she shall be cheap enough to be numerically strong.
+Four _Astræas_ cost as much as five _Apollos_. They were rather more
+seaworthy, but no faster--if as fast. The total broadsides obtained
+were only _one_ 4.7 more and _two_ 6-inch _less_.[15] A considerably
+greater possible bunker capacity was obtained; but the normal supply
+(400 tons) was the same for both.
+
+In the British Navy, in 1908–11, a precisely similar thing obtained.
+It was probably inevitable. In the German Navy, between 1897 and 1907,
+displacement for small cruisers rose from 2,645 to 4,350 tons, with
+practically the same armament. But here the horse-power rose from about
+8,500 or less to 20,000, and designed speeds in proportion, from a
+twenty-one knots (not made) to a 25.5, which, on trial, turned out to
+be 27,000 I.H.P. and over twenty-seven knots.
+
+Here, however, there was a definite aim--increased speed, with only
+trivial improvements in any other direction. With similar British
+cruisers the defect has invariably been “general improvements” on what
+the original design _might have been_ if plotted a year or two later
+than it actually was. There is no question--or very little--but that
+Germany in its ultra-conservative policy gauged the situation better
+than any British Admiralty ever did till just before the war.
+
+Minor cruisers _must_ be cheap to construct. Any improvement in them
+_must_ have a definite intrinsic value. Lacking that, it is worth very
+little. The _Astræas_, as cited, indicated how a supposed advantage may
+even be a real deficit from another point of view.
+
+The value of increased speed cannot be put into £ s. d., but armament
+easily can be. Like reconstruction, minor “improvements” on a design
+rarely pay. With the original conception the naval architect is given
+certain data for which he arranges accordingly. Ordered to improve upon
+it in any direction he can only add displacement and upset the balance
+of everything.
+
+The Naval Defence Act also included a certain number of third-class
+cruisers--_Pallas_, _Pearl_, _Philomel_, and _Phœbe_--for the ordinary
+service, and five similar ships for the Australian station, originally
+named _Pandora_, _Pelorus_, _Persian_, _Phœnix_, and _Psyche_. These
+were later altered to Australian names, _Katoomba_, _Mildura_,
+_Wallaroo_, _Tauranga_, and _Ringarooma_. They were of 2,575 tons, with
+2½ decks, armaments of eight 4.7-inch and four above-water 14-inch
+tubes. The designed speed was 19 knots.
+
+Thirteen torpedo gunboats, improved _Rattlesnakes_, were laid down
+under the Act, corresponding to nine others of the normal Programme,
+of which two were for Australia. The Naval Defence boats were _Alarm_,
+_Antelope_, _Circe_, _Gleaner_, _Gossamer_, _Hebe_, _Renard_,
+_Speedy_--all laid down in 1889, as also were the _Whiting_ (afterwards
+_Boomerang_) and _Wizard_ (renamed _Karahatta_) for Australia. Those
+laid down normally in the previous year were the _Salamander_,
+_Seagull_, _Sheldrake_, _Skipjack_, _Spanker_, _Speedwell_, for the
+British Navy. Two others, _Assaye_ and _Plassy_, were built for the
+Indian Marine at and about this time. All carried a couple of 4.7-inch
+guns, were of about 750–850 tons displacement, and were first known as
+“catchers.” They were all intended to steam at 19 knots or over with
+locomotive boilers; but in service none ever did. At a later date,
+reboilered with water-tubes, many reached or exceeded the designed
+speed, and the majority of them are still in service for auxiliary
+purposes--many being specially fitted as mine sweepers, and the rest
+used as tenders for various services.
+
+They are of considerable interest on account of the fact that the
+destroyers of 1909–12 were practically the same displacement and
+general shape, with a not very dissimilar armament--two 4-inch instead
+of two 4.7. The modern destroyers, however, were approximately ten
+knots faster--an interesting commentary on engineering improvements in
+the course of twenty years!
+
+More interesting still, however, is the fact that Sir William White
+should have evolved twenty years ago almost exactly what--except in the
+matter of modern speed possibilities--is to-day the recognised ideal
+for destroyers.
+
+In the British Navy the torpedo gunboats never get beyond the “catcher”
+stage--they never had the opportunity; but it is worthy of note
+that the first two ships to be torpedoed under anything like modern
+war conditions--the Chilian _Blanco Encalada_ and the Brazilian
+_Aquidaban_--were both sunk by vessels of almost exactly the same type
+as the “catchers,” and not by torpedo boats.
+
+So far as the British Navy was concerned, the “catchers” tested in the
+“secret manœuvres” of 1891 did uncommonly well. They hung about off the
+torpedo bases, and though only about one to four, accounted for at
+least 90 per cent. of the hostile torpedo boats. To this very success,
+perhaps, was due the fact that in their own day they were not thought
+of as an offensive arm against big ships--destruction of the torpedo
+boat was then the principal aim in view. This they fulfilled. The South
+American Republics discovered their “other uses,” and so really led the
+way to the evolution of the destroyer of a later era.
+
+Perhaps the only nation which really read the lesson involved was
+Germany. So long ago as 1895 she had launched the 2,000-ton “small
+cruiser” _Hela_; in 1898 the _Gazelle_ of 2,645 tons was set afloat.
+For years Germany added to the _Gazelle_ class, at a time when all the
+rest of the world had decreed that “third-class cruisers” were useless.
+Not for many a year did the British Admiralty discover that Germany had
+seen the matter of the _Lynch_ and the _Sampaio_[16] better than any
+other Power.
+
+Neither of these ships in attacking got hit. They got home without. But
+they might have been hit. Germany evolved something that even if hit
+badly would still float long enough to get off her torpedoes.
+
+Till the Chilian “catchers” in 1891 proved their offensive abilities,
+no one had ever considered that side of the question. To this day
+Germany has never really received her meed of credit for perceiving
+that a small third-class cruiser has potentialities with torpedoes
+against a battleship at night.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  HOOD.
+  ROYAL SOVEREIGN.
+  BARFLEUR.
+  RENOWN.
+  MAJESTIC.
+  LONDON.
+  KING EDWARD.
+
+BATTLESHIPS OF THE WHITE ERA.]
+
+So late as the present day much comment about German small cruisers
+being inadequately gunned, a clear indication that just as in the
+past there was a difficulty in conceiving of the torpedo-gunboat for
+other than her nominal use, so the possibilities of the small cruiser
+in the role of destroyer were still apt to be generally overlooked.
+
+In February, 1893, there was laid down the _Renown_, the only armoured
+ship of the 1892–93 Estimates; an improved _Centurion_, with thinner
+belt armour. Harvey armour--three inches of which had the resisting
+value of four inches of compound or six inches of iron--was adopted in
+this ship for the first time. Influences other than taking advantage of
+the reduced weight required for a given protective value were, however,
+at work, for in the _Renown_ sacrifices were made at the water-line in
+order to secure better protection to the lower deck side.
+
+Details of the _Renown_:--
+
+    Displacement--12,350 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--380ft.
+
+    Beam--72⅓ft.
+
+    Draught--(maximum) 27ft.
+
+    Armament--Four 10-inch, ten 6-inch 40 cal., twelve 12-pounders,
+      four submerged 18-inch tubes, and one above water-line in stern.
+
+    Armour--8--6in. belt, 200ft. long amidships, 6in. side above.
+      Bulkheads 10--6in., barbettes 10in., casemates, main deck ones
+      6in., upper deck ones, 4in.
+
+    Horse-power--12,000 = 18 knots.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 800 tons; (maximum) 1,760 tons = nominal 7,200 miles
+      at ten knots.
+
+Built at Pembroke; engined by Maudslay; she was launched in May, 1895,
+and completed for sea in April, 1897, having taken no less than 4¼
+years to build. Cost, £746,247.
+
+She proved one of the best steamers ever built for the Navy. On a
+four-hour trial she made 18.75 knots, with 12,901 I.H.P. Her economical
+speed proved to be fifteen knots. She always steamed well, and after
+thirteen years’ service did 17.4 knots with ease.
+
+The special feature of this ship was that in her instead of the
+ordinary flat deck on top of the belt, a sloping deck behind the belt
+was first introduced. This system--rigidly adhered to in the British
+Navy ever since, and copied eventually into every other Navy--was
+based upon the idea of reinforcing the deck-protected cruiser with
+side armour. The principle involved was that at whatever angle the
+belt might be hit and penetrated, the incoming projectile would then
+meet a further obstruction at a 45° angle, calculated to present a
+maximum of deflecting resistance. Professor Hovgaard and others have
+since indicated that, weight for weight, three inches of inclined
+deck armour, having to be spread more, represent as much or more
+tons as six inches of vertical armour (the nominal equivalent), and
+protective decks behind armour are to-day much thinner than of yore
+and little better than “splinter decks.” The principle, however,
+remains, as originated by Sir William White, and is, perhaps, the most
+characteristic feature of his era: seeing how universally the idea was
+copied.
+
+The French were the last to adopt it. Instead, they used the flat deck
+below the belt in addition to the one on top of it. This was made use
+of so late as the _République_ and _Liberté_ class. While ideally
+better for resisting projectiles which might penetrate the belt, it
+was impossible of really practical application amidships on account of
+the difficulty of keeping the engines entirely below it.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  PROTECTED CRUISER.
+  ROYAL SOVEREIGN.
+  RENOWN.
+  SUFFREN (FRENCH)
+
+SYSTEMS OF WATER-LINE PROTECTION.]
+
+The _Renown_ was the first ship to carry all her secondary guns in
+casemates. She was fitted as a flagship, and first served on the
+North American Station. When Admiral Fisher went from there to the
+Mediterranean he took the _Renown_ with him as flagship, presumably
+with the idea that speed was better than power in a flagship. The
+_Renown’s_ fighting power was small even then, but she was well fitted
+for the social side of flagship work--so nicely, indeed, that the
+flash-plates of the big guns had been taken up so as not to interfere
+with ladies’ shoes in dances!
+
+After leaving the Mediterranean the _Renown_ was still further
+converted into a “battleship yacht,” the six-inch guns being removed.
+She was painted white, and used to convey the then Prince of Wales to
+India. Thereafter she practically disappeared from the effective list
+and eventually became a training ship for stokers.
+
+The _Renown_ was followed by the ships of the Spencer programme,
+nine battleships of the _Majestic_ class, which were spread over the
+1893–94 Estimates, and those of the next year. The _Majestics_ were in
+substance amplified _Renowns_, their special and particular feature
+being that in place of the two amidships belt of varying thickness a
+single belt of 16ft. wide of a uniform 9in. thickness was substituted.
+
+In the _Majestics_, the 13.5, which had been for so long the standard
+gun for first-class battleships, disappeared in favour of a new type
+of 12-inch, a Mark VIII. of 35 calibres. The two types compare as
+follows:--
+
+  =====+=======+=======+===========+=================================
+       |       |       |           |Maximum Penetration against K.C.
+  Bore.|Length.|Weight.|Projectile.|    (capped projectiles).
+  Inch.| Cals. | Tons. |   lbs.    |   at 5000 yds.  |  at 3000 yds.
+       |       |       |           |       in.       |       in.
+  -----+-------+-------+-----------+-----------------+---------------
+  13.5 |  30   |   67  |   1250    |        9        |       12
+       |       |       |           |                 |
+  12   |  35   |   46  |    850    |       11½       |       14½
+  =====+=======+=======+===========+=================+===============
+
+The new gun was, therefore, superior in everything except weight of
+projectile, and that was not considered much in those days. To-day, of
+course, it has quite a special meaning.
+
+In the _Majestics_, except in the first two, all-round loading
+positions for the big guns were introduced in place of the cumbersome
+old system whereby, after firing, the guns had to return to an end-on
+position, tilt up, and at a fixed angle take their charges at what was
+little but an adaption for breechloaders of the loading system evolved
+twenty years before for the old _Inflexible_.
+
+Details of these ships:--
+
+    Displacement--14,900 tons.
+
+    Length--(between perpendiculars) 390ft., (over-all) 413ft.
+
+    Beam--75ft.
+
+    Draught--(mean), 27½ ft., (maximum) about 30ft.
+
+    Armament--Four 12-inch 35 cal., twelve 6-inch 40 cal., sixteen
+      12-pounders, twelve 3-pounders. Torpedo tubes (18-inch), four
+      submerged and one above water in stern.
+
+    Armour (Harvey)--Belt, (220ft. by 16ft.) 9in. Bulkheads, 14in.
+      Barbettes, 14in. with 10in. turrets. Casemates, 6in.
+
+    Horse-power--12,000 = 17.5 knots.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 1,200 tons; (maximum) 2,200 tons = nominal radius of
+      7,600 miles at 10 knots and 4,000 at 15 knots.
+
+The ships were built, etc., as follows:--
+
+  ================+============+=============+==================
+  Name.           | Laid down. | Builder.    | Engined by
+  ----------------+------------+-------------+------------------
+  _Magnificent_   | Dec.   ’93 | Chatham     | Penn
+  _Majestic_      | Feb.   ’94 | Portsmouth  | Vickers
+  _Hannibal_      | April, ’94 | Pembroke    | Harland & Wolff
+  _Victorious_    | May,   ’94 | Chatham     | Hawthorn, Leslie
+  _Mars_          | June,  ’94 | Laird       | Laird
+  _Prince George_ | Sept.  ’94 | Portsmouth  | Humphrys
+  _Jupiter_       | Oct.   ’94 | Clydebank   | Clydebank
+  _Cæsar_         | March, ’95 | Portsmouth  | Maudslay
+  _Illustrious_   | March,  95 | Chatham     | Penn
+  ================+============+=============+==================
+
+Mostly they were completed inside two years, the only ones which took
+appreciably longer being the _Hannibal_ and the _Illustrious_. In these
+and the _Cæsar_ an innovation introduced in the others--the placing of
+the chart house round the base of the foremast with the conning tower
+well clear ahead--was done away with, and the old system of the bridge
+over the conning tower reverted to. In the _Cæsar_ and _Illustrious_,
+laid down later than the others, an improvement was effected by
+the introduction of circular instead of pear-shaped barbettes. The
+_Majestic_, _Magnificent_, and _Cæsar_ were built in dry dock instead
+of on slips--the first instance of this since the days of early
+coast-defence monitors.
+
+The total cost was approximately a million per ship.
+
+On trials most of them exceeded the designed speed, but all were light
+on trials. They proved very handy ships, with circles of 450 yards at
+fifteen knots. Coal consumption was always high.
+
+Compared to the _Sovereigns_, the following figures are of interest:--
+
+  =============+============+=========+==========+=======+========
+               |            |         | Weight of|       |
+               |Displacement|Weight of|Armament &|       |Normal
+  Name.        |   (tons).  | Armour  |Ammunition|       | Coal
+               |            | (tons). |  (tons). | H.P.  |(tons).
+  -------------+------------+---------+----------+-------+--------
+  _Majestics_  |   14,900   |   4260  |   1500   |12,000 | 1200
+  _Sovereigns_ |   14,100   |   4600  |   1410   |13,000 |  900
+  =============+============+=========+==========+=======+========
+
+The total dead weight carried in armament, armour, and coal thus works
+out at practically the same figure, despite the rise of 800 tons in
+displacement. On these grounds certain attacks were made upon the
+ships, mainly by those who argued against the unarmoured ends. The
+criticisms were, however, mainly of the captious order--the ships were
+certainly the finest specimens of naval architecture of their day.
+
+At a later date electric hoists were fitted to the 6-inch guns, and
+400 tons of oil fuel were added to the fuel capacity (the maximum coal
+capacity being reduced by 200 tons). The first ship to be so fitted was
+the _Mars_. Another innovation was shifting the torpedo nets, first in
+the _Mars_, then in all the others, from the upper deck to the main
+deck level; the idea being to keep the nets clear of the 6-inch guns.
+
+The _Majestic_ and _Magnificent_ served for a long time as flagships in
+the Channel Fleet. Admiral Sir F. Stephenson and Sir A. K. Wilson flew
+their flags in the _Majestic_, of which ship Prince Louis of Battenberg
+was at one time captain.
+
+It was during the early service of the _Majestics_ in the Channel Fleet
+that “invisible” colours for warships first came into consideration,
+all ships up to that date being painted with black hulls, white upper
+works, and yellow masts and funnels. For these experiments the
+_Magnificent_ was painted black all over, the _Majestic_ and _Hannibal_
+were given grey and light green upper works respectively. The latter
+was really the more “invisible” of the two, but both ships were left
+with black hulls. Ultimately a grey, a little darker than that which
+the Germans had long used, was adopted as the regulation, though for
+some time it varied greatly between ship and ship, following the old
+system under which a good deal of latitude in painting was allowed.[17]
+
+To this era, 1894–95, belong two groups of protected cruisers, the
+_Powerfuls_ and the _Talbots_. The latter, nine in all, were merely
+enlarged (5,600 tons) editions of the later cruisers of the Naval
+Defence Act, and call for no comment. The former group were the
+_Powerful_ and _Terrible_, “replies” to the Russian _Rurik_ and
+_Rossiya_. They displaced nearly as much as the battleships--14,200
+tons--and ran to the then unheard of length of 500ft. between
+perpendiculars. They carried no belt armour whatever, but were given
+stout protective decks, no less than 6in. on the slopes amidships.
+The two big guns (40 calibre, 9.2) were given 6in. Harvey barbettes,
+the twelve other guns[18] (6-inch) being in 6-inch casemates. Sixteen
+12-pounders were disposed about the upper works. Designed horse-power
+25,000 = 22 knots. Total bunker capacity of 3,000 tons, equal to a
+nominal 7,000 miles at fourteen knots. Both ships were laid down in
+1894, the _Powerful_ by Vickers and the _Terrible_ at Clydebank. They
+were launched in the following year.
+
+In service the _Powerfuls_ proved capable of keeping up a speed of
+twenty knots almost indefinitely. For the rest, they were unhandy ships
+with large turning circles. At the time of the South African War, both
+of them were at the Cape, and did service with landed naval brigades.
+Of these, one from the _Powerful_, with some 4.7’s on special Percy
+Scott gun-carriages, materially assisted in the defence of Ladysmith.
+
+During the year 1911 the decision was come to that it was not worth
+while preserving either ship, on account of the large crews required
+and their comparatively small fighting value under modern conditions.
+
+Two considerable novelties were embodied in these ships. The first of
+these was the adoption of electrical gear for the big guns. The other
+and more far-reaching was the adoption of Belleville boilers.
+
+
+_THE BATTLE OF THE BOILERS._
+
+Owing to favourable reports of their use in the French Navy, Belleville
+boilers were in 1895 experimentally fitted to the _Sharpshooter_,
+torpedo gunboat; but the decision to adopt them in large ships was
+taken from French rather than any British experience. Trouble and
+failure were freely predicted. With the result frequently attending
+lugubrious predictions, very little trouble has ever been experienced
+with any type and then only in the very early stage when the water-tube
+boiler was an almost unknown curiosity to the engine-room staff.
+
+The chief advantages claimed for Belleville boilers were the higher
+working pressures, economy in maintenance and fuel consumption, saving
+of weight, rapid steam raising, and great facility for repairs.
+
+[Illustration: WHITE ERA BATTLESHIPS OF THE MAJESTIC CLASS]
+
+The Belleville was the first water-tube boiler to come
+into prominence; other types, however, soon appeared. In the
+period 1895–98, torpedo gunboats were experimentally fitted as
+follows:--_Sharpshooter_, Belleville; _Sheldrake_, Babcock; _Seagull_,
+Niclausse; _Spanker_, Du Temple; _Salamander_, Mumford; _Speedy_,
+Thornycroft--these three last being of the small tube type. Other
+existing types were the Yarrow, White-Foster, Normand, Reed,
+Blechynden, all these being of the small tube type also, and regarded
+as suitable for small craft only.[19]
+
+In the matter of big ships, so far as the British Navy was concerned,
+“water-tube boiler” for some years meant Bellevilles only, whence it
+came that in the insensate “Battle of the Boilers,” which presently
+broke out, Bellevilles were the main object of attack in Parliament and
+elsewhere. Actually, of course, the whole principle was in the melting
+pot. All the elements opposed to change in any form rallied to the
+attack, led on and influenced in some cases by those whose interests
+were bound up with the old style cylindrical boilers. It was all over
+again the old story of the fight for the retention of the paddle
+against the screw propeller, with an equal disregard for facts.
+
+Unfortunately the party of progress played somewhat into the hands of
+the reactionaries. In fitting the Belleville type only, they had not
+much alternative, other types being then in a less forward state. The
+error made was that in the wholesale adoption of a new type of steam
+generator, requiring twice the skill and intelligence necessary for
+the old type, it was practically impossible to train quickly enough a
+sufficiency of engineers and stokers. Hence troubles soon arose. An
+even greater error was that the boilers were mostly built in England
+to the French specifications, without, in many cases, sufficient
+experienced supervision; and minor “improvements,” such as fusible
+plugs and restricting regulations, were introduced by more or less
+amateur Admiralty authorities--which also produced trouble.
+
+For example, French practice had taught that adding lime to the feed
+water was desirable; but in many British ships this rule was ignored.
+Again, one Belleville essential was to throw on coal in very small
+quantities at a time, in contradistinction to the old cylindrical
+practice in which shovelling on enormous quantities of coal was the
+recipe for increased speed. This feature was often disregarded.
+
+The Belleville, ever a complicated and delicate mechanism, if its full
+efficiency is to be secured, was a worse boiler for the experiments
+than many of the simpler types of to-day would have been. But no
+water-tube boiler of any type would have stood any chance of success
+against the opposition. There were some terrible times in the boiler
+rooms in those days. One or two ships whose chief engineers had been
+specially trained in France secured marvellous results, usually by
+ignoring Admiralty improvements and regulations.[20] But for one
+success there were many early failures.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  EDGAR.
+  POWERFUL.
+  DIADEM.
+  CRESSY.
+  DRAKE.
+  COUNTY.
+  DEVONSHIRE.
+
+PRINCIPAL CRUISERS OF THE WHITE ERA.]
+
+The agitation triumphed to the extent of a Committee of Inquiry being
+appointed. An interim report of this Committee made a scape-goat of the
+Belleville, to the extent of recommending that no more should be
+fitted. But the victory of the retrogrades ended there. A species of
+compromise with public opinion inflamed against the water-tube system
+was temporarily adopted, and absurd mixed installations of cylindrical
+and water-tube boilers were fitted to some ships. Four large tube types
+were selected as substitutes for Bellevilles, the Niclausse, Dürr (a
+German variant of the Niclausse), the Babcock and Wilcox, and the
+Yarrow large tube.
+
+It may approximately be said that every water-tube boiler is a species
+of compromise between facility for rapid repair on board ship and
+complication, and the need of great care in using and working. It is
+usual to put the Belleville at one end of this scale and the Yarrow
+(large tube) at the other, this last boiler now requiring little, if
+any, more care than the old type of cylindrical.
+
+In the course of comparatively short experiments, both the Niclausse
+and the Dürr were found to possess most of the alleged deficiencies of
+the Belleville without its advantages; and it was decided to fit all
+future types of large ships with the Babcock and Yarrow types only. The
+absurd mixture of cylindrical and water-tube boilers was wisely done
+away with. Curiously enough, the Belleville boiler, once the agitation
+had ceased, also ceased to be troublesome. This was no doubt due to the
+increased experience which had been gained in the interim.
+
+Both the Babcock and Yarrow boilers have been immensely improved since
+the days when they were first brought out. Something of the same sort
+is, of course, true of all the standard types, and there is to-day
+hardly any question as to which of them may be the best or worst. Each
+type has some special advantage of its own, and in no case, probably,
+is that advantage sufficiently pronounced to render any one type
+absolutely the best. When adopted by the Admiralty the Belleville was
+certainly the best water-tube boiler available. Had it been persisted
+in and not “improved” by amateurs it would probably have done quite as
+well as any type adopted to-day. The real issue was mainly not one of
+type, but of principle. That principle was the water-tube boiler as
+opposed to the old type cylindrical.
+
+The Estimates for 1896–97 provided for five battleships which were
+somewhat sarcastically alluded to as “improved” _Majestics_. These
+ships were the _Canopus_ class, and they mark a species of early
+striving after the ideal of the battle-cruisers of to-day. That is
+to say, certain sacrifices were made in them with a view to securing
+increased speed.
+
+Particulars of these ships:--
+
+    Displacement--12,950 tons.
+
+    Length--(over all) 418ft.
+
+    Beam--74ft.
+
+    Draught--(maximum) 26½ft.
+
+    Armament--Four 12in., 35 cal., twelve 6in. 40 cal., ten
+      12-pounders, four submerged tubes (18in.)
+
+    Armour--Harvey-Nickel. Belt amidships 6in. with 2in. extension
+      to the bow and 1½in. skin aft on the water-line. Bulkheads and
+      barbettes 12in. Turrets 8in.
+
+    Horse-power--31,500 = 18.25 knots.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 2,300 tons = nominal radius of
+      8,000 miles at 10 knots.
+
+The adoption of Harvey-Nickel armour, which was of superior resisting
+power to Harvey armour in the ratio of about 5 to 4, partly, but not
+entirely accounted for the thinning of the armour of this class.
+Theoretically, the 9in. armour belt of the _Majestic_ was equal to
+18in. of iron, while the belt of the _Canopus_ class was equal to
+about 15in. of iron. In place of the 4in. deck of the _Majestics_, the
+_Canopus_ class had only a 2½in. deck. The thin bow (2in.) plating
+was introduced as a sop to a public agitation against soft-ended
+ships. Such a belt is, of course, perfectly useless against any heavy
+projectile, or, for that matter, against 6in., except at very long
+range indeed. Sir William White never made any secret of his cynical
+disbelief in these bow belts. They were and always have been what
+doctors call a “placebo.”
+
+In the following year the sixth ship of this class was built--the
+_Vengeance_. She differed from the others in the form of her turrets,
+which were flat sided for the first time. In her also a mounting was
+first introduced, whereby, in addition to being loaded in any position,
+big guns could also be loaded at any elevation.
+
+Some other details of the _Canopus_ class are:--
+
+  =============+=============+=================+============+==========
+  Name.        | Built by    |   Engines by    | Laid down. |Completed.
+  -------------+-------------+-----------------+------------+----------
+  _Canopus_    | Portsmouth  | Greenock        | Jan. ’97   |  1900
+  _Goliath_    | Chatham     | Penn            | Jan. ’97   |  1900
+  _Albion_     | Thames I.W. | Maudslay        | Dec. ’96   |  1902
+  _Ocean_      | Devonport   | Hawthorn Leslie | Feb. ’97   |  1900
+  _Glory_      | Laird       | Laird           | Dec. ’96   |  1901
+  _Vengeance_  | Vickers     | Vickers         | Aug. ’97   |  1901
+  =============+=============+=================+============+==========
+
+The cruisers of the following year were eight cruisers of the much
+discussed _Diadem_ class, small editions of the _Powerful_ (11,000
+tons), and carrying a pair of 6-inch guns in place of the 9.2’s of the
+_Powerfuls_. For the first four (the _Diadem_, _Andromeda_, _Europa_,
+and _Niobe_) a speed of 20.5 knots only was provided, but in the late
+four (the _Argonaut_, _Ariadne_, _Amphitrite_, and _Spartiate_) the
+horse-power was increased to 18,000, in order to provide twenty-one
+knots. At the present time (1912) these ships have for all practical
+purposes already passed from the effective list, all the weak points of
+the _Powerfuls_ being exaggerated in them.
+
+In the Estimates for the years 1895 to 1898, provision was made also
+for eleven small third-class cruisers of the “P” class of 2135 tons
+and twenty knot speed. The armament consisted of eight 4-inch guns. On
+trials most of them did well, but in a very short time their speeds
+fell off, and at the present time, such of them as remain on the active
+list are slower than the far older cruisers of the _Apollo_ class.
+
+In the Estimates for 1897–98, in addition to the _Vengeance_, already
+mentioned, three improved copies of the _Majestic_ were provided. These
+ships were:--
+
+  ===============+============+============+===========
+  Name.          | Laid down. | Built at.  | Engines by.
+  ---------------+------------+----------- +-----------
+  _Formidable_   | March, ’98 | Portsmouth | Earle
+  _Irresistible_ | April, ’98 | Chatham    | Maudslay
+  _Implacable_   | July,  ’98 | Devonport  | Laird
+  ===============+============+============+===========
+
+The only difference between them and the _Majestics_ lies in advantage
+being taken of improvements in gunnery and armour to increase the
+offensive and defensive items. The absurd 2-inch bow belt of the
+_Canopus_ was repeated in them, but raised within 2½ft. of the main
+deck. A 40-calibre 12-inch was mounted, also a 45-calibre 6-inch.
+
+These were the first ships of the British Navy in which Krupp
+cemented armour was used. This armour, generally known as “K.C.,” has
+approximately a resisting power three times that of iron armour. That
+is to say, the 9in. belts of the _Formidables_ were approximately 33
+per cent. more effective than the similar belts of the _Majestics_.
+These ships proved faster and more handy, easily exceeding their
+designed eighteen knots. The superior handiness was brought about by a
+superior form of hull--the deadwood aft being cut away for the first
+time in them.
+
+In this year’s Estimates armoured cruisers definitely re-appeared, six
+ships of the _Cressy_ type being laid down.
+
+Particulars of these:--
+
+    Displacement--12,000 tons.
+
+    Length--454ft.
+
+    Beam--69½ft.
+
+    Draught--(maximum) 28ft.
+
+    Armament--Two 9.2, 40 cal., twelve 6-inch, 45 cal., twelve
+      12-pounders, two 18in. submerged tubes.
+
+    Armour--6in. Krupp belt amidships, 250ft. long by 11½ft. wide, 2in.
+      continuation to the bow. Barbettes 6in. Casemates 5in.
+
+    Horse power--21,000 = 21 knots.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 800 tons; (maximum) 1,600 tons.
+
+  ============+============+===========+============
+  Name.       | Laid down. | Built at. | Engines by.
+  ------------+------------+-----------+------------
+  _Sutlej_    | Aug.  ’98  | Clydebank | Clydebank
+  _Cressy_    | Oct.  ’98  | Fairfield | Fairfield
+  _Aboukir_   | Nov.  ’98  | Fairfield | Fairfield
+  _Hogue_     | July, ’98  | Vickers   | Vickers
+  _Bacchante_ | Dec.  ’99  | Clydebank | Clydebank
+  _Euryalus_  | July, ’99  | Vickers   | Vickers
+  ============+============+===========+============
+
+In substance these ships were armoured editions of the _Powerful_. They
+steamed very well in their time, but have now fallen off considerably
+and are no longer of any importance. Total weight of armour 2,100
+tons. An innovation introduced in these ships was the fitting of
+non-flammable wood, which at a later date was objected to on the
+grounds that it deteriorated the gold lace of the uniforms stored in
+drawers made of it. The _Cressy_ was completed in 1901; the others,
+excepting the _Euryalus_, in 1902. This latter ship was greatly delayed
+from various causes, and not completed until 1903.
+
+The 1898–99 Estimates consisted of three battleships and four armoured
+cruisers. The battleships were practically sisters to the _Formidable_,
+but differed from her in that the main belt, instead of being a patch
+amidships, has a total length of 300ft. from the bow. At the bow it is
+2in., quickly increasing to 4in., 5in., 6in., and finally to 9in., and
+this provided a measure of protection that the 2in. belts of preceding
+ships could never afford. The flat-sided turrets, first introduced in
+the _Vengeance_, were also fitted in these ships, the _Formidables_
+having the old pattern turrets.
+
+The advantages of flat-sided turrets lie in the fact that K.C. can
+be used for them instead of the relatively softer non-cemented. K.C.
+is not applicable to curved surfaces, for which reason barbettes,
+casemates, and batteries with curved portholes in them and rounded
+turrets cannot be constructed of it. Flat-sided turrets consist of
+a number of flat plates placed to meet each other at predetermined
+angles, thus forming one homogeneous whole.
+
+These battleships were:--
+
+  ============+============+===========+============
+  Name.       | Laid down. | Built at. | Engines by.
+  ------------+------------+-----------+------------
+  _London_    | Dec. ’98   | Portsmouth| Earle
+  _Bulwark_   | March, ’99 | Devonport | Hawthorn
+  _Venerable_ | Nov. ’99   | Chatham   | Maudslay
+  ============+============+===========+============
+
+All were completed in 1902.
+
+The cruisers of the same year, the _Drake_ class, were “improved”
+_Cressies_, with increased displacement, power and speed. The increased
+displacement allowed of four extra 6-inch guns being mounted, these
+being placed in casemates on top of the amidships casemates.
+
+Particulars of the _Drake_ class:--
+
+    Displacement--14,000 tons.
+
+    Length--(over all) 529½ft.
+
+    Beam--71ft.
+
+    Draught--(maximum) 28ft.
+
+    Armament--Two 9.2, 45 cal. (instead of 40 cal., as in the
+      _Cressies_), sixteen 6-inch, 45 cal., and fourteen 12-pounders,
+      two submerged tubes (18in.).
+
+    Armour--2,700 tons, as in _Cressy_, except that the casemates are
+      6in. thick.
+
+    Horse-power--30,000 = 23 knots. Boilers, 43 Belleville.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 1,250 tons; (maximum) 2,500.
+
+These ships were altogether superior to the _Cressy_ class. On trial
+they all easily made their contract speeds and subsequently greatly
+exceeded them. It was discovered that increased speed was to be
+obtained by additional weight aft, and this was so much brought to a
+fine art that weights were adjusted accordingly, and in one of them,
+seeking to make a speed record, the entire crew were once mustered aft
+in order to vary the trim!
+
+Building details are as follows:--
+
+  ===============+============+==========+===========+==============
+  Name.          | Laid down. |Completed.| Built at. | Engines by.
+  ---------------+------------+----------+-----------+--------------
+  _Good Hope_    | Sept. ’99  |  1902    | Fairfield | Fairfield
+  _Drake_        | April, ’99 |  1902    | Pembroke  | Humphrys & T.
+  _Leviathan_    | Nov. ’99   |  1903    | Clydebank | Clydebank
+  _King Alfred_  | Aug. ’99   |  1903    | Vickers   | Vickers
+  ===============+============+==========+===========+==============
+
+For some years these were the fastest ships in the world. In 1905, in
+a race by the Second Cruiser Squadron across the Atlantic, with ships
+of nominally equal speed, the _Drake_ came in first. In December, 1906,
+at four-fifths power for thirty hours, she averaged 22.5 knots. In
+1907, the _King Alfred_ averaged 25.1 knots for one hour, and made an
+eight hours’ mean of 24.8. They proved very economical steamers, being
+able to do nineteen knots at an expenditure of eleven tons of coal an
+hour, and though they are now getting old, as warships go, they have
+never yet been beaten on the results achieved by horse-power per ton of
+displacement.
+
+The Estimates of 1898–99 included a supplementary programme of four
+armoured ships which, like the _Canopus_ class, again foreshadowed the
+battle cruisers of to-day. These were the famous _Duncan_ class, and
+may be described as slightly smaller editions of the _London_, with
+armour thickness sacrificed for superior speed. The belt amidships was
+reduced from 9in. to 7in., but against this the belt at the extreme
+bow was made an inch thicker, and 25ft. away from the ram became
+5in. thick. The displacement sank by 1,000 tons, the horse-power was
+increased by 3,000, and the speed by one knot.
+
+The total weight of armour is about 3,500 against 4,300 tons in the
+_Londons_. The _Duncans_ may be regarded as a species of recrudescence
+of Barnaby ideas, plus a later notion that a well-extended partial
+protection was better than a more concentrated protection of less
+area. Generally speaking, they were improved duplicates of the
+_Canopus_ class, in the same way that the _Formidable_ and the ships
+that followed her were duplicates of the _Majestic_. Two ideas
+were obviously at work. In other forms these two ideas have (with
+variations) existed to the present day. Then it was purely a question
+between ratios devoted to speed and protection. To-day (1912) matters
+have been so far modified that increased displacements are given to
+secure speed advantages, but protection remains proportionately as it
+was. Reduced armament has always been accepted.
+
+Construction details of the _Duncans_, of which two more figured in the
+estimates for 1899–1900:--
+
+  ============+============+==============+=============
+  Name.       | Laid down. | Built at.    | Engines by.
+  ------------+------------+--------------+-------------
+  _Duncan_    | July, ’99  | Thames, I.W. | Thames, I.W.
+  _Russell_   | March, ’99 | Palmer       | Palmer
+  _Cornwallis_| July, ’99  | Thames, I.W. | Thames, I.W.
+  _Exmouth_   | Aug. ’99   | Laird        | Laird
+  _Albemarle_ | Jan. ’00   | Chatham      | Thames, I.W.
+  _Montagu_   | Nov. ’99   | Devonport    | Laird
+  ============+============+==============+=============
+
+The _Montagu_ was wrecked on Lundy Island in 1906.
+
+Contemporaneous with the _Drakes_, and extending over four ships in
+the Estimates of 1898–99 to two in the following and four in the year
+later, ten armoured cruisers were provided for, which in essence were
+little but an attempt to provide a normal second-class protected
+cruiser of the _Talbot_ class, with armour protection. These ships--the
+_County_ class--are of 9,800 tons displacement, and may also be
+regarded as diminutives of the _Drake_ and _Cressy_ classes, with a
+touch of the _Diadems_ thrown in. In place of the fore and aft 9.2’s
+of the _Drake_ and _Cressy_, they were supplied with a couple of pairs
+of 6-inch guns mounted in turrets fore and aft. The belt amidships
+was reduced to 4in. (a thickness in K.C. which has no virtues over
+armour of earlier type) with the usual extension of 2in. to the bow.
+The twin turrets, in which, like those of the _Powerful_, electrical
+control was once more introduced, have never given satisfaction, being
+very cramped for working purposes, and probably no more efficient than
+single gun turrets would have been, certainly less than the single gun
+7--5in. turrets, originally proposed as an alternative, would have been.
+
+Had the ships been regarded frankly as modern variants of the
+second-class protected cruisers, they probably would have been esteemed
+more than they were. Unfortunately they have always been regarded as
+“armoured ships” and discounted on account of their obvious inferiority
+to the _Drakes_. In the matter of steaming all of them have invariably
+done well (except in the case of the _Essex_, over which a mistake in
+design was made). The anticipated twenty-three knots was made quite
+easily, once certain early propeller difficulties were overcome. The
+Boiler Commission, already referred to, affected these ships, in so far
+that, instead of the hitherto inevitable Bellevilles, the _Berwick_ and
+_Suffolk_ were given Niclausse boilers and the _Cornwall_ Babcocks. The
+total weight of armour is 1,800 tons.
+
+Details of the construction of this class are:--
+
+  ==============+===========+==============+==============
+  Name.         | Laid down.| Built at.    | Engines by.
+  --------------+-----------+------------- +--------------
+  _Essex_       | Jan. ’00  | Pembroke     | Clydebank
+  _Kent_        | Feb. ’00  | Portsmouth   | Hawthorn
+  _Bedford_     | Feb. ’00  | Fairfield    | Fairfield
+  _Monmouth_    | Aug. ’99  | L. & Glasgow | L. & Glasgow
+  _Lancaster_   | Mar. ’01  | Elswick      | Hawthorn L.
+  _Berwick_     | April, ’01| Beardmore    | Humphrys
+  _Donegal_     | Feb. ’01  | Fairfield    | Fairfield
+  _Cornwall_    | Mar. ’01  | Pembroke     | Hawthorn
+  _Cumberland_  | Feb. ’01  | L. & Glasgow | L. & Glasgow
+  _Suffolk_     | Mar. ’02  | Portsmouth   | Humphrys & T.
+  ==============+===========+==============+==============
+
+All were completed during 1903 and 1904.
+
+For the year 1900–01 only two battleships were provided: the _Queen_,
+built at Devonport and engined by Harland and Wolff, and the _Prince
+of Wales_, built at Chatham and engined by the Greenock Foundry Co.
+These were laid down in 1901 and completed in 1904. They were copies of
+the _Londons_ in every detail, saving that, instead of being enclosed,
+their upper deck batteries were left open as in the _Duncans_. The
+_Queen_ was given Babcock boilers instead of Bellevilles.
+
+The 1901–02 Estimates provided three battleships and six armoured
+cruisers of the _County_ class. These were the last ships designed
+by Sir William White. The battleships, of which eight were built
+altogether--three for 1901–02, two for the next year--were of a
+different type from any which had preceded them, and to some extent may
+be said to mark the birth of the _Dreadnought_ era. That is to say, in
+them the old idea of the two calibres, 12in. and 6in., died out, and
+heavier auxiliary guns began to appear.
+
+Particulars of these ships, _the King Edward VII_ class, are as
+follows:--
+
+    Displacement--16,350 tons.
+
+    Length--(over all) 453¾ft.
+
+    Beam--78ft.
+
+    Draught--(maximum) 26¾ft.
+
+    Armament--Four 12-inch, 40 cal., four 9.2, 45 cal., ten 6-inch,
+      45 cal., twelve 12-pounders, fourteen 3-pounders, five 18-inch
+      submerged tubes (of which one is in the stern).
+
+    Armour--As in the _London_ (but a 6in. battery instead of
+      casemates).
+
+    Horse-power--18,000 = 18.9 knots.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 950 tons; (maximum) 2,150 tons, also 400 tons of
+      oil, except in the _New Zealand_.
+
+  ==============================+===========+============+==============
+  Name.                         | Laid down.| Built at.  | Engines by.
+  ------------------------------+-----------+------------+--------------
+  _Commonwealth_                | June, ’01 | Fairfield  | Fairfield
+  _King Edward_                 | Mar. ’02  | Devonport  | Harland & W.
+  _Dominion_                    | May, ’02  | Vickers    | Vickers
+  _Hindustan_                   | Oct. ’02  | Clydebank  | Clydebank
+  _New Zealand_ (now _Zelandia_)| Feb. ’03  | Portsmouth | Humphrys & T.
+  _Africa_                      | Jan. ’04  | Chatham    | Clydebank
+  _Britannia_                   | Feb. ’04  | Portsmouth | Humphrys & T.
+  _Hibernia_                    | Jan. ’04  | Devonport  | Harland & W.
+  ==============================+===========+============+==============
+
+Except the last three, all were completed in 1905. The others were
+completed very shortly afterwards.
+
+The boilers fitted to these ships varied considerably. The _King
+Edward_, _Hindustan_, and _Britannia_ were given a mixed installation
+of Babcocks and cylindricals; the _New Zealand_ Niclausse boilers;
+the other ships Babcock only. In the _Britannia_, super-heaters were
+also fitted to six of her boilers. The point differentiating these
+ships from their predecessors was the mounting of four 9.2 guns in
+single turrets at the angles of the superstructure. Equally novel was
+the placing of 6-inch guns in a battery behind the armour on the main
+deck.[21] Fighting tops, a feature of all previous ships, disappeared,
+and in place of them fire-control platforms were substituted.
+
+When produced, these ships were considered as something like the “last
+word”; but in service later on it was very soon found that the two
+calibres of big guns rendered fire-control extremely difficult, and
+they have been a somewhat costly lesson in that respect. They cost
+about £1,500,000 each, and were found to be all that could be desired
+tactically, their turning circles with engines being only about 340yds.
+at fifteen knots. All of them did not make their speeds on trials, and
+some have never quite come up to expectations in that respect, but
+they have all proved remarkably reliable steamers.
+
+Six armoured cruisers provided for in the 1901–02 Estimates were the
+_Devonshires_. These were originally intended to have been enlarged
+_Counties_, carrying a single 7.5 fore and aft, in place of the twin
+6-inch turrets of the prototype ships. The design was, however,
+modified to the extent of substituting a single 7.5 for each of the
+forward pairs of 6-inch casemates.
+
+Details of these ships are:--
+
+    Displacement--10,850 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--450ft.
+
+    Beam--68½ft.
+
+    Draught--(maximum) 25½ft.
+
+    Armament--Four 7.5, six 6-inch, 45 cal.; two 12-pounders,
+      twenty-two 3-pounders, two 18in. torpedo tubes submerged.
+
+    Armour Belt--(length 325ft. from the bow, width 10½ft.), 6in.
+      amidships, thinning to 2in. right forward. Barbettes 6in. Turrets
+      5in. Casemates 6in.
+
+    Horse-power--21,000==22.5 knots.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 800; (maximum) 1,800 tons.
+
+Other details are:--
+
+  ================+============+==================+==============
+  Name.           | Laid down. | Built at.        | Engined by.
+  ----------------+------------+------------------+--------------
+  _Devonshire_    | Mar. ’02   | Chatham          | Thames I.W.
+  _Antrim_        | Aug. ’02   | Clydebank        | Clydebank
+  _Argyll_        | Sept. ’02  | Greenock Foundry | Greenock F.C.
+  _Carnarvon_     | Oct. ’02   | Beardmore        | Beardmore
+  _Hampshire_     | Sept. ’02  | Elswick          | Elswick
+  _Roxburgh_      | June, ’02  | L. & Glasgow     | L. & Glasgow
+  ================+============+==================+==============
+
+Like the _King Edwards_, various boilers were given to them. All
+of them have one-fifth cylindrical boilers. The _Devonshire_ and
+_Carnarvon_ were otherwise given Niclausse; _Antrim_ and _Hampshire_,
+Yarrow; _Argyll_, Babcock; and _Roxburgh_, Dürr. The designed speed was
+exceeded by all on trials, but none have proved successful steamers
+ever since. They were completed between 1904 and 1905.
+
+These were the last ships to be designed by Sir William White. He
+resigned his position from ill-health; but, like his predecessors, left
+under a cloud--at any rate, with his services not really appreciated.
+He had created a magnificent fleet; but its very magnificence made many
+of his designs look poor on paper against any foreign construction of
+less displacement, but--_on paper_--of equal or superior qualities. It
+is the fate of the naval architect in peace-time to be judged on paper
+with small regard to issues such as nautical qualities, constructional
+strength, and a score of other details which are not to be expressed
+by any statistical formulæ, but yet make all the difference between
+efficiency and the absence of it.
+
+[Illustration: EARLY TYPE OF “27 KNOT” DESTROYERS.]
+
+Sir William White’s period of office was marked by an almost
+complete naval revolution. It began with the quick-firer and the
+disappearance of the low freeboard battleships. It ended with the
+coming of submarines, fire-control, and wireless. In between, it
+included the coming of the destroyer, the re-birth of the armoured
+cruiser; the arrival of the water-tube boiler, new forms of hull,
+unprecedented advances in both guns and armour--in fact, almost every
+conceivable change. Through these troubled waters with a steady hand
+and cool brain Sir William White guided the destiny of the Fleet and
+the millions of pounds expended in shipbuilding. Already his era
+is “the pre-_Dreadnought_” one, and to present-day ideas the term
+“pre-_Dreadnought_” is already very nearly akin to “pre-historic.”
+His creations preserved the peace, for which very reason they failed
+to secure glory. Already some have gone to the scrap-heap, and others
+are well on their way thither to join the Reed and Barnaby ships in
+that oblivion to which modern _Dreadnoughts_ will just as surely go in
+their season. More might be said: but _cui bono?_ Such public epitaph
+as Sir William White received when he retired was of the “about time,
+too!” order. The creator of the finest fleet that the world has ever
+seen left office with less honour and no more public interest than did
+half-a-dozen mediocre admirals who had chanced to fly their flags in
+some of his creations. It is not given for the stage manager to stand
+in the lime-light reserved for the principal actors. But the historian
+of a hundred years hence, placing great Englishmen in perspective, will
+assuredly place Sir William White far ahead of many who loom greater in
+the public eye to-day.
+
+
+_GUNS IN THE ERA._
+
+The guns which especially belong to the White era are as follows:--
+
+  ===============+========+============+=========+============================
+  Designation.   | Weight.| Projectile.| Velocity| Maximum Penetration with
+                 |  Tons. |    lbs.    |    f.s. | capped shot against K.C. at
+                 |        |            |         +------------+---------------
+                 |        |            |         | 5000 yds.  |   3000 yds.
+  ---------------+--------+------------+---------+------------+---------------
+  13.5, 30 cal.  |  67    |    1250    |  2016   |     9      |     12
+                 |        |            |         |            |
+  12in., 35 cal. |  46    |     850    |  2367   |    11½     |     14½
+  12in., 40 cal. |  50    |     850    |  2750   |    16      |     20
+                 |        |            |         |            |
+  10in., 32 cal. |  29    |     500    |  2040   |     5½     |      7½
+                 |        |            |         |            |
+  9.2, 30 cal.   |  24    |     380    |  2065   |     4      |      6
+  9.2, 40 cal.   |  25    |     380    |  2347   |     6¾     |      9¼
+  9.2, 45 cal.   |  27    |     380    |  2640   |     8¾     |     11¼
+                 |        |            |         |            |
+  7.5, 45 cal.   |  14    |     200    |  2600   |     5¾     |      7½
+                 |        |            |         |            |
+  6in., 40 cal.  |   7½   |     100    |  2200   |      --    |      --
+                 |        |            |         |            |
+  6in., 45 cal.  |   7    |     100    |  2535   |      --    |      4½
+  ===============+========+============+=========+============+===============
+
+
+_PURCHASED SHIPS._
+
+In the year 1902 two ships, the _Constitucion_ and _Libertad_, were
+laid down at Elswick and Vickers-Maxims’ respectively for the Chilian
+Government. They were designed by Sir Edward Reed, and compare
+interestingly with the _King Edwards_ in being much longer and
+narrower. It will be remembered that in the past Reed ideals had always
+centred round a “short handy ship.” They had also always embodied the
+maximum of protection, while these ships carried medium armour only.
+His ships had, further, always been characterised by extremely strong
+construction, while these verged on the flimsy, the scantlings being
+far lighter than in British naval practice.
+
+Out of all which it has been held that they represented the Reed ideal
+of armoured cruisers interlaced with whatever limitations the Chilian
+authorities may have specified.
+
+Particulars of these ships, which in 1903 were purchased for the
+British Navy and renamed _Swiftsure_ (ex _Constitucion_) and _Triumph_
+(ex _Libertad_):--
+
+    Displacement--11,800. Complement, 700.
+
+    Length--(over all) 470ft.
+
+    Beam--71ft.
+
+    Draught--(Maximum) 24ft. 8in.
+
+    Armament--Four 10-inch, 45 cal.; fourteen 7.5-inch, 50 cal.;
+      fourteen 14-pounders, four 6-pounders, four Maxims; two 18-inch
+      submerged tubes.
+
+    Armour--Practically complete belt 8ft. wide, 7-inch thick
+      amidships, reduced to 3-inch at ends. 10-inch bulkheads at ends
+      of thick portion of belt. Redoubt above (250ft. long), 7-inch on
+      sides 6-inch bulkheads to it. Deck 1½-inch on slopes amidships,
+      3-inch on slopes at ends. Barbettes 10-inch, with 8 to 6-inch
+      turrets. Battery and upper deck casemates, 7-inch.
+
+    Horse-power--14,000 = 20 knots. Yarrow boilers.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 800 tons; (maximum) 2,000 tons.
+
+These ships compare interestingly with the _King Edwards_ and
+_Devonshires_, between which they struck a mean, as follows:--
+
+  ===============+=================+===============+===============
+                 | _King Edward._  |  _Swiftsure._ | _Devonshire._
+  ---------------+-----------------+---------------+---------------
+  Displacement   | 16,350          | 11,800        |10,850
+  Principal Guns | 4--12in.        | 4--10in.      | 4--7.5.
+                 | 4--9.2          | 14--7.5       | 6--6in.
+                 | 16--6in.        |               |
+                 | 5--18in. tubes  | 2--18in. tubes| 2--18in. tubes
+  ---------------+-----------------+---------------+---------------
+  Armour belt    | 9--2in.         | 7--3in.       | 6--2in.
+  Speed          | 18.9 knots      | 20 knots      | 22.25 knots
+  Coal (Normal)  | 950             | 800           | 800
+  Coal (Maximum) | 2,150--400 (oil)| 2,000         | 1,800
+  ===============+=================+===============+===============
+
+Other items of interest are that the armament of the _Swiftsures_
+(10-inch and 7.5’s) had somewhere about that time been laid down by
+Admiral Fisher as the ideal armament of the future, on the principle
+that the best possible was “the smallest effective big gun, and the
+largest possible secondary gun.”
+
+In service these ships never proved brilliantly successful. They rarely
+managed to make their speeds successfully, and there was a great deal
+of vibration with them. They were shored up internally in places with a
+view to strengthening them. On the other hand, it should be mentioned
+that some of these alleged defects have been put down to conservatism
+in nautical ideas, and that the shoring up was not really required.
+Their great drawback was that so far as the British Navy was concerned
+they were neither one thing nor the other, being too light in heavy
+guns to be satisfactory with the battleships, and too slow to act with
+the cruisers. Had there been six or so of them they would, possibly
+enough, have formed an ideal squadron. Being two ships only, they of
+necessity became round pegs in square holes.
+
+
+_NAVAL ESTIMATES IN THE ERA._
+
+  ===========+=============+============+=====================================
+  Financial  |             |            |                Ships.
+  Year.      |   Amount.   | Personnel. +--------------+-----------+----------
+             |             |            |              | Armoured  | Protected
+             |             |            | Battleships. | Cruisers. | Cruisers.
+  -----------+-------------+------------+--------------+-----------+----------
+  1887–88    | 12,476,800  |   62,500   |     --       |    --     |     3
+  1888–89[22]| 13,082,800  |   62,500   |     --       |    --     |     2
+  1889–90    | 13,685,400  |   62,400   |     --       |    --     |    --
+  1890–91    | 13,786,600  |   65,400   |      8       |    --     |    42
+  1891–92    | 14,557,856  |   68,800   |      2       |    --     |    --
+  1892–93    | 14,240,200  |   67,700   |      1       |    --     |    --
+  1893–94    | 14,340,000  |   70,500   |      6       |    --     |     2
+  1894–95    | 17,365,900  |   83,000   |      3       |    --     |     9
+  1895–96    | 18,701,000  |   88,850   |     --       |    --     |     8
+  1896–97    | 21,823,000  |   93,750   |      6       |    --     |     3
+  1897–98    | 21,838,000  |  100,050   |      7       |     6     |    --
+  1898–99    | 23,780,000  |  106,390   |      3       |     4     |    --
+  1899–00    | 26,594,000  |  110,640   |      2       |     2     |     1
+  1900–01    | 28,791,900  |  114,880   |      2       |     6     |     1
+  1901–02    | 30,875,500  |  118,625   |      3       |     6     |    --
+  1902–03    | 31,255,500  |  122,500   |      2       |     2     |    --
+  ===========+=============+============+==============+===========+==========
+
+In the following year 1903–04 three ships (the last of the _King
+Edwards_) were provided for. The total number of battleships designed
+for the British Navy by Sir William White was therefore 48. There were
+in addition 26 armoured cruisers--making a total of 74 armoured ships,
+and about as many protected cruisers, including some for Colonial
+service.
+
+
+
+
+III.
+
+THE WATTS ERA.
+
+
+Sir William White was succeeded by Mr., afterwards Sir Philip Watts,
+who came to the Admiralty from Elswick, where he had been Chief
+Constructor. He came with the reputation of “putting in plenty of
+guns,” and his appointment was favourably received, both inside the
+Navy and outside.
+
+The armoured cruisers _Duke of Edinburgh_ and _Black Prince_ were the
+first ships for which he was personally responsible.
+
+Details of these:--
+
+    Displacement--13,550 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--480ft.
+
+    Beam--73½ft.
+
+    Draught--(maximum) 27½ft.
+
+    Armament--Six 9.2, 45 cal., ten 6-inch, 50 cal.; twenty-two
+      3-pounders. Torpedo tubes:--Three submerged (18in.).
+
+    Horse-power--23,500 = 22.3 knots.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 2,000; also 400 tons of oil.
+
+The former ship was laid down at Pembroke and engined by Hawthorn; the
+latter was built and engined by the Thames Iron Works. In the matter
+of armament and its arrangement the ships were to some extent cruiser
+versions of the _King Edward_; but equally, in the adoption of a number
+of single gun-houses for big guns, and the jump from two to a larger
+number of big guns, the influence of the Chilian _O’Higgins_, built
+at Elswick, may be noticed. The big guns were placed one forward and
+one aft, two on either beam and two on either quarter. The 6-inch
+were placed in an armoured battery below. As originally designed,
+right ahead fire was given to the forward battery guns, but this was
+dispensed with at a later date. The ships were never good sea boats,
+and the 6-inch guns were soon found to be well-nigh useless in any sea.
+
+The armour was disposed in generous fashion--a complete belt reaching
+up to the main deck, 4in. forward, 6in. for some 260ft. amidships, and
+3in. aft of that. A 6in. battery (K.N.C.) with bulkheads surmounts the
+belt-7in. barbettes with 6in. K.C. flat-sided gunhouses.
+
+Both were given a mixed installation of Babcock and cylindrical
+boilers. A novelty was the standardisation of all their machinery, a
+very valuable innovation, which has been followed ever since. Parts of
+any one ship’s machinery can be used for any other of her class, thus
+facilitating rapid repairs and requiring a considerably reduced stock
+of spares.
+
+On trials the _Duke of Edinburgh_ did on her eight hours’ full power
+trial I.H.P. 23,685 = 22.84 knots, the _Black Prince_ 23,939 = 23.6
+knots. In service, however, the former has generally proved the better
+steamer. Another innovation in these ships was the re-appearance of
+the stern torpedo tube, first introduced in the _Centurions_. As
+re-introduced it was built submerged, a feature long desired, but which
+had previously presented innumerable difficulties in design.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  SWIFTSURE.
+
+  WATTS ERA.
+  LORD NELSON.
+  BLACK PRINCE.
+  WARRIOR.
+  MINOTAUR.
+
+PRE-DREADNOUGHTS OF THE WATTS ERA.]
+
+For the Estimates of the following year (1903–04) four more ships of
+the same type were provided--
+
+  ===========+============+===========+=============
+  Name.      | Laid down. | Builders. | Engines by.
+  -----------+------------+-----------+-------------
+  _Achilles_ | Feb. ’04   | Elswick   | Hawthorn
+  _Cochrane_ | Mar. ’04   | Fairfield | Fairfield
+  _Warrior_  | Jan. ’04   | Vickers   | Vickers
+  _Natal_    | Nov. ’03   | Pembroke  | Wallsend Co.
+  ===========+============+===========+=============
+
+In these the defect of the low 6-in. battery of the _Black Princes_ was
+anticipated, and instead of ten 6-inch guns, four 7.5 were mounted in
+gun-houses on the upper deck amidships. Yarrow and cylindrical boilers
+mixed were installed. Otherwise no change was made. On trial the
+_Achilles_ reached a maximum of 23.27, the other three ships all made
+their contracts or over.
+
+These four, generally known as the _Warriors_, proved to be the finest
+cruisers as sea-boats ever built for the British Navy. They have always
+proved most remarkably steady gun platforms. Shooting from them is
+invariably good--they have always been near the top of the list in
+gunnery returns. For a single ship in a single commission good shooting
+is attributable to causes other than the ship; but with four ships and
+different crews at different times the effect of the design is obvious.
+Apparently the extra weight on their upper decks is responsible; for
+their dimensions are identical with those of the unsatisfactory _Black
+Princes_.
+
+In all these ships, as in the _Devonshires_ which preceded them, raking
+masts and stumpy funnels were introduced. The latter proved most
+inconvenient for navigating purposes, and in 1911 all the _Warriors_
+had their funnels considerably heightened.
+
+In these four latter the “dove-cot” platform fire-controls first
+appeared; they were fitted also to the three latest ships of the _King
+Edward_ class.
+
+The main defect of all six is the trivial anti-torpedo armament. The
+3-pounders are perfectly useless against destroyers. Incidentally it
+may be noticed that the class signalled the scientific placing of such
+guns for control purposes. In the _Warriors_ some guns were mounted on
+turret tops also, this being with a view to their survival after an
+action. It was contended that an actual hit was extremely improbable on
+any anti-t.b. guns, but that shells bursting underneath might easily
+disable them. Hence the search for an armoured base. This idea seems to
+have originated in the German Navy, though the Germans never adopted
+the turret-top position.
+
+The Estimates (1904–05) provided for two battleships and three armoured
+cruisers. The latter of these, the _Minotaur_ class, were “improved
+_Warriors_”; but, as a matter of fact, except for a larger armament,
+they proved somewhat inferior to their immediate predecessors:--
+
+Details are:
+
+    Displacement--14,600 tons (as against 13,550).
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--490ft., (over all) 525ft.
+
+    Beam--74½ft. (but a foot more in _Shannon_).
+
+    Draught--(maximum) 28ft. (but a foot less in _Shannon_).
+
+    Armament--Four 9.2, 50 cal., ten 7.5, fourteen 12-pounders, five
+      18in. tubes (submerged).
+
+    Horse-power--27,000 = 23 knots.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons (950 only in _Shannon_); (maximum) 2,000,
+      also 400 tons oil.
+
+[Illustration: SIR PHILIP WATTS.]
+
+The 9.2 were placed in double turrets fore and aft. For those of the
+_Minotaur_ electric manœuvring was substituted for the usual hydraulic.
+The 7.5’s are disposed in ten single gun houses on the upper deck,
+_Warrior_ fashion. The armour belt is of the same maximum thickness,
+but only 3in. for 50ft. from the bow. Thereafter it thickens gradually
+for the next 75ft. then reaches its maximum. Vertical armour above
+the main deck was given up in order to allow for the increased weight
+of armament and its protection--a total of 2,073 tons. The _Minotaur_
+has Babcock, the other two Yarrow large-tube boilers. No cylindricals
+were fitted; the opponents of the water-tube system having lost their
+influence by 1905, when the ships were laid down.
+
+None of these ships came up to expectations on trial, though they
+developed considerably more than the contract horse-power. The
+_Minotaur_ just made her speed, the _Defence_ just failed to reach it,
+the _Shannon_ failed by half-a-knot. This last ship had been varied
+from the others with an idea that a new form of hull, would produce
+better speed--an unfortunate surmise. Shortly after completion all had
+15ft. added to their funnels. The increased draught added to their
+power somewhat, but did not materially better their speeds.
+
+Further details of these three ships are:--
+
+  ============+============+===========+==================
+  Name.       | Laid down. | Built at. | Engined by.
+  ------------+------------+-----------+------------------
+  _Minotaur_  | Jan. ’05   | Devonport | Harland & Wolff
+  _Defence_   | Feb. ’05   | Pembroke  | Scott S. & E. Co.
+  _Shannon_   | Jan. ’05   | Chatham   | Humphrys
+  ============+============+===========+==================
+
+All were completed in 1908. Average cost, £1,400,000 per ship. In them
+solid bulkheads first appear, their engine-rooms having no water-tight
+doors.
+
+The battleships of the same programme (1904–05) were the _Lord Nelson_
+and _Agamemnon_.
+
+Details are:--
+
+    Displacement--16,500 tons.
+
+    Length (between perpendiculars)--410 ft., (over all) 445ft.
+
+    Beam--79½ft.
+
+    Draught--(mean) 27ft.
+
+    Armament--Four 12-inch, 45 cal., ten 9.2, 50 cal. fifteen
+      12-pounders, sixteen 3-pounders, five submerged tubes (18in.).
+
+    Horse-power--16,750 = 18.5 knots.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,000 tons; also 400 tons oil.
+
+The _Lord Nelson_ was built and engined by Palmer, the _Agamemnon_
+by Beardmore and engined by Hawthorn. The former was given Babcock,
+the latter Yarrow boilers. Both on trial easily exceeded the contract
+speed, and proved abnormally handy ships. They cost £1,500,000 or only
+a little more than the _Minotaurs_.
+
+The _Nelsons_ are often counted as “Dreadnoughts”; but their only
+claim to the position is they do not happen to carry any 6-inch guns.
+Actually they are nothing but improved _King Edwards_, bearing to those
+ships very much the same relation as the _Warriors_ to the _Black
+Princes_. Their comparatively slow speeds and their mixed armaments
+entirely differentiate them from the swifter “all-big-gun” ship which
+followed, and, for that matter, caught them up.[23]
+
+The _Nelsons_ were never really successful ships outside the points
+alluded to above. Eight of their ten 9.2’s were placed in twin
+turrets, and in many circumstances two 9.2 so mounted proved very
+little superior in efficiency to a similar single gun in an isolated
+gun-house.[24]
+
+In the matter of protection the _Nelsons_ far exceeded the _King
+Edwards_. In place of a 9in. belt amidships they were given a 12in.
+one, while the 8in. and 6in. strakes above of the earlier ships
+became a uniform 8in. The bow belt forward was also augmented to 6in.
+on the water-line, surmounted by 4in., instead of a belt uniformly
+increasing from 2in. to 6in. further aft. But none of this made them
+“Dreadnoughts,” and the absence of “Dreadnought” features relegated
+them to the second line very soon after they were completed.
+
+In these ships the tripod mast, the idea of which dates back to the
+_Captain_ era, re-appeared. The _Nelsons_ were given as mainmasts the
+first of those modern tripods which have characterised nearly every
+British capital ship since built till the _Lion_ was altered.
+
+The idea of the tripod mast is to avoid the many shrouds of an ordinary
+mast; and so give greater training to the guns. Whether the idea be
+of use is another matter. Generally speaking ideas abandoned by our
+forefathers have failed to live long if resuscitated.
+
+In the 1902–03 and 1903–04 Estimates provision was made for four
+vessels each year of a new type, known as “Scouts.” These were the
+_Adventure_ and _Attentive_ (Elswick), _Forward_ and _Foresight_
+(Fairfield), _Pathfinder_ and _Patrol_ (Laird), _Sentinel_ and
+_Skirmisher_ (Vickers-Maxim). One was awarded each year to each of the
+firms mentioned, but all were actually laid down between June, 1903,
+and January, 1904. The first four to be given out to contract were
+originally named _Eddystone_, _Nore_, _Fastnet_, and _Inchkeith_.
+
+These vessels came to be built owing to an appreciation of the fact
+that destroyers had altogether lost their original rôle and had become
+torpedo-boats, pure and simple. The “Scouts,” though from three to four
+times the size, were the old “catchers” re-introduced.
+
+They compared with these as follows:--
+
+  =========+===============+==========+====================
+           |   Average     | Average  |
+           | Displacement. | Designed |      Armament.
+           |               |  Speed.  |
+  ---------+---------------+----------+--------------------
+  “Scouts” |     2850      |   25     | 12 to 14--12pdr.,
+           |               |          |  2--14in. tubes[25]
+  Halcyons |     1070      |   18.5   | 2--4.7, 4--6pdr.,
+           |               |          | 5--18in. tubes
+  =========+===============+==========+====================
+
+A 1½ deck on slopes amidships was provided for the “Scouts,” which
+incidentally were designed for ten 12-pounders only. By the year
+1912 it became abundantly clear that, like their predecessors the
+“catchers,” they were doomed to pass quickly into the “little use”
+category on account of their weak armaments and small sea-keeping
+capacity.
+
+
+_TORPEDO CRAFT._
+
+It has already been mentioned that Sir William White’s period of
+office saw the coming of the destroyer. The origin of this craft is
+to be found in a public agitation, which arose out of the tremendous
+attention paid to torpedo boats by the French, who were then our most
+likely enemy, and who had an overwhelming superiority in torpedo craft.
+
+Some years before a type of craft, the torpedo gunboats already
+referred to, which were first known as “torpedo boat catchers” and
+subsequently as “catchers” had been introduced. It soon, however,
+became very clear that they were little likely to achieve this end, and
+the doctrine that “the torpedo boat is the answer to the torpedo boat”
+was being steadily preached. At that time (1892) the then insignificant
+navy of Germany was in possession of eight very large torpedo boats,
+which were known as “division boats.” Austria also had one or two fast
+craft, capable of dealing with torpedo boats. Upon these existing lines
+a new type of craft was developed for the British Navy. The first two
+to be built were the _Havock_ and _Hornet_, which were launched in
+1893. In substance they were very large torpedo boats of about 250
+tons displacement, designed by Messrs. Yarrow. Their speed of 27 knots
+was well in excess of that of any existing torpedo boat, and it was
+confidently expected that they would easily run down and destroy any
+such. In addition to what was then the very considerable armament of
+one 12-pounder and three 6-pounders, they were also fitted with torpedo
+tubes.[26] The original idea of this was that when hostile torpedo
+boats had been annihilated by them, the destroyers could be used as
+torpedo boats in case of need.
+
+In 1894 the _Havock_ and _Hornet_ were used in manœuvres and tested by
+being made to lie by for twenty-four hours in the Bay of Biscay. They
+underwent the test very well, and to this is probably attributed the
+realisation of the fact that in them a more or less really effective
+sea-going torpedo boat had been evolved. A large number of duplicates
+were ordered; at first of 27 knots. Later this was increased to 30, and
+in a few boats to a little more.
+
+The whole of these boats were nothing but enlarged editions of existing
+torpedo boats, and some of them proved rather weak for the service
+demanded of them. In the year 1902 and onwards, therefore, a type of
+better sea-going qualities was demanded, and the River class, which
+totalled about 35 boats, began to be built. A feature of the River
+class was that they were a blend of the early torpedo gunboats of the
+Rattlesnake type, with the later and heavier torpedo gunboats. There
+was a reduction of speed to 25½ knots, with a view to securing better
+sea-going qualities. On account of their slow speed the River class are
+verging on the obsolete to-day, but the high forecastle first embodied
+in them has never been departed from, and the very latest types of
+destroyers are nothing but swifter and larger editions of them.
+
+It is interesting to note that here again to some extent the Germans
+led the way. German destroyers had the North Sea to consider, whereas
+all early British destroyers were built with a view to being used only
+in the Channel. Consequently and naturally enough the Germans were the
+first to perceive the necessity for a high forecastle.
+
+The submarine also appeared in the pre-Dreadnought era, but the boats
+of that time were of such a primitive type that they need hardly be
+specially mentioned. They will be found alluded to in a later chapter.
+
+
+_END OF THE PRE-DREADNOUGHT ERA._
+
+So ended the pre-Dreadnought era. It was characterised by a
+multiplicity of types which had included:--
+
+  First class battleships.
+  Second class battleships.
+  Fast intermediate battleships.
+  First rate armoured cruisers.
+  Second rate armoured cruisers.
+  First class protected cruisers.
+  Second class protected cruisers.
+  Third class protected cruisers.
+  Scouts.
+  Torpedo gunboats.
+  Sloops.
+  Gunboats.
+  Destroyers.
+  Torpedo boats.
+  Submarines.
+
+Although the whole of these types were not all building or provided
+for at any one and the same time, yet towards the end of the period
+there was a general feeling that too many types of ships were in use.
+Reductions in this direction were announced, at first indicating that
+in future programmes provision would be made only for:--
+
+  “Armoured ships.”
+  Destroyers.
+  Submarines.
+
+Contemporaneously with this came Admiral Fisher’s famous “scrap-heap
+policy,” whereby some eighty vessels of one kind and another were
+struck off the effective list, and either sold or relegated to
+subsidiary service.
+
+The ships removed included all battleships and armoured cruisers of
+earlier date than the _Trafalgar_, several ships of the _Apollo_ class,
+all earlier protected cruisers, some of the “P” class, and the bulk of
+the small fry in the way of sloops and gunboats.
+
+This action aroused a certain amount of criticism on the grounds that
+the clearance was excessive. As some of the ships were subsequently
+restored to the active list, something is undoubtedly to be said for
+that point of view; especially as no steps were taken to replace the
+scrapped cruisers. On the other hand, most of the ships removed were
+of trivial fighting value; though here again the zeal of the reformer
+somewhat overlooked the fact that the police duties rendered by the
+small fry had been valuable.
+
+In connection with this policy some of the outlying naval bases were
+done away with, and there commenced a “reorganisation” of the Fleet
+which has continued intermittently from that day to this! Certain other
+considerable changes affecting the _personnel_ will be found dealt with
+in a later chapter.
+
+
+
+
+IV.
+
+THE DREADNOUGHT ERA--(WATTS).
+
+
+A new era in battleship design, not only for the British Navy, but
+for the navies of the entire world, was opened with the advent of the
+_Dreadnought_. As has been seen, it was in a way led up to by previous
+designs, notably the _Lord Nelson_ class. The essential point of
+difference, however, lies in the fact that whereas the _Lord Nelson_
+carries heavy guns of two calibres, in the _Dreadnought_ the main
+armament is confined to one calibre only. The advantages of this on
+paper are not particularly great, but for practical purposes, such
+as fire control and so forth, the superiority to be obtained by a
+uniformity of big gun armament is tremendous.
+
+As the historical portion of this book indicates, the “Dreadnought
+idea” has been a fairly regular feature of British Naval Policy, but
+in this particular case the inception would seem to have been due to
+accident and circumstance rather than to any settled policy.
+
+Immature and abortive attempts to realise something of the “Dreadnought
+ideal” had taken place in the past. The earliest ship claimed to
+represent the Dreadnought ideal was the U.S. _Roanoake_, built at
+the time of the Civil War. This was a high freeboard ship, fitted
+with three turrets in the centre line. A few years later something
+of the same sort found expression in the four-turreted British
+_Royal Sovereign_ and _Prince Albert_, though these were merely coast
+defence ships. Still later in the _Tchesma_ class, Russian, and in the
+_Brandenburg_ class of the German Navy, six big guns were installed
+as the primary armament. Both these two ideas were laughed out of
+existence; and it became a settled fashion to carry four big guns, two
+forward and two aft.
+
+[Illustration: GENERAL CUNIBERTI.]
+
+Matters were at this stage when the late “Colonel” Cuniberti,
+Constructor to the Italian Navy, conceived the idea of a ship carrying
+a considerable number of big guns, and embodying in herself the
+power of two or three normal battleships. This design was considered
+altogether too ambitious for the Italian Navy; but permission was
+given him to publish the general idea, subject to official revision.
+It first saw the light in “_Fighting Ships_,” in 1903, and is now so
+historically interesting that I here reproduce the article in full, the
+original being long since out of print:--
+
+“Admiral Sir John Hopkins, late Controller of the British Navy, in his
+admirable article, ‘Intermediates for the British Fleet,’ published in
+the last edition (1902) of this Annual, asks what results it would be
+possible to obtain in the British Navy by extending the ideas of the
+two Italian Ministers of Marine, Admiral Morin and Admiral Bettolo,
+which were translated into fact in the _Vittorio Emanuele III_ (12,625
+tons), so as to arrive at the much greater tonnage of recent British
+battleships, in the same manner as the ideas that found concrete form
+in the projected vessels of the _Amalfi_ class were amplified and
+realised in the Italian battleships alluded to and regarding which,
+even now, so many doubts are expressed as to such realisation being
+practicable.
+
+“To proceed from 8,000 to 12,000, and from 12,000 to 17,000 tons of
+displacement, constitutes not only a problem of naval architecture, but
+also involves high considerations of quite another nature, such as the
+special functions of the Fleet, so as to harmonise with the political
+objects of any given maritime Power, the geographical position of that
+Power, the state of its finances, etc., etc. So that not only does the
+answer to such a question entail a certain amount of difficulty from
+the constructive point of view, but before the answer can be seriously
+considered it is absolutely necessary to determine exactly what end
+this ideal British battleship is to serve; for it is not to be imagined
+that we are going merely to enlarge the _Vittorio Emanuele_ until we
+arrive at a displacement equal to that of the _King Edward VII._ For
+example, putting an extra 4,000 tons on board will produce a vessel
+that will perhaps be a little steadier in heavy weather than the
+original ship.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+“In Britain are to be found naval experts of the highest possible
+order, and they will have their own ideas as to what type of vessels
+best fulfil the needs and ideals of the British Fleet, so that it
+would almost appear a presumption on my part to offer suggestions for
+any Navy other than the Italian. But in deference to the courteous
+interrogation of Admiral Hopkins I may be permitted to point out that
+from the purely human point of view there are two leading methods by
+which one can strike to the ground one’s opponent, either by gradually
+developing the attack and disposing of him little by little, or, on
+the other hand, killing him at one blow without causing him prolonged
+suffering. In like manner there are two distinct modes of sending an
+enemy’s ship to the bottom.
+
+“Let us take, for example, a human combat. The first--the most commonly
+used, and the most practical in the majority of cases--has as its basis
+the progressive dismemberment of the enemy.
+
+“Two mortal foes place themselves on guard at a distance; they begin
+with exceptional strokes, with feints, with opportune advances and
+retreats, never coming to close quarters for a deadly blow until the
+capabilities of the enemy, both offensive and defensive, are well
+tested, and until some fortunate stroke, even although not actually
+deadly, has considerably weakened the foe, has rendered his defence
+less able, and has somewhat demoralised him. Covered with blood,
+stunned, mutilated, and hardly capable of remaining on his feet, then
+comes the moment when his adversary closes in upon him and delivers
+the final and mortal blow. And we may almost imagine we hear the
+beaten one, with thick and choking voice, repeat the terrible words of
+Francesco Ferruccio at the battle of Gavinana: ‘Maramaldo, thou but
+killest a man already dead!’
+
+“Similarly, two opposing ships, with but slight differences in their
+powers, will commence their combat at a great distance, utilising their
+evolutionary abilities and their speed in prudent manœuvres, seeking
+to gain as much advantage as possible from their offensive powers,
+and attempting to place every obstacle in the way of the antagonist
+utilising powers in either direction. The discharge of projectiles will
+commence in earnest, greatly assisted by the rapid loading of which
+the guns of medium and small calibre are now capable. What results
+can reasonably be expected from the discharge of the smaller guns at
+such great distances is hard to say; nor can the slender expectation
+of, let us say, chancing to hit the captain of the opposing ship in
+the eye with a lucky shot, at all justify such a waste of ammunition.
+Gradually nearing one another, the ships manœuvring less freely, hits
+will become more dangerous; the boats that were not set adrift before
+the action began will be alight and burning fiercely; the cowls of the
+wind trunks, the funnels, and the masts will be in fragments.
+
+“The crew, wounded and reduced in numbers, will have lost their calm,
+and consequently the firing will have become wilder; finally, one of
+the two antagonists will get in a lucky shot that will disable the
+other. She will speedily become unmanageable, and her enemy will as
+speedily close into within the thousand metres which will permit of a
+torpedo being launched with every chance of success, or the battle may
+be concluded by a final rush and the point of the ram.
+
+“As the wounded hull sinks slowly beneath the waves, the flag which had
+put such heart into the crew, and the sight of which had spurred them
+to fight to the last, may well seem as it disappears to repeat to the
+enemy these sad words, ‘Thou but slayest one already dead.’
+
+“Four ships in place of two, eight in place of four, will repeat in a
+perhaps more complex action the same phases of attack, and the same
+foolish waste of ammunition, which in these days causes the greatest
+preoccupation of those who, having to design warships, must decide on
+the quantity of ammunition and projectiles provided for each different
+calibre of the armament.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+“There is, however, another method of fighting and sending your enemy
+to the bottom; but it is one that is capable of adoption only by a
+Navy at the same time most potent and very rich.
+
+“Let us imagine a vessel whose armour is so well distributed and so
+impervious as to be able to resist all the attacks of an enemy’s
+artillery with the exception of the projectiles of the 12-inch guns.
+Such a ship could approach her enemy without firing a shot, without
+wasting a single round of ammunition, absolutely regardless of all the
+scratchings that her antagonist might inflict on the exterior of her
+armour plates.
+
+“And as to-day the belts of fighting ships are generally of such
+thickness that, when we leave the results of the proving ground and
+come to the conditions of actual combat, we find that it would be more
+than difficult to penetrate them with 6-inch guns, we see at once that
+it would be useless to equip our contemplated ship with such artillery.
+
+“Further, if this ideal vessel which we have imagined to be so potently
+armoured is also very swift, and of a speed greater than that of a
+possible antagonist, she could not only prevent this latter from
+getting away, but also avail herself of her superiority in this respect
+for choosing the most convenient position for striking the belt of the
+enemy in the most advantageous manner.
+
+“For this swift vessel a numerous and uniform armament of 8-inch guns,
+such as was contemplated for the _Amalfi_ class,[27] would appear to be
+sufficient, if we had only to consider the penetration at right angles
+of modern belts, especially if capped projectiles are adopted.
+
+“If, however, the hit is an oblique one, and the distance is
+considerable, it appears necessary that we should adopt the calibre of
+12-inch if we want to be absolutely certain of sinking the adversary,
+striking him _only_ on the belt. But the loading of such guns is as yet
+very slow, although it has been greatly improved of late. Besides, the
+number of hits that one can get in on to the belt itself is small. From
+this it appears that in our ideal and intensely powerful ship we must
+increase the number of pieces of 12-inch so as to be able to get in at
+least one fatal shot on the enemy’s belt at the water-line before she
+has a chance of getting a similar fortunate stroke at us from one of
+the four large pieces now usually carried as the main armament.
+
+“We thus have outlined for us the main features of our absolutely
+supreme vessel--with medium calibres abolished--so effectually
+protected as to be able to disregard entirely all the subsidiary
+armament of an enemy, and armed only with twelve pieces of 12-inch.
+Such a ship could fight in the second method we have delineated,
+without throwing away a single shot, without wasting ammunition. Secure
+in her exuberant protection with her twelve guns ready, she would
+swiftly descend on her adversary and pour in a terrible converging fire
+at the belt.
+
+“Having disposed of her first antagonist, she would at once proceed
+to attack another, and almost untouched, to despatch yet another, not
+throwing away a single round of her ammunition, but utilising all
+for sure and deadly shots. A large and abundant supply of 12-inch
+projectiles and ammunition can be provided, in addition to the belt and
+guns contemplated, out of the 4,500 tons of increase of displacement
+that will be disposable in the enlargement of the _Vittorio Emanuele
+III_ to become the national British type of vessel in place of the
+_King Edward VII_.
+
+“It will be necessary to defend our ‘_Invincible_’ with a thick
+complete belt of twelve inches, and a battery also protected with the
+12-inch armour (for the redoubt must be thus defended as well as the
+water-line, so as to eliminate the perils of the first system of attack
+sketched out, of progressive damages being adopted against her); and at
+the same time she must be armed with twelve pieces of 12-inch, arranged
+as in the _Amalfi_ class or in the _Vittorio Emanuele III_, so as to
+be able herself to attack in the second method that has been outlined,
+that is to say, the system of the stronger, of the better defended, and
+most certainly that of the richer. But when a certain number of such
+colossi of 17,000 tons--six, for example--had been constructed, it is
+more than probable that the adversary would do his utmost to prevent
+their getting near him, and, fearful of the fatal result of so unequal
+a combat, would seek to betake himself elsewhere immediately on the
+appearance of the famous _Invincible_ division.
+
+“In that case the command of the seas, or a deluded belief that they
+have such command, will remain with these _Invincible_ ships, even
+although they may be of slow speed; but to stop at this point would
+be too little and unworthy of the Navy of the richest and most potent
+Power in the world.
+
+“For this squadron or division, however ‘invincible,’ will not be
+really and truly _supreme_ if it cannot also catch hold of the enemy’s
+tail. The bull in the vast ring of the amphitheatre deludes himself
+with the idea that because he is more powerful than the agile toreador
+he therefore has absolute command of the scene of the combat; but he
+is too slow in following up his adversaries and these almost always
+succeed in eluding his terrible horns.
+
+“We must, therefore, come to the conclusion that the type of vessel
+will not be absolutely _supreme_ and worthy of such a nation unless
+we furnish it with such speed that it can overtake any of the enemy’s
+battleships and oblige them to fight. It is, then, possible to give to
+a vessel of 17,000 tons displacement--
+
+    Protective armour of 12ins.
+
+    Twelve guns of 12-inch calibre.
+
+    An abundant supply of ammunition, and
+
+    A very high speed, superior to that of all and existing battleships
+      afloat.
+
+“It has been said and written--indeed, repeatedly written--that the
+_Vittorio Emanuele III_ was a practical impossibility. But before long
+she will be actually in the water, and facts already show how vain were
+the suppositions and criticisms of such croakers.[28]
+
+“But it has also been asserted that in the case of this vessel
+surpassing the contemplated speed of 21½ knots on trial and attaining
+that hoped for of 22 knots, such would only prove that that particular
+tonnage of displacement especially lends itself to obtaining a form
+of hull with which we can realise a very high speed, and more so than
+with larger ships. This, however, is not quite exact. The law which
+governs the speed and displacement, other things being equal, is well
+known to all naval constructors, who have by heart the rule that
+whilst the displacement increases as the cube of the dimensions, the
+resistance, on the other hand, at a given speed does not increase in
+the same proportion as the displacement. The pith of the kernel lies
+in utilising the most opportune dimensions, or, rather, let us say, in
+adopting the special form of hull most adapted to those dimensions,
+more than in the actual amount of the displacement itself.
+
+“The amount of the displacement, however, is intimately bound up with
+the question of the defensive and offensive powers that it is wished to
+give to a ship; so that once the particular objectives of the Italian
+Navy had been laid down, and thereby the defensive and offensive power
+sought for decided on, the question resolved itself into harmonising
+them with a form of hull of the greatest possible efficiency, and this
+worked out at 12,600 tons. Nor does it appear that the problem could
+have been satisfactorily solved with a vessel of less displacement,
+as in that case it would have been impossible to realise the required
+power, while with a greater displacement the ship would have been
+incapable of obtaining the desired speed.
+
+“In the same manner the defensive and offensive power of the projected
+ships of the _Amalfi_ class was harmonised with a form of hull of such
+high efficiency that it would have been possible to obtain a speed of
+23 knots and probably more; but the statement that the problem could
+not have been solved with a displacement of much less or much greater
+tonnage than that projected, is not to be taken as insisting that the
+solution must be interpreted in a too absolute manner, asserting that
+the speed of 23 knots could not be efficiently obtained save with a
+displacement of from 8,000 to 9,000 tons, for this would be inexact.
+
+“If now the question be put--Is it possible for some naval architect
+to design a special form of hull having a displacement of 17,000 tons,
+and with which we can realise a very high speed--twenty-four knots, for
+example?
+
+“‘Without doubt,’ will answer all practical naval constructors.
+
+“If we go further, and ask--Is it possible for him at the same time to
+arm such a vessel with twelve pieces of 12-inch?
+
+“‘Without doubt,’ will answer but a certain number of such experienced
+men.
+
+“But if we go still further, and demand, finally--Is it also possible
+for him to protect such a ship with 12-inch armour?
+
+“‘Without doubt,’ will answer only one here and there who may have
+already made researches in that direction.
+
+“And as the solving of such a problem necessitates many and many a
+calculation, and no amount of discussion or argument on the matter
+could in any way be conclusive unless based on definite plans and
+figures, these lines might well conclude here.
+
+“But, in deference to the courteous inquiry of Admiral Hopkins, this
+brief article must not be allowed to close in a manner so indefinite.
+
+“I would, therefore, say frankly at once that the designs for such a
+vessel have already been worked out, and that its construction seems
+quite feasible and attainable. Following up the progressive scale of
+displacement from 8,000 to 12,000 tons, and then on to 17,000 tons,
+a new _King Edward VII_ has been designed, 521½ft. (159 metres) in
+length, with a beam of eighty-two feet (twenty-five metres), and mean
+draught of 27ft. (8.5 metres); with the water-line protected with
+12-inch plates, and the battery similarly armoured; having two turrets
+at the ends, each armed with a pair of 12-inch guns, and two central
+side turrets high up (similar to the two with 8-inch guns in the
+_Vittorio Emanuele III_), also each armed with two pieces of 12-inch,
+and four turrets at the four angles of the upper part of the battery,
+having each one 12-inch gun.
+
+“This vessel has no ports whatever in her armour; she carries no
+secondary armament at all, but only the usual pieces of small calibre
+for defence against torpedo attack.
+
+“The speed to be realised, as proved by the tank trials, is twenty-four
+knots.”
+
+The idea was at first received with derision and scepticism, which
+lasted until, in the Russian-Japanese War, it was announced that the
+Japanese had laid down two battleships, the _Aki_ and _Satsuma_, which
+“were to be more or less on the lines of the ship projected by Colonel
+Cuniberti.” Contemporaneous with this the United States authorised the
+building of the _South Carolina_ and _Michigan_, which carry eight
+12-inch guns, so disposed as to be available on either broadside.
+
+Both these ideas were public property before the British _Dreadnought_
+was laid down. She was, however, built with such rapidity that she was
+completed long before any other vessel of the type.
+
+[Illustration: THE “DREADNOUGHT”--1906.]
+
+In the design for a new type of British capital ship, a great many
+ideas were considered and rejected. Eventually, however, it was decided
+to equip the _Dreadnought_ with five turrets so disposed that eight
+guns were available on either broadside and six guns available ahead
+or astern. The designed speed of the ship was twenty-one knots.
+
+Together with this type of ship, another type, somewhat more resembling
+the Cuniberti ideal, was laid down. Three ships of this class, the
+_Invincible_ class, were designed for a speed of twenty-five knots, and
+given big guns so disposed that eight guns were available on either
+broadside and six big guns ahead or astern.
+
+The _Dreadnought_ was officially laid down in December, 1905, and
+completed ten months later. Actually, however, materials for her were
+collected months beforehand, and the rate at which she was built,[29]
+like the secrecy with which her building was surrounded, consisted in
+great measure of a theatrical display, very impressive to the general
+public at the time, but to-day generally regarded as “unfortunate”
+on account of the foreign attention thus attracted. But, while the
+previous chapter is clear proof of the futility of any real secrecy
+about the “Dreadnought idea,” so far as the British Navy was concerned,
+it likewise serves to refute a charge which has been made to the effect
+that the “secrecy policy” induced foreign nations to build Dreadnoughts
+also. The most that can be said is that had the _Dreadnought_ been
+built without so much attention being attracted to her, foreign nations
+might have been less in a hurry to copy her. But it is absolutely clear
+that the all-big-gun ship era had arrived, just as in the past the
+ironclad era came, or, in earlier days still, the gun and steam eras
+did. The actual place of the _Dreadnought_ in history is that she marks
+a wise and rapid recognition of new conditions.
+
+Details of the _Dreadnought_ are as follows:--
+
+    Displacement--17,900 tons.
+
+    Length--526ft. (over all).
+
+    Beam--82ft.
+
+    Draught--Maximum, 29ft. (normal).
+
+    Armament--Ten 12-inch, 45 cal.; twenty-seven 12 pounders; five
+      submerged tubes (18 inch).
+
+    Armour Belt--11-in. to 6-in. forward; and 4-in. aft. On turrets
+      11-inch (K.C.)
+
+    Machinery--Parsons Turbine; four screws.
+
+    Horse-power--23,000 = 21 knots.
+
+    Boilers--Babcock.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,000 tons; oil fuel also.
+
+    Built at Portsmouth; Engined by Vickers.
+
+The _Dreadnought_ was unique in every particular. The exact disposition
+of her big gun armament was only arrived at after a long and careful
+consultation, and the consideration of a number of alternatives. It
+admits of eight big guns bearing in nearly every position, and allows
+a minimum fire of six in any case. It is understood that, in addition
+to the plan actually adopted, in the earliest plan of all (which was
+merely an adaption of the _Lord Nelson_ class), consideration was
+given to a scheme of five turrets, all in the centre line, and also to
+an arrangement whereby the two amidship turrets would be placed _en
+échelon_.
+
+One of the particular arguments in favour of the plan ultimately
+adopted was that next to four, eight big guns form the best workable
+unit for fire control purposes. It was also considered that eight guns
+would probably be the maximum that could safely be fired together
+continuously, with full charges in battle conditions.
+
+[Illustration: ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE DREADNOUGHT.]
+
+In these days when all big gun armaments are the rule, there is a
+tendency to overlook the fact that the _Dreadnought’s_ main armament
+was double that of previous ships, with only a comparatively small
+increase of displacement, and that no intermediate experience existed
+as to what might be expected.
+
+With a view to standing the shock of discharge, the _Dreadnought_ was
+built with very heavy scantlings and generally given an immensely
+strong hull. The armouring followed orthodox lines, except that a
+certain amount was applied internally under-water as a protection
+against torpedoes. In addition she was given solid bulkheads,[30]
+though this was no novelty except with the British Navy, as they had
+been introduced some years before in the battleship _Tsarevitch_ and
+the armoured cruiser _Bayan_, built for the Russians at La Seyne.
+Another novelty in the _Dreadnought_ was the adoption of a high
+forecastle, she being the first British battleship in which this
+appears. Another innovation was the placing of the officers’ quarters
+forward and putting the men aft, a system which, however, has since
+been abandoned in the most recent vessels.
+
+The greatest novelty of the _Dreadnought_, however, was the adoption of
+turbine machinery, and the form of her hull, with a 30ft. overhang aft,
+in order to adapt the ship to the new means of propulsion. The fitting
+of turbines to the new _Dreadnought_ was perhaps an even greater
+novelty than her armament, she being the first warship, other than
+small cruisers, to be so equipped.
+
+The introduction of turbines was regarded with a good deal of
+apprehension in certain quarters, especially when it became known that
+the three other big ships belonging to the same programme were also to
+be turbine propelled. The type selected for all was the Parsons with
+four shafts. The wing shafts of the _Dreadnought_ have each one high
+pressure ahead and one high pressure astern turbine. The amidship ones
+are fitted with three turbines each--one low pressure one ahead, and
+one low pressure astern, and one turbine for going astern. Each turbine
+has 39,600 blades.
+
+On her first trials the _Dreadnought_ exceeded her designed speed for
+short spurts by three-quarters of a knot, but on the eight hours’
+run barely succeeded in making a mean of twenty-one knots. Shortly
+afterwards she fell a little below this, but at a later date picked
+up again, and on more than one occasion since she has easily made
+twenty-two knots or over. Such early difficulties as occurred were due
+to the fact that her engine-room complement were at first necessarily
+unfamiliar with working so large an installation. The total cost of the
+_Dreadnought_, which belongs to the 1905–06 programme, was £1,797,497,
+and save that her draught somewhat exceeded anticipations, the ship was
+a success in every way, proving a remarkably steady gun-platform.
+
+The Committee which sat on the _Dreadnought_ design was by no means
+entirely unanimous as to what sacrifice should be made for speed.
+The _Dreadnought_ herself, despite a considerable increase of speed
+as compared with the battleships that preceded her, did not obtain
+that speed by the sacrifice of any battleship qualities, but almost
+entirely on account of the substitution of turbines for reciprocating
+engines. To that extent, therefore, though nearly as fast as the
+armoured cruisers of a few years before, she may be said to have
+developed entirely along normal lines, rather than on those laid down
+by Cuniberti.
+
+The table on the next page and diagrams indicate how the original
+Cuniberti idea compares with the first results obtained. It will be
+noticed that, except in the case of the _Invincible_ type, and there
+only at a sacrifice of armour and armament, was, however, anything
+like the Cuniberti speed attempted. It should be stated that in the
+Cuniberti ship the peculiar “girder construction” of his _Vittorio
+Emanuele_ was obviously contemplated. This construction, which admits
+of far lighter scantlings than usually employed, has not been attempted
+in any other Navies, and a corresponding extra dead-weight results.
+
+Coming to details, there is uncertainty as to the exact original design
+of the _Satsuma_; but a uniform armament of big guns was certainly the
+first to be projected. It is not clear whether it was abandoned from a
+preference for a numerically larger but mixed battery; or with a view
+to utilising such guns as were most likely to be available for early
+delivery. Japan was then at war, and there was the natural anticipation
+that the ships might be wanted before the war was over. It should, on
+the other hand, be borne in mind that the _Kashima_ and _Katori_, of
+16,400 tons, carrying four 12-inch, four 10-inch, twelve 6-inch, and
+twelve 14-pounders, with 9-inch belts and 18.5 knot speeds were at that
+time held up in England on account of the war. Hence it has with some
+considerable show of reason been argued that the _Satsuma_ and _Aki_
+are nothing but normal developments of the _Kashima_ design, bearing
+just the same relation to it as the British _Lord Nelsons_ bear to the
+_King Edwards_. It was also practically admitted by the Japanese at a
+later date that for diplomatic reasons, in accounts of the contemporary
+armoured cruisers of the _Tsukuba_ class, the armaments[31] were
+exaggerated.
+
+
+ORIGINAL DREADNOUGHT DESIGNS.
+
+  ============================+===============+==================================+=======+========+============
+                              |    Normal     |                                  |       | Des’d. |
+                              | Displacement. |           Armament.              | Belt. | Speed. | Laid
+                              |     Tons.     |                                  |  in.  | Knots. | Down.
+  ----------------------------+---------------+----------------------------------+-------+--------+------------
+    _Cuniberti_ (as built)    |    17,000     | 12--12in., 18--12 pdr.           |  12   |  24    | _pro._ 1903
+    _Satsuma_ Design          |    19,250     | 12 _or_ 10--12in., 12--4.7       |   9   |  20    | ----
+  ----------------------------+---------------+----------------------------------+-------+--------+------------
+    _Satsuma_                 |    19,250     | 4--12in., 12--10in., 12--6       |   9   |  20    | 1905
+    _S. Carolina, pro._       |    16–17,000  | 8--12in., (_or_ 4--12in.,        |  10   | 18–20  | ----
+                              |               | 8--10in.), 30--14 pdr.           |       |        |
+    _S. Carolina_             |    16,000     | 8--12in., 22--14 pdr.            |  12   |  18½   | 1906
+    _Dreadnought_, 1st Design |       ?       | 10--12in.                        |  ..   |  ..    | ----
+    _Dreadnought_ (as built)  |    17,900     | 10--12in., 27--12 pdr.           |  11   |  21    | 1905
+    _Invincible_              |    17,250     | 8--12in., 16--4in.               |   7   |  25    | 1906
+  _Nassau_ (as “S”)           |       ?       | 8--11in., 12--6in., 10--24 pdr.  |   ?   | 19½    | 1906
+  _Nassau_                    |    18,500     | 12--11in., 12--6in., 10--24 pdr. |   9¾  | 19½    | 1907
+  ============================+===============+==================================+=======+========+============
+
+_Note._--The _Nassau_ was delayed a year owing to alterations in design.
+
+
+Be all these things as they may, however, Japan is obviously entitled
+to some considerable share in originating the “Dreadnought movement.”
+
+The claims of the United States Navy rest on a stronger basis. The
+_South Carolina_ type, all big guns in the centre line, all bearing
+on either broadside, was a distinct advance and novelty. The actual
+chronological date of laying down goes for nothing; the ships were
+designed and authorised long before they were commenced. No secrecy
+whatever was observed about them, and a strong body of opinion will
+always credit the United States with being the first Navy that
+definitely adopted the “all-big-gun idea.” It is interesting to note
+(see table) that at one stage a mixed 12-inch and 10-inch armament was
+regarded as a possible alternative.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  CUIBERI.
+  SATSUMA.
+  S CAROLINA. FIRST DESIGN
+  S CAROLINA.
+  FIRST BRITISH DREADNOUGHT DESIGN
+  DREADNOUGHT.
+  INVINCIBLE.
+  NASSAU FIRST DESIGN
+  NASSAU AS BUILT
+
+ORIGINAL DREADNOUGHT DESIGNS.]
+
+It has been claimed, either by those responsible for the _Dreadnought_
+herself, or by others professing to speak for them, that the
+_Dreadnought_ was evolved entirely independently of Cuniberti’s ideal.
+It is practically impossible to say definitely how far there can be any
+truth in this. In all Admiralties, ships are, as a rule, designed as
+“projects” long before they see the light (some never see it at all,
+as witness the sea-going masted turret-ship of his design referred to
+by Sir Edward Reed in some remarks quoted on an earlier page!). The
+first British all-big-gun ship design (see diagram) is a lineal enough
+descendant of the _King Edward_ and _Lord Nelson_, just as Cuniberti’s
+is a descendant of the _Vittorio Emanuele_.
+
+The Cuniberti design appears, however, to have been submitted as early
+as 1901. In any case, to Cuniberti belongs the first clear exposition
+of the idea, while the ridicule with which it was at first received
+indicates the general novelty.
+
+Germany is also a claimant to having evolved Dreadnoughts with the
+“_S_” type, intended to have been laid down in 1906, to follow the
+_Deutschlands_. These ships can hardly have been designed much later
+than 1904. When first heard of they were reported to carry four big gun
+turrets, of which two were placed on either side amidships. Six big
+guns was the first reputed armament, later each turret was to carry two
+guns.
+
+The absurd secrecy with which subsequent German designs have been
+shrouded was not then in evidence; and all the indications are that the
+_Nassau_, as originally contemplated, was to have been a four-turret
+ship--the two extra 11-inch being Germany’s equivalent for the four
+12-inch, four 9.2, of our _King Edwards_. This would perhaps accord
+Germany a priority in actually adopting the principle of an increased
+number of heavy guns.
+
+All of which suffices to indicate that the adoption of more than four
+big guns had little or nothing to do with the somewhat theatrical
+building of the original _Dreadnought_.
+
+On the other hand (with the possible and doubtful exception of the
+_South Carolinas_[32]) it appears clear that the _Dreadnought_ was
+the first ship in which the all-big-gun principle was adopted as a
+technical asset in gun-laying over and above guns _qua_ guns. After
+four, eight was the “tactical unit” of guns, promising results
+altogether out of proportion to anything that six, or for that matter,
+ten (in proportion) could achieve.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  1879. French AMIRAL DUPERRÉ.
+  1886. French HOCHE.
+  1886. Austria K.E.RUDOLPH.
+  1886. Russian TCHESMA.
+  1889. German SIEGFRIED.
+
+EARLY EXAMPLES OF WING TURRETS.]
+
+It may not be too much to say that what Cuniberti “saw as through a
+glass darkly,” the _Dreadnought_ translated into fact, and that she was
+the first battleship avowedly so designed.
+
+“Fire control” was a new thing in 1905. No navy, save the British,
+had considered it to any appreciable degree. The _King Edwards_ had
+taught that control of two calibres from one position was a practical
+impossibility. Mixed calibres were damned accordingly, and there was no
+outlet but the _Dreadnought_.
+
+But for Cuniberti she might, and possibly would, have remained a
+theoretical desirability for several more years. The measure of his
+genius may be the demonstration that such an ideal ship could be built.
+It is to be argued that he did nothing more than put into practicable
+shape what already existed as a hypothesis. Even so, however, to him
+belongs the honour of indicating that the step from theory to practice
+was possible; and on that account alone he deserves to go down to
+posterity as the actual creator of Dreadnoughts.
+
+In the other three ships of the 1905–06 programme, however, a high
+speed was accepted as the governing factor. The ships as built were
+designated “armoured cruisers,” and in so far as the Japanese were
+known to be building armoured cruisers carrying battleship guns,
+that designation was legitimate. For that matter, there also existed
+a paper by Professor Hovgaard, of the Massachusetts School of Naval
+Architecture, in which it was tentatively laid down that the ideal
+armoured cruiser of the future would be a battleship in armament and
+armour, increased in size, to obtain greater speed.
+
+The three companion ships to the _Dreadnought_--the _Invincible_,
+_Inflexible_, and _Indomitable_--adhered no more closely to the
+Hovgaard ideal than to the Cuniberti one. In principle they varied from
+the _Dreadnought_ design only in that they sacrificed a certain amount
+of armour in order to obtain a greater speed. By the adoption of the
+échelon system, the same broadside-fire was secured for them (on paper,
+at any rate) as for the _Dreadnought_, though with a turret less.
+In practice it has been found that there are very few positions in
+which they can bring more than six big guns to bear, but this must be
+considered as an error of construction rather than of principle. They
+have turned out to be wonderful steamers, but considerably inferior
+sea-boats to the _Dreadnought_, and in the British Navy are generally
+likely in the future to become regarded as obsolete long before the
+former. For all that, they probably approximate more nearly to the
+warship of the future than the _Dreadnought_.
+
+Admiral Bacon, in his views as to the warship of the future, generally
+inclined to the idea of very large and very swift ships, relying on
+armament, speed, and super-scientific internal sub-division rather than
+on armour protection. These ships would act more or less independently,
+each, as it were, representing a divided squadron group of to-day.
+
+It is interesting to note that Italy, which in the seventies evolved in
+the _Duilio_ and _Dandolo_ the “Dreadnought” of that period, eventually
+developed a very similar idea in the _Italia_ and _Lepanto_, which had
+no side armour whatever. In later designs a thin belt was reverted to,
+and finally the old cycle was resumed.
+
+This result was brought about by the quickfirer, which appeared as a
+rival to the hitherto predominant monster gun. To-day the torpedo is
+becoming paramount and a danger to a fleet in close order at almost any
+range--hence the Bacon ideal. It remains to be seen whether the future
+will produce any analogy to the cycle of the quickfirer of the eighties.
+
+Details of the _Invincible_ type are:--
+
+    Displacement--17,250 tons.
+
+    Length (over all)--562ft. (_p.p._, 530ft.).
+
+    Beam--78½ft.
+
+    Draught--29ft.
+
+    Armament--Eight 12-inch, XI, 45 calibre, sixteen 4-inch (model
+      1907); three submerged tubes.
+
+    Armour Belt--7-inch, reduced to 4-inch at the ends.
+
+    Machinery--Parsons Turbine.
+
+    Horse-power--41,000 = 25 knots.
+
+    Boilers--(_Invincible_ and _Inflexible_) Yarrow, (_Indomitable_)
+      Babcock.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 3,000 tons; oil fuel also.
+
+    Builders--(_Invincible_) Elswick, (_Inflexible_) Clydebank,
+      (_Indomitable_) Fairfield.
+
+    Engined--(_Invincible_) Humphrys, (_Inflexible_) Clydebank,
+      (_Indomitable_) Fairfield.
+
+As originally designed, the anti-torpedo guns of these ships would
+have been the same as the _Dreadnought’s_, but, having been completed
+nearly two years later and a new pattern 4-inch quickfirer having been
+invented in the interim, they were fitted with these guns. The trial
+results were as follows:--_Invincible_, 26.6 knots; _Inflexible_, 26.5
+knots; and _Indomitable_, 26.1 knots; the designed horse power being
+considerably exceeded in every case. After they were commissioned and
+had shaken down, these trial speeds were considerably exceeded, and at
+one time and another they all did well over 28 knots; the _Indomitable_
+having made a record of 28.7.
+
+The fuel consumption of these ships is naturally enormous. The
+_Indomitable_, in crossing the Atlantic at full speed, burned about
+500 tons of coal a day, as well as about 120 tons of oil. As steamers
+they are to be considered remarkably successful. The average cost of
+construction was about £1,752,000, which works out at a little under
+£102 per ton.
+
+Towards the close of the year 1911 the official designation of
+“armoured cruiser” for them and similar ships was abandoned, and the
+term “battle cruiser” substituted. No further secret was made of the
+fairly obvious fact that they were designed as “fast battleships,”
+intended to engage and hold a retreating enemy till such time as the
+main squadron could come up.
+
+Curiously enough, for some while, though every nation started building
+_Dreadnoughts_, Germany alone proceeded to build _Invincibles_ also.
+In 1911 Japan ordered a ship of fast battleship type; but, generally
+speaking, foreign nations have abstained from embodying this portion of
+the Cuniberti ideal in their designs.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  DREADNOUGHT.
+  INDOMITABLE.
+  NEPTUNE.
+  INDEFATIGABLE.
+
+DREADNOUGHTS.]
+
+The programme for the years 1906–07 had been originally intended
+to include the building of four armoured ships, presumably one
+_Dreadnought_ and three _Invincibles_; but the Liberal party, which
+had just come into power, modified this to three battleships of an
+improved _Dreadnought_ type. This action led to a popular agitation
+which ultimately eventuated in the provision of no less than eight
+armoured ships in the estimates of three years later.
+
+The three ships which followed, the _Dreadnought_, the _Bellerophon_,
+_Téméraire_, and _Superb_, are some seven hundred tons heavier, but
+otherwise differ only in minor details. For the one heavy tripod of
+the _Dreadnought_, two were substituted, and the 4-inch anti-torpedo
+gun was also mounted. In the next year the _St. Vincent_ class, a
+group of similar type, but increased by 650 tons, were provided. The
+anti-torpedo armament is carried to 20 guns in the _St. Vincent_ class,
+which are 10ft. longer than their predecessors, and carry fifty-calibre
+big guns in place of the forty-five calibre pieces of the earlier
+ships. The constructive particulars of these ships are as follows:--
+
+  ==============+============+====================+===========+===========+========
+  Name.         | Built at.  |    Machinery by.   | Laid down.| Completed.| Trials.
+  --------------+------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------+--------
+  _Bellerophon_ | Portsmouth | Fairfield          | Dec., ’06 | Feb., ’07 |  21.9
+  _Téméraire_   | Devonport  | Hawthorn, Leslie   | Jan., ’07 | May,  ’09 |
+  _Superb_      | Elswick    | Wallsend Co.       | Feb., ’07 | June, ’09 |
+  --------------+------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------+--------
+  _St. Vincent_ | Portsmouth | Scott Eng. & S. Co.| Dec., ’07 | Jan., ’10 |  21.9
+  _Collingwood_ | Devonport  | Hawthorn, L.       | Feb., ’08 | Jan., ’10 |  22
+  _Vanguard_    | Vickers    | Vickers            | April, ’08| Feb., ’10 |  22.1
+  ==============+============+====================+===========+===========+========
+
+In the Estimates for 1908–09, the armoured ships provided were reduced
+to two, the _Neptune_ and the _Indefatigable_. Provision in the United
+States, Argentine, and Brazilian Navies for ships bearing ten big guns
+on the broadside and the prospect of ships with equal broadsides being
+constructed elsewhere is presumably the reason why in the _Neptune_
+the original _Dreadnought_ design was varied, and a new arrangement
+of turrets introduced. The _Neptune_, which is of 20,200 tons, is
+a species of compromise between the _Dreadnought_ and _Invincible_
+designs, the amidship guns being _en échelon_, and so mounted that
+they give a very full arc of fire on either broadside. The increased
+space occupied by this arrangement necessitated a certain cramping aft,
+for which reason the forward of the two after turrets was superposed to
+train over the aftermost, American fashion.
+
+Particulars of the _Neptune_ are as follows:--
+
+    Displacement--20,200 tons.
+
+    Length (over all)--546ft.
+
+    Beam--85ft.
+
+    Draught--29ft.
+
+    Guns--Ten 12-inch, fifty calibre, twenty 4-inch.
+
+    Armour--Belt 12-in. amidships, 6-in. forward, 4-in. aft. Lower
+      deckside, 9¾-in. Turrets, 12--8-in.
+
+    Machinery--Parsons Turbine.
+
+    Horse-power--25,000 = 21 knots.
+
+    Boilers--Yarrow.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,700 tons; oil fuel also.
+
+    Built at Portsmouth Dockyard.
+
+    Engined by Harland and Wolff.
+
+On trial she developed at three-quarter power I.H.P. 18,575, with a
+speed of nineteen knots, and at full power 27,721, with 21.78 knots.
+Her best maximum spurt speed was 22.7--that is to say, about one and
+three-quarter knots over contract.
+
+In the _Neptune_ the original _Dreadnought_ practice of mounting the
+anti-torpedo armament on top of the turrets was entirely abandoned, and
+these guns were placed inside or on top of the superstructure in three
+main groups.
+
+The number of torpedo tubes was reduced to three, the reason for this
+being partly to save space and also to take advantage of improved
+methods for securing rapidity of fire. In the _Neptune_ the possibility
+of aero craft first received consideration, the upper deck being built
+sufficiently thick to be proof against bombs dropped from aloft.
+
+[Illustration: “INDEFATIGABLE” AND “INVINCIBLE” 1911.]
+
+The _Neptune_ was one of the cheapest ships ever built for the British
+Navy, her cost working out at a little under £87 per ton.
+
+The other ship of the same programme was the _Indefatigable_, an
+improved _Invincible_. She represents an increase of nearly 2,000 tons
+over the type ship, with an increase in length of 18ft. and a foot more
+beam. Save for the addition of four more anti-torpedo guns the armament
+remains the same, but an extra inch is added to the belt. The principal
+improvement achieved in her is that the two amidship turrets are much
+less crowded up than in the type ship, thus securing a considerably
+better range of fire.
+
+Although the horse power is proportionately less than that of the
+_Invincibles_, the better lines of the ship have made her even more
+speedy. She easily exceeded her designed speed on trial, and has
+reached as high as 29.13 knots.
+
+The cost of construction was £1,547,426, which works out at about
+£82 10s. per ton, as against the average £120 per ton that the
+_Invincibles_ cost to build. She was the cheapest ship ever built for
+the British Navy,[33] to her date.
+
+Details of the _Indefatigable_ are:--
+
+    Displacement--19,200 tons.
+
+    Length--578ft.
+
+    Beam--79½ft.
+
+    Draught--27¾ft.
+
+    Guns--Eight 12-inch, fifty calibre, twenty 4-inch.
+
+    Armour Belt--8-in. amidships, diminished to 4-in. at the ends.
+
+    Machinery--Parsons Turbine.
+
+    Horse-power--43,000 = 25 knots.
+
+    Boilers--Babcock.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 2,500 tons; oil fuel also.
+
+    Built at Devonport Dockyard.
+
+    Engined by J. Brown & Co., of Clydebank.
+
+Two other battle-cruisers almost identical to the _Indefatigable_,
+the _Australia_ at Clydebank, for the Australian Navy, and the _New
+Zealand_ at Fairfield, a gift from New Zealand to the British Navy,
+were launched in 1911.
+
+The programme for 1908–09, consisting as it did of only two armoured
+ships, and the fact that the corresponding German programme was
+increased by one capital ship, bringing the total to four, brought the
+naval agitation to a head. Meetings demanding eight “Dreadnoughts” were
+held all over the country, with the result that the British programme
+for 1909–10 rose to four armoured ships with four other “conditional”
+ships. The ships of the former programme were the _Colossus_,
+_Hercules_, _Orion_, and _Lion_, and the first two of these were laid
+down some months before the usual date, the _Colossus_ being commenced
+in July instead of at the end of the year.
+
+The “conditional” ships were all eventually laid down in April of the
+following year. They were the _Monarch_, _Conqueror_, _Thunderer_, and
+_Princess Royal_.
+
+Under this programme there were no less than three distinct types of
+ships. The first two, the _Colossus_ and _Hercules_, are practically
+sisters of the _Neptune_, but of 400 tons greater displacement. They
+differ in appearance in having but one tripod mast instead of two.
+This, like the _Dreadnought’s_, is placed abaft the foremost funnel.
+The _Colossus_ was built and engined by the Scott Shipbuilding and
+Engineering Co., commenced in July, 1909, and completed two years
+later. The _Hercules_, built by Palmer’s, followed a month later in
+both cases. The first is fitted with Babcock, and the second with
+Yarrow boilers. A point of minor interest about these two ships is that
+whereas the anti-torpedo armament of the _Neptune_ is in three groups,
+that of the _Colossus_ and _Hercules_ is in two groups only, the
+mounting of small guns between the échelon turrets being done away with.
+
+The other two types of the 1909–10 Estimates are the ships generally
+known as “super-Dreadnoughts.”
+
+
+_SUPER-DREADNOUGHTS._
+
+The most obvious feature of the so-called “super-Dreadnoughts” is
+the introduction of the 13.5-inch gun, particulars of which will be
+found at the end of this chapter. This gun was experimented with
+with a certain amount of secrecy, and was for a long time officially
+designated as the 12-inch “A,” although practically everybody knew
+that it was really a 13.5. It was only rendered possible by recent
+improvements in gun-mountings and gun-construction. It is not very
+appreciably heavier than the latest type of 12-inch, as mounted in the
+_Colossus_, and its adoption was not so much a matter of obtaining
+an increased range and penetration, as of securing the tremendously
+increased smashing power of the heavier projectile.
+
+Somewhat less obvious to the general public, but really of a great deal
+more far-reaching importance, is the “Americanising” of British naval
+design exhibited in all the “super-Dreadnoughts.” Though differing in
+detail, the arrangement of the armament in all the “super-Dreadnoughts”
+followed the American centre-line system, an interesting indication
+of the progress of the United States Navy from the days, not so very
+long ago, when American warship design was more or less a _pour faire
+rire_! It is none the less interesting from the fact that in the
+earliest designs, in all ships carrying more than two turrets, the
+centre line was the only arrangement ever built or even considered.
+Yet when an increased number of turrets came into being, the American
+Navy was the only one which followed the original practice. In all
+other Navies ideas of the period 1870–1880, when strong end-on fire was
+considered an all-important essential, influenced design. America alone
+appreciated the prophecy long ago made by Admiral Colomb to the effect
+that whatever else might temporarily obtain, broadside to broadside
+would always be reverted to for battle, on the grounds that thus, and
+thus only, could the maximum number of guns be utilised.
+
+It is proper here to remark that though the Americans adopted the
+centre line from the outset for practical reasons, this disposition
+became more or less a necessity when 13.5’s came in, owing to the
+infinitely greater strain on the structure. This has been occasionally
+used as an argument against American influence having made itself felt,
+but the balance of evidence shows that even had the 13.5-inch not
+appeared, the centre line system would have figured in the Navy. The
+original centre-line idea disappeared because the échelon system looked
+so superior. The échelon system of the 1875–85 era, however, died
+out in its turn on account of certain practical disadvantages. It was
+resurrected when these had been forgotten in the lapse of years; but
+the disadvantages entailed in firing across a deck soon made themselves
+felt again once the system was reverted to.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  U.S. ROANOKE.
+  British. ROYAL SOVEREIGN.
+  Russian. ADMIRAL LAZAREFF.
+  French. AMIRAL BAUDIN.
+  German. BRANDENBURG.
+  U.S. S. CAROLINA.
+
+CENTRE-LINE SHIPS OF VARIOUS DATES.]
+
+One of the earliest advocates, if not the first of modern advocates, of
+the centre-line in England was Admiral Hopkins. Discussing the original
+Cuniberti ideal, Admiral Hopkins pointed out that although for an
+absolute right-ahead or astern fire wing-turrets gave an advantage, a
+very slight yaw entirely altered the proportion, and that circumstance
+in which the enemy was dead right-ahead necessitating such a yaw were
+likely to occur very rarely indeed in war. He leaned, therefore, to the
+opinion that a fewer number of guns all in the centre line would be
+equally as efficacious, practically, as a larger number disposed partly
+in wing turrets.
+
+The échelon system, of course, renders practically no assistance
+here, the arc of the guns firing across the deck being necessarily
+restricted, even with the best échelon arrangement. While, therefore,
+the échelon system is good for absolute end-on, or for more or less
+absolute broadside firing, any intermediate and more probable position
+renders it less efficient than a centre-line arrangement.
+
+Another defect of the échelon system is that with it, except exactly
+end-on, one side of the ship is necessarily more efficient than the
+other, and that this is reversed according to whether the enemy is
+ahead or astern, twenty-five per cent. of the big-gun armament being
+affected thereby in a four turreted ship.
+
+Though attention never seems to have been drawn to the matter, it is
+a fact worthy of some attention that the _Von der Tann_, which is to
+be regarded as Germany’s “answer” to the _Invincibles_, has (like all
+German[34] ships on the same system) her échelonned turrets exactly in
+reverse order to British ones. All British ships have the port turret
+foremost; all German ones the starboard. The net result of this is that
+(as the diagram indicates) there are two worst and two best positions
+for either design. An _Invincible_ getting and keeping a _Von der
+Tann_ upon her starboard bow or port quarter would have a twenty-five
+per cent. superiority over her, while, supposing the German type to
+maintain a position on her starboard quarter or port bow she would be
+to the same extent over-matched, and to a certain extent “in chancery.”
+
+With the centre line system, the imposition of fighting one side
+rather than the other is not imposed, and overhauling or being
+overhauled causes no disadvantage. Nothing is lost, save in the almost
+hypothetical case of two ships engaging exactly end-on--a condition
+which in no case would endure for more than a very short space of time,
+to say nothing of the fact that practically all gunnery errors being
+of “elevation” and not of “direction,” a ship adopting the end-on
+position offers the equivalent of a vertical target of some 60ft. to
+70ft. instead of the equivalent of 30ft. or so that she would present
+broadside on.
+
+The centre-line system may, therefore, be expected to endure against
+all other dispositions pending the appearance of some fresh
+condition of affairs which would cause the old end-on idea to be
+reverted to.[35]
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM TO ILLUSTRATE WEAK POINT OF THE ÉCHELON SYSTEM.]
+
+The _Orion_ was the only one of her class which belonged to the
+normal Estimates, 1909–10, the other three--_Conqueror_, _Thunderer_,
+_Monarch_--being “contingent ships.” Details of the class are as
+follows:--
+
+    Displacement--23,500 tons.
+
+    Length--(between perpendiculars) 554½ft; (over all) 584ft.
+
+    Beam--88½ft.
+
+    Draught--(mean) 27¾ft.
+
+    Armament--Ten 13.5-inch, forty-five calibre; sixteen 4-inch; three
+      21-inch torpedo tubes.
+
+    Armour Belt--12--4-inch. Turrets, 12-inch.
+
+    Machinery--Parsons turbine.
+
+    Horse-power--27,000 = 21 knots.
+
+    Boilers--Babcock.
+
+    Coal--(nominal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,700 tons; oil, 1,000 tons.
+
+  ============+=============+=============
+  Name.       |   Built at. |  Engines by.
+  ------------+-------------+-------------
+  _Orion_     | Portsmouth  | Wallsend Co.
+  _Conqueror_ | Beardmore   | Beardmore
+  _Thunderer_ | Thames I.W. | Thames I.W.
+  _Monarch_   | Elswick     | Hawthorn
+  ============+=============+=============
+
+The _Orion_ was laid down in November, 1909, the others in April, 1910.
+
+The _Orion_ was the first of these ships to be commissioned, and her
+gunnery trials were watched with great interest. Few details of them
+transpired, save that part of the secondary battery was injured by
+blast. After commissioning, the _Orion_ was sent for a voyage across
+the Bay of Biscay, and attracted much attention by rolling very
+heavily, this being attributed to the fact that her bilge keels were
+not large enough--not to any general structural defect.
+
+An interesting feature of the _Orion_ type is that in it provision
+first appears for the protection of boats in action.
+
+Belonging to the same programme (1909–10), the first belonging to the
+normal Estimates and the second to the “contingent,” are the battle
+cruisers _Lion_ and _Princess Royal_. A great deal of secrecy was
+observed about these ships, but their main details are approximately as
+follows:--
+
+    Displacement--25,000 tons. Full load, 26,350 tons.
+
+    Length--(water-line), 675ft.; (over all) 690ft.
+
+    Beam--86½ft.
+
+    Draught--(maximum) 30ft.
+
+    Armament--Eight 13.5 inch 45 calibre, twenty 4-inch, three 21-inch
+      torpedo tubes.
+
+    Armour--Belt, 9--4-inch.
+
+    Machinery--Parsons Turbine.
+
+    Horse-power--(as designed) = 28 knots.
+
+    Boilers--Yarrow.
+
+    Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 3,500 tons; oil also.
+
+    _Lion_--Built at Devonport; engined by Vickers.
+
+    _Princess Royal_--Built at Vickers; engined by Vickers.
+
+The _Lion_ was laid down in November, 1909, and launched in the
+following year. The _Princess Royal_ was laid down in April, 1910, and
+launched a year later. Both were arranged to be completed during 1912.
+
+The _Lion_ was somewhat delayed owing to slight repairs being required
+to her turbines. In addition, the authorities very wisely did not
+“hurry” her--hurrying ships to fit an exact official date having done
+more mischief than anything else in the past.
+
+The _Lion_ did her trials early in 1912, and reached a maximum of
+31.7 knots by patent log, with a mean of 29 knots at full power and
+24.5 or so at three-quarter power. For her trials the _Lion_ burned
+coal only, and this at the seemingly enormous rate of 950 tons a day,
+which worked out at approximately about a ton and a quarter per mile.
+This consumption, heavy though it seems, really pans out at about the
+usual “ton a mile,” as the ship developed horse-power far in excess
+of the contract. At the same time it necessarily draws attention to
+the enormous increase in coal stores required for supplying modern
+warships. It is unfortunately by no means clear that the question of
+the very great increase in coal required for modern warships has been
+thoroughly realised by the authorities. The amount provided may be said
+to be what ships needed in the pre-Dreadnought era. It is now an open
+secret that at the time of the “war scare” with Germany in 1911, the
+British Home Fleet was unable to proceed to sea owing to a shortage
+of coal supply, many ships being a thousand tons short and no proper
+arrangements for rapid remedy existing. This state of affairs, at
+one time alleged to be merely a newspaper _canard_, is not likely to
+occur again; but it is an indication of how difficult it is adequately
+to realise the problem of coal supply to ships of ever-increasing
+horse-power.
+
+During the _Lion’s_ trials it was found that the heat from the fore
+funnel was so great that the fire-control station (then carried on
+a tripod mast placed immediately over the forward funnel) was so
+intense as to render that position practically impossible. On the
+navigating bridge also, instruments were badly affected by the heat.
+The ship was consequently further delayed in order to effect essential
+modifications. These included the abolition of the tripod mast,
+shifting the fore funnel back a long way, and enormously increasing the
+height of all funnels.
+
+The principal item of the Estimates of 1910–11 was five armoured ships.
+Of these, four, the _King George V_ class, are slightly improved
+replicas of the _Orion_, while the remaining vessel, the _Queen Mary_,
+is a battle-cruiser of the _Lion_ type.
+
+Ships of the _George V_ class are as follows:--
+
+  ================+===============+==============
+  Name.           | Built at.     | Machinery by.
+  ----------------+---------------+--------------
+  _King George V_ | Portsmouth Y. | Hawthorn
+  _Centurion_     | Devonport Y.  | Hawthorn
+  _Ajax  Scotts_  | Scotts        | Scotts
+  _Audacious_     | Cammell-Laird | Cammell-Laird
+  ================+===============+==============
+
+The over-all length is increased to 596ft., and the horse-power to
+31,000. All were laid down during 1911, with a view to launching during
+1912 and completion in 1913. The displacement of these ships is 23,000
+tons odd.
+
+The _Queen Mary_, laid down at Palmers’ early in 1911, and engined by
+Clydebank, is virtually a sister to the _Lion_, differing from her
+merely in a slight variation of the lines, and some increase in length.
+Save for these items, and a small difference in the arrangement of the
+anti-torpedo armament, the ship belongs to the same class and type.
+
+The 1911–12 Estimates provided for five further large armoured ships,
+which represent an increase in dimensions over their predecessors. Of
+these the first four are battleships varying from their predecessors
+in the inevitable increase in size to allow of somewhat superior
+protection and an improved secondary battery--twelve 6-inch being
+substituted for the sixteen 4-inch of the _King George_ class.
+
+The selection of the 6-inch gun as the anti-torpedo craft weapon was
+due partly to the way in which Germany had persisted in her rigid
+adherence to that calibre for her minor armament, and partly to the
+rapidly increasing size of destroyers. It was held as questionable,
+even by the most ardent believers in the ability of the big ship
+to defend herself against destroyer attack, whether the 4-inch was
+sufficient to disable large destroyers. Hence the adoption of the
+6-inch--the largest gun that can be man-handled.
+
+The nominal displacement of these battleships, the _Iron Duke_ class,
+rises to 25,000 tons as against 23,000 of the previous class. The
+length is increased to 620ft. and the beam to 89½ (instead of 89ft.).
+Owing to improved lines, the horse-power is reduced to 30,000 without
+any very material loss of speed. In all these super-Dreadnoughts, as
+in the Dreadnoughts themselves, 21 knots has always been the selected
+speed, though in units there have been slight variations.
+
+Ships of the _Iron Duke_ class are as follows:--
+
+  ====================+===============+==============
+  Name.               | Built at.     | Machinery by.
+  --------------------+---------------+--------------
+  _Iron Duke_         | Portsmouth Y. | Cammell-Laird
+  _Benbow  Beardmore_ | Beardmore     | Beardmore
+  _Emperor of India_  | Vickers       | Vickers
+  _Marlborough_       | Devonport Y.  | Hawthorn
+  ====================+===============+==============
+
+The _Emperor of India_ was originally named _Delhi_. The first two were
+given Babcock, and the second two Yarrow boilers. All were completed
+in 1914, but only the _Iron Duke_ was available for service on the eve
+of the outbreak of the war with Germany and Austria. The other three
+were, however, rapidly completed and put into commission.
+
+The fifth ship of the 1911–12 Estimates was the battle cruiser _Tiger_,
+nominally belonging to the _Lion_ group, but actually differing very
+considerably in various important details.
+
+She was laid down at Clydebank in June, 1912, a great deal of official
+reticence being maintained concerning her. She was not complete on
+the outbreak of war; but as she was available for service not long
+afterwards she is included in this survey.
+
+The marked and most characteristic difference between her and the
+_Lions_ is that the third turret instead of being cramped amidships
+as in the _Lion_ design, is moved further aft, thus giving a greatly
+improved arc of fire. Twelve 6-inch were substituted for the sixteen
+4-inch of the _Lions_ for reasons already given.
+
+The _Tiger_ is approximately 720ft. long, with a nominal horse-power of
+75,000. Babcock type boilers are fitted. Her nominal speed is 27 knots,
+but this has more than once been very considerably exceeded.
+
+For 1912–13 the Estimates provided for four capital ships, the usual
+twenty destroyers, and a new type of warship designated as “lightly
+armoured cruisers.”
+
+This programme is of abounding interest, not only on account of the
+fact that--so far as the larger types of ships are concerned--it
+probably embodies the last new construction available for the British
+Fleet in the war (unless the war endure beyond all anticipations) but
+also because of its more or less revolutionary nature.
+
+[Illustration: EARLY “30 KNOT” DESTROYERS.]
+
+The big ships of the programme were as follows:--
+
+  ==================+=================+==============
+  Name.             | Built at.       | Machinery by.
+  ------------------+-----------------+--------------
+  _Queen Elizabeth_ | Portsmouth Yard | Wallsend
+  _Warspite_        | Devonport Yard  | Hawthorn
+  _Valiant_         | Clydebank       | Fairfield
+  _Barham_          | Fairfield       | Fairfield
+  _Malaya_          | Elswick         | Wallsend
+  ==================+=================+==============
+
+The fifth ship in this list, the _Malaya_, is an extra vessel paid for
+and presented to the British Navy by the Federated Malay States.
+
+In general appearance these ships of the _Queen Elizabeth_ class do not
+greatly differ from their predecessors; but there all resemblance ends.
+In every other way they embody a “new idea”--an attempt so to blend
+the battleship proper with the battle-cruiser so as to secure the best
+points of both.
+
+Roughly, the battleship proper sacrifices speed for extra gun power
+and protection; while the battle-cruiser sacrifices these two latter
+for speed. The speed of the _Queen Elizabeths_ was fixed at 25
+knots--something rather less than that of battle-cruisers, but still
+sufficiently high to take them out of the ordinary battleship category
+as hitherto understood. Certainly they differ from the normal quite
+as much as the original _Dreadnought_ differed from her immediate
+predecessors.
+
+It was only possible to secure this high speed, plus other qualities,
+by the bold adoption of oil fuel only--in itself of the nature of a
+gigantic experiment, which, however, results have more than justified.
+The designed horse-power to secure 25 knots is 58,000.
+
+If, however, the motive power embodied novelty, still more so did the
+armament. For the ten 13.5’s of preceding ships, eight 15-inch guns
+were substituted. So far as power is concerned the 13.5 is ample for
+all contingencies, but the 15-inch embodies a marked superiority in
+range and the additional accuracy which a heavier projectile naturally
+affords. Furthermore--a very important point--the “life” of the 15-inch
+gun is much longer, owing to there being no necessity to utilise the
+full power of which it is capable.
+
+The general arrangement of turrets is that of all the
+super-Dreadnoughts, with the middle turret (always the most restricted
+in arc of fire) omitted.
+
+Nothing has ever been officially stated as to the armour protection;
+but it is known to be equal or superior to that of any preceding
+battleships.
+
+When war broke out, the first two of these ships were nearing
+completion--the first being completed about the end of 1914 and the
+second at the end of March, 1915.
+
+The 1913–14 Estimates provided for five more or less normal battleships
+designed for coal fuel,[36] the usual 21 knots speed, but 15-inch
+instead of 13.5-inch guns.
+
+  ==================+===============+==============
+  Name.             | Built at.     | Machinery by.
+  ------------------+---------------+--------------
+  _Royal Sovereign_ | Portsmouth Y. | (not stated)
+  _Royal Oak_       | Devonport Y.  | (not stated)
+  _Resolution_      | Palmer        | Palmer
+  _Ramillies_       | Beardmore     | Beardmore
+  _Revenge_         | Vickers       | Vickers
+  ==================+===============+==============
+
+Beyond that they are of 25,750 tons, and were designed for 31,000
+horse-power, no details of these ships have been furnished. Two were
+estimated to be completed by the end of 1915--the others in 1916.
+
+The rest of the programme consisted of eight more lightly armoured
+cruisers, a reduced number of destroyers and an increased number of
+submarines.
+
+In the 1914–15 Estimates three more battleships of the _Royal
+Sovereign_ class--to be named _Renown_, _Repulse_, and
+_Resistance_--were provided for, also a sixth ship of the _Queen
+Elizabeth class_, which was provisionally named _Agincourt_. The
+participation of any of these in the war is very improbable.
+
+The other vessels of the programme were four lightly armoured cruisers,
+twelve destroyers and an unstated number of submarines.
+
+When war broke out three battleships building in British Yards--two for
+Turkey and one for Chili--were taken over by the British Admiralty.
+Details of these are as follows:--
+
+  ==========================+===============+==============================
+  Name.                     | Displacement. |         Armament.
+  --------------------------+---------------+------------------------------
+  _Agincourt_               |               |
+    (ex-_Sultan Osman I_)   |    27,500     | 14--12in., 20--6in.; 3 tubes.
+                            |               |
+  _Erin_                    |               |
+    (ex-_Sultan Rechad V_)  |    23,000     | 10--13.5, 16--6in.; 3 tubes.
+                            |               |
+  _Canada_                  |               |
+    (ex-_Almirante Latorre_)|    28,000     | 10--14in., 16--6in.; 4 tubes.
+  ==========================+===============+==============================
+
+There were also taken over three Brazilian armoured gunboats--renamed
+_Humber_, _Severn_, and _Mersey_--of 1,200 tons each, carrying two
+6-inch guns forward and two 4.7-inch howitzers aft. The speed is about
+11½ knots, and early use was made of these vessels on the Belgian coast
+shortly after the outbreak of war.
+
+In addition to the above, two large Chilian destroyers building at
+Cowes were taken over and renamed _Broke_ and _Faulknor_.
+
+A variety of other vessels were likewise incorporated into the British
+Fleet, liners (to act as auxiliary cruisers), trawlers (to act as
+mine sweepers), plus various hospital ships, transports, and so on and
+so forth. Roughly, from 25 to 33 per cent. of the British Mercantile
+Marine came to be used in some way or other by the Admiralty--to say
+nothing of innumerable private yachts and motor boats.
+
+The destroyers of the period have not materially differed from their
+predecessors of the Dreadnought era, save for the adoption of two, and
+subsequently three, 4-inch guns in the armament, instead of one.
+
+Submarines and aerial craft are dealt with in a separate chapter.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+At and about the year 1912, the “super-Dreadnought” may be said to have
+reached its apotheosis.
+
+For what it is worth, however, it may here be put on record that
+junior opinion in the Navy was then becoming opposed not only to
+“super-Dreadnoughts” but to Dreadnoughts in any shape or form. Hardly
+any naval officer under the rank of Commander, and an ever-increasing
+percentage over that rank, was to be found who was not more or less
+convinced that the days of the Dreadnoughts and “super-Dreadnoughts”
+might be nearly numbered, and that we were possibly on the verge of
+some as yet indeterminate revolution in naval construction as great as
+any that the “fifties” saw.
+
+As yet no very clear argument can be produced. Only vaguely it is put
+forward that with torpedo range what it is, the big ship’s chance
+against torpedo craft is practically relegated to not being found, and
+“not being found” depends mainly upon the “super-Dreadnought” being
+screened with very numerous smaller craft.
+
+When Lord Charles Beresford put it on record that a hundred
+anti-torpedo attack guns would be useless in a battleship, he spoke for
+all progressive naval ideas. A destroyer may be hit and hit vitally,
+but it is hard to imagine a hit which will stop her drifting within
+easy range of her quarry before going down. If hostile destroyers get
+in, the only real chance of big ships is to sweep their decks with
+the modern variant of “case shot” and so kill the crews, a difficult
+proposition at the best owing to the small amount of time available.
+The proposition is rendered tenfold harder by the certainty that
+attack, if it comes, will not come from one quarter only, but from
+several. Consequently to preserve the Dreadnoughts, an ever increasing
+number of auxiliaries is demanded. Of these no Navy can be said to have
+a sufficiency. Hence it is argued that a destroyer attack is bound to
+succeed sooner or later, while even did a sufficiency of small craft
+exist, the big ship has to be so nursed and protected that her sphere
+of usefulness is enormously reduced. Submarines also are a deadly
+danger.
+
+On the other hand it is argued that, given sufficient bulk to the big
+ship, torpedoes are likely to be relatively harmless to her; it is also
+asked how can the small craft protect their own big ships and also
+search out and attack the enemy’s mastodons?
+
+There, till the war proves something definite one way or the other,
+the matter must be left. The big ship has been doomed so often, and
+so often adapted itself to changed conditions, that it may well do so
+again, despite the seemingly heavy odds against it.
+
+
+_PROTECTED CRUISERS OF THE DREADNOUGHT ERA._
+
+The original conception of the Dreadnought era was “nothing between
+the most powerful armoured ships and torpedo craft,” though so far as
+second class cruisers were concerned the last of these had been laid
+down in 1901.
+
+The persistence with which Germany continued yearly to build
+small protected cruisers eventually, however, began to cause some
+perturbation; and in the 1908–09 Estimates five protected cruisers
+of the _Bristol_ class were provided for. These were the _Bristol_
+(Clydebank), _Glasgow_ (Fairfield), _Gloucester_ (Beardmore),
+_Liverpool_ (Vickers), _Newcastle_ (Elswick). The designed displacement
+was 4,820 tons, length 453 feet over all, beam 47 feet, and mean
+draught 15¼ feet. Armament two 6-inch, ten 4-inch, and two submerged
+tubes. A speed of 25 knots was expected from 22,000 horse-power. On
+trials all exceeded 26 knots. All were fitted with Yarrow boilers, also
+turbines of the Parsons type, except in the _Bristol_, in which Curtiss
+type turbines were installed.
+
+For 1909–10 four more similar ships were provided--the _Weymouth_
+class. Displacement rose to 5,250 tons, and a uniform armament of eight
+6-inch was substituted for the mixed armament of the _Bristol_ class.
+These four “Town” cruisers were the _Weymouth_ (Elswick), _Yarmouth_
+(London and Glasgow Co.), _Dartmouth_ (Vickers), and _Falmouth_
+(Beardmore). All were given Yarrow boilers and Parsons turbines except
+the _Weymouth_, which was supplied with Curtiss turbines.
+
+The Estimates of 1910–11 contained three cruisers, the _Chatham_,
+_Dublin_, and _Southampton_, of the same type, but with a displacement
+increased by 200 tons. Three more, the _Birmingham_, _Nottingham_, and
+_Lowestoft_, figured in the Estimates of 1911–12.
+
+In 1907 the practice was instituted of building a Scout or two a year,
+those constructed to date being the _Boadicea_, _Bellona_, _Blanche_,
+_Blonde_, _Active_, _Amphion_, and _Fearless_, all of which are
+unarmoured, and so more or less compelled to fight modern destroyers on
+equal terms. Of these the _Amphion_ was lost early in the war by a mine.
+
+Of the original type were three Australian cruisers, _Sydney_,
+_Melbourne_ and _Brisbane_, of which two were built in this country and
+the third built, or put together, in Australia. In all these ships the
+slight increase in displacement was due to the introduction of a thin
+armour belt amidships--a “reply” to a similar innovation in the German
+Navy.
+
+The 1912–13 Estimates saw no more of the “Town” class cruisers being
+provided for, but, as already stated, they heralded the appearance of
+eight vessels of a new type, officially described as “lightly armoured
+cruisers.”
+
+They were at one and the same time an entirely new type, and also
+a reversion to the original _Bristol_ with modifications born of
+experience.
+
+In essence, these ships of the _Arethusa_ class--_Arethusa_, _Aurora_,
+_Galatea_, _Inconstant_, _Royalist_, _Penelope_, _Phaeton_ and
+_Undaunted_, compared with the prototype as follows:--
+
+  ====================+========================+======================
+                      |      _Arethusa._       |    _Bristol._
+  --------------------+------------------------+----------------------
+  Displacement (tons) | 3520                   | 4800
+  Armament            | 2--6in.                | 2--6in.
+                      | 6--4in.                | 10--4in.
+                      | 4 above water t. tubes | 2 submerged t. tubes
+  Side protection     | 2½″                    | _nil._
+  H.P.                | 30,000                 | 22,000
+  Speed (est.) kts.   | 30                     | 25
+  ====================+========================+======================
+
+Fuel supply has never been given out officially, but it may be stated
+that, roughly, by making use of oil fuel in the _Arethusa_, a radius
+equal to that of the _Bristols_ was secured with a considerable saving
+in weight.
+
+Incidentally, this is one of the most interesting examples of how
+the progress of invention makes possible to-day the impossibility
+of yesterday. When the _Bristols_ were designed they were the “best
+possible” of 1908. Four years later oil fuel had opened out an entirely
+novel vista.
+
+In the 1913–14 Estimates another eight of similar cruisers were
+provided for, with, however, 250 tons odd added to the displacement
+and an extra 6-inch gun forward allowed for; though this, however,
+was altered afterwards, as this batch of cruisers, the _Calliope_,
+_Caroline_, _Carysfort_, _Champion_, _Cleopatra_, _Comus_, _Conquest_,
+_Cordelia_, do not carry any 6-inch guns forward like the _Arethusa_,
+but mount a couple, one abaft the other aft--a wise arrangement, as a
+heavy weight forward does not make for sea-worthiness.
+
+The _Arethusas_ and the “C” class, therefore, compare as follows:--
+
+  ==============+==========+============+===================
+                | Forward. | Amidships. |        Aft.
+  --------------+----------+------------+-------------------
+  _Arethusas_   | One 6in. | Four 4in.  | One 6in., two 4in.
+  “_C_” _class_ | Two 4in. | Six 4in.   | Two 6in.
+  ==============+==========+============+===================
+
+which indicates a couple of 4-inch guns gained for the extra 250 tons.
+
+In the 1914–15 Estimates four similar vessels were provided for, but no
+details whatever have been published concerning them.
+
+
+_DESTROYERS IN THE DREADNOUGHT ERA._
+
+The Dreadnought era, while simplifying types of big ships, was the
+early institution of two distinct types of destroyers, plus an
+experimental vessel which was not duplicated. The original staple
+idea of Dreadnought era destroyers was to build very fast ocean-going
+destroyers for fleet work, and smaller craft, “coastals,” for
+local duties. A considerable flourish of trumpets accompanied the
+announcement of this decision, which, however, was in no way really
+novel. It merely reproduced in destroyers the long exploded idea of
+sea-going and coast-defence ironclads.
+
+Of these boats the first instalment amounted to a total of eighteen;
+the most important being the experimental boat _Swift_, which was given
+a displacement of 1,825 tons, and so might just as well have been
+designated a fast small cruiser. The horse-power provided was no less
+than 30,000, the speed 36 knots, though on trials she once reached
+nearly 39 knots. Armament four 4-inch, two 18-inch tubes. Cost about
+£280,500.
+
+It is interesting to note that in 1885 a precisely similar idea found
+vent in a _Swift_ (afterwards renamed t.b. 81) of 125 tons against the
+40 to 65 tons that was then normal for torpedo boats. It was nine years
+before anything else of the same size was built.
+
+The first standard destroyers of the era were the “Oceans” (often known
+as “Tribals”). These averaged 880 tons, 33 knot speed with oil fuel
+only. Between 1906 and 1910 altogether a dozen were built. The armament
+given to the five first was five 12-pounder, and two 18-inch tubes;
+in later boats two 4-inch, 25-pounder were substituted for the five
+12-pounders.
+
+The “coastal destroyers,” which have since lost that name, and are now
+known as first-class torpedo-boats, were built in groups of twelve for
+three years; the first batch averaging 225 tons, and later boats about
+260 tons. In all the armament is two 12-pounder and three 18-inch
+torpedo tubes; speed 26 knots. Parsons turbines in all, and oil fuel
+instead of coal.
+
+In 1908–09 there came a revulsion of official feeling against both
+types, and an attempt to evolve a species of intermediate was made.
+It was held that the Oceans were exceedingly costly; also somewhat
+fragile. The new boats, the _Beagle_ class, averaged 900 tons instead
+of the thousand tons that the latest Oceans were getting to. Armament
+was reduced to one 4-inch, 25-pounder, and three 12-pounders, with the
+usual two 18-inch torpedo tubes. Speed was cut down to 27 knots. Oil
+fuel was done away with, and coal reverted to.
+
+The 1909–10 programme provided for 20 destroyers of the _Acorn_ class.
+These are slightly smaller than the _Beagles_, armed with two 4-inch
+and two 12-pounders, but with oil again instead of coal only.
+
+On account of considerable agitation in Parliament as to the small
+number of modern British destroyers, the construction of all this class
+was accelerated by a few months, and with a single exception they were
+completed in June, 1911.
+
+Up till this time considerable latitude had been given to contractors
+for destroyers. In the 1910–11 programme the _Acheron_ class, an
+Admiralty design, was given out for fourteen of the boats, which,
+except that they had two funnels instead of three, closely corresponded
+with the destroyers of the preceding year. In the other six boats the
+firms of Thornycroft, Yarrow, and Parsons were given some considerable
+freedom of design with two boats each, and an increased speed was
+obtained with all.
+
+For 1911–12 boats a similar principle was followed, and there was also
+still further acceleration. These latest boats are somewhat faster
+than heretofore, and an interesting innovation in the case of one of
+them--the Thornycroft type--is the appearance of the Diesel engine for
+partial propulsion instead of steam. As a matter of fact, this idea
+did not eventually materialise, owing to various circumstances of the
+side issue nature. More or less contemporaneously with this the Yarrow
+firm in the _Archer_ and _Attack_, their special destroyers, evolved a
+system of super-heated steam, which led to a very considerable increase
+in speed, as compared with older methods. A conflict between steam
+and “gas engines” for destroyers was, therefore, in 1912, a probable
+feature of the early future, a conflict still in the “to-morrow” stage;
+but it may be unwise to place too much reliance on the fact that a
+similar conflict with motor cars ended in the practical extinction
+of steam, for all that the probabilities point in that direction.
+The superior convenience of the Diesel engine whether for destroyers
+or larger ships is obvious, but there are undoubtedly still certain
+practical difficulties which cannot be ignored.
+
+In 1912 the destroyer may be said to have reached its apotheosis. Later
+boats are considerably larger, more powerfully armed, and occasionally
+a trifle faster, but, taken all in all, they do not indicate any
+definite advance on the “general idea” of a destroyer.
+
+Novelty, such as it exists, is confined to the introduction of flotilla
+leaders. The idea is not new, since the Germans hit on it for torpedo
+boats long before destroyers as we understand them were evolved. There
+is also the still older idea of our original _Swift_.
+
+The integral notion is in each case the same. The idea is to provide
+the commander of the flotilla with a boat swifter and more powerful
+than those of his normal command, and thus to enable him to reinforce
+as requisite any particular portion of his squadron. Thus viewed,
+the idea is, of course, as old as naval warfare itself, or, for that
+matter, any warfare whatever; and it is strange that the principle of
+the superior power of the chief should ever have been allowed to lapse.
+
+It is, however, curious to note that at the outbreak of the present war
+the British was the only Navy in which the idea was in actual practice.
+Not till the war is over shall we learn whether the seeming advantage
+is or is not of real value. All the indications, however, are that it
+should be an immense asset if properly handled.
+
+
+_GUNS OF THE WATTS ERA._
+
+The principal guns of the Watts era are as follows:--
+
+  =======+========+========+==========+=========================
+  Calibre| Length | Weight |Weight of | Maximum penetration
+    in.  |   in   |  tons. |projectile| A.P. capped against K.C.
+         |  cals. |        |   lbs.   +------------+------------
+         |        |        |          |at 5000 yds.| 3000 yds.
+  -------+--------+--------+----------+------------+------------
+         |        |        |          |   in.      |  in.
+  13.5   |   45   |   80   |  1250    |   22       |  26
+  12     |   50   |   58   |   850    |   19       |  24
+  12     |   45   |   50   |   850    |   17½      |  22
+   9.2   |   50   |   30   |   380    |   10       |  13
+   9.2   |   45   |   27   |   380    |    8¾      |  11¼
+  =======+========+========+==========+============+============
+
+It may be noted that the 12-inch, 45 cal. (as mounted in the original
+_Dreadnought_) is quite capable of penetrating anything in existence
+at most ranges, and the 12-inch, 50 cal. anything likely to exist. The
+main advantage of the 13.5 is the superior weight of the projectile and
+the better capacity of its shell.
+
+Modern progress in gunnery is remarkably demonstrated by a comparison
+between the 13.5 of the Barnaby era and the same calibre of the Watts
+era.
+
+  ========+========+========+==========+======================+================
+  Calibre | Length | Weight |Projectile| Maximum penetration  | Corresponding
+    in.   |  in    |  tons. |   lbs.   | A.P. capped against  | value in K.C.
+          | cals.  |        |          |        K.C. at       | of belt of ship
+          |        |        |          +-----------+----------+ carrying
+          |        |        |          | 5000 yds. | 3000 yds.|
+  --------+--------+--------+----------+-----------+----------+----------------
+  13.5    |  30    |   80   |   1250   |     9     |    12    |       9
+  13.5    |  45    |   67   |   1250   |    22     |    26    |      12
+  ========+========+========+==========+===========+==========+================
+
+From which it will be seen that armour has in no way kept pace with the
+gun, except in so far as that in the conditions which obtained with the
+old 13.5 a range of 3,000 yards was considered an outside limit, 12,000
+yards is now held in the same or even less estimation.
+
+Along such lines progress has been practically nullified during the
+last twenty years. But the limit of vision has now been reached, and
+increased gun-power cannot, practically speaking, any longer be met by
+range. Whence the argument of many that, failing the production of some
+armour altogether superior to anything now existing, the armoured ship
+is closely approaching the status of the armoured soldier of the Middle
+Ages. A precisely similar remark, however, was first made in 1887,[37]
+and proved an incorrect prophecy. To-day, therefore, those best able to
+judge are extremely careful about prophecying.
+
+Meanwhile, the outbreak of war synchronised with the fact that both the
+British and German Navies had under construction ships carrying 15-inch
+guns; thus indicating a trend of opinion towards ships capable of
+delivering heavier and heavier projectiles.
+
+
+_TORPEDO PROGRESS._
+
+The principal feature of the last few years has been the steadily
+increasing efficiency of torpedoes, mainly by the adoption of improved
+engines. For many years 2,000 yards had been the maximum torpedo range.
+About 1904 an 18-inch Whitehead with 4,000 yards range and a maximum
+speed of 33 knots came into service. This was presently improved upon
+by torpedoes of 7,000 yards range. The exact range of the latest type
+Hardcastle torpedo--so called after its inventor, Engineer Commander
+Hardcastle--is a matter of uncertainty, but it is supposed to be
+capable of about 7,000 yards at 45 knots, and up to 11,000 at 30 knots.
+As a torpedo would take about 5½ minutes to travel this distance, it is
+obviously unlikely to be able to anticipate the position of a single
+enemy sufficiently to ensure hitting her, except by pure chance. On the
+other hand, if a fleet be fired at, hits with a torpedo are almost as
+likely as hits from a gun, and it seems impossible that the old idea of
+ships fighting in line can possibly survive, and Admiral Bacon’s theory
+that for the squadron of the past there will have to be substituted
+the isolated monster ship of the future seems the only reasonable one,
+despite all the protests against “mastodons.”
+
+With the improvement of torpedoes, especial attention has been
+devoted to under-water protection against them. One form of this, the
+solid bulkheads of the original _Dreadnought_, was, after a time,
+partially abandoned owing to its extreme inconvenience. Another form
+of protection adopted in all Dreadnoughts is a certain amount of
+internal armour, an idea first evolved in France for the battleship
+_Henri IV_, which was laid down in July, 1897. Experiments with a view
+to testing the efficiency of this device were not very promising. An
+improvement on the system was effected by M. Lagane, of La Seyne, in
+the Russian _Tsarevitch_ in 1899. This ship was actually torpedoed
+in the Russo-Japanese War, but unfortunately she was not hit on the
+specially-protected portion, so no experience was gained of the war
+utility of the system. While at the outbreak of war it was believed by
+some that the modern system is proof against half a dozen torpedoes,
+others were extremely sceptical as to whether any real immunity is
+afforded. The most that could ever be prophesied was that the next
+naval war would see the torpedo accomplish either a great deal more or
+a great deal less than is generally assumed. A paradoxical position;
+but so things are! No one can predict with any more certainty, even now
+that war is on us. We do not know what may happen. Some of us adhere to
+the idea that the torpedo is going to be omnipotent: that the gun is
+going to be relegated to the second place. The future is likely enough
+to discount the destroyer idea. But, from the submarine the torpedo
+is likely to do many unexpected things. If the Germans realise the
+torpedo, startling things are toward.[38]
+
+The period just preceding the war saw a curious state of affairs in
+connection with net defence against torpedoes. Practically ever since
+nets were invented the use of them had been confined to the British,
+Russian and Japanese Navies--most other navies making no use of net
+defence. Curiously enough the adoption of nets by Germany and Austria
+coincided with their abandonment in the British Navy--the British
+theory being that net cutters had become so efficient that any kind of
+net would immediately be cut through. Incidentally it may be observed
+that with nets down a ship can only proceed at a very slow speed.
+
+
+_NAVAL ESTIMATES OF THE WATTS ERA._
+
+  ==========+============+===========+===============================================
+  Financial |  Amount.   | Personnel.|                  Ships provided.
+  Year.     |            |           +-----------+-----------------------------------
+            |            |           |Battleships|Battle-cruisers|Armoured |Prot.
+            |            |           |           |               |cruisers.|cruisers.
+  ----------+------------+-----------+-----------+---------------+---------+---------
+   1902–03  | 31,003,977 |  122,500  |     2     |               |    2    |
+   1903–04  | 35,709,477 |  127,100  |     3     |               |    4    |
+   1904–05  | 36,859,681 |  131,100  |     2     |               |    3    |
+   1905–06  | 33,389,500 |  129,000  |     1     |       3       |         |
+   1906–07  | 31,472,087 |  129,000  |     3     |               |         |
+   1907–08  | 31,419,500 |  128,000  |     3     |               |         |
+   1908–09  | 32,319,500 |  128,000  |     1     |       1       |         |    5
+   1909–10  | 35,142,700 |  138,000  |     6     |       2       |         |    3
+   1910–11  | 40,603,700 |  131,000  |     4     |       1       |         |    3
+   1911–12  | 44,392,500 |  134,000  |     4     |       1       |         |    3
+   1912–13  | 44,085,400 |  136,000  |     3     |       1       |         |
+  ==========+============+===========+===========+===============+=========+=========
+
+Later in 1912 the sum of £1,000,000 was handed to the Navy out of the
+Budget surplus. This sum, the “supplementary estimate,” was allotted in
+order to set off a corresponding German increase.
+
+The decrease of 1905–1908 is probably directly responsible for the
+increase 1910–1912; owing to the fact that the British decrease was
+met by a corresponding rise in German expenditure. It was the fashion
+before the war to deplore the sums spent on naval armaments, while
+little or nothing was said about the military estimates.
+
+For 1912–13 the Naval Estimates were £45,075,400.
+
+For 1912–14 they increased to £48,809,300, and for 1914–15 they stood
+at £51,550,000.
+
+On the face of things, this ever-increasing naval outlay looked likely
+to lead to ultimate financial ruin. This, however, is really a somewhat
+superficial view, and mostly nothing but a modern equivalent to that
+“Insular Spirit” which has been referred to in previous pages.
+
+Compared to the national interests at stake, the increase regarded as
+an insurance is more apparent than real. It is, if anything, a smaller
+percentage on national existence; also over a period of a hundred years
+it is far less than the corresponding increase in the Civil Service
+Vote, which lacks any claims to be considered an “insurance.” The
+entire amount spent in shipbuilding is expended in the country, and
+about 70 per cent. of it goes in direct payment to “Labour”: which is
+probably a larger percentage than would be achieved were the same sum
+spent in any other way whatever.
+
+The “ruinous competition in naval armaments” so prated on by certain
+publicists was really little better than an idle phrase so far as the
+British nation is concerned; and there was never any real reason to
+regard future increases with apprehension.
+
+Now that the nation is at war this fact is being recognised. We must
+continue to recognise it. In trenches over the water we may attack. But
+on the British Navy depends our defence of home interests.
+
+
+
+
+V.
+
+SUBMARINES.
+
+
+The submarine as anything of the nature of a practical arm made its
+first appearance as a “submarine torpedo boat,” useful merely for
+harbour defence. As such it was eagerly embraced by the French Navy,
+and had a considerable vogue therein, besides being a commonplace in
+the United States long before the British Admiralty accepted it as
+serious in a way.
+
+As a matter of fact, till the invention of the periscope enabled it
+to see where it was going when submerged, the submarine was little if
+anything but a paper menace. The periscope altered all this.
+
+The first submarines for the British Navy figured in the 1901–2
+Estimates. Five copies of the American _Holland_ were laid down at
+Barrow, the first being launched in October, 1901. These boats were of
+120 tons submerged displacement, and used merely as instructional or
+experimental craft almost as soon as completed.
+
+[Illustration: SUBMARINES LEAVING PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR.]
+
+They were followed immediately by the “A” class, totalling thirteen
+boats in all. Displacement submerged, 207 tons. Those numbered from
+five to thirteen were given sixteen cylinder surface motors of 550
+horse-power in place of the 450 horse-power twelve cylinder ones of
+the earlier boats. In 1904 A1 was lost with all hands under tragic
+circumstances off Spithead, being run down by a merchant steamer. This
+disaster led to the installation of double periscopes in later types.
+A3 was lost off Spithead in 1912, being run down by the _Hazard_, very
+near where A1 was lost.
+
+The B class which followed numbered eleven boats, of which B1 was
+originally known as A14. The remaining B class belong to the 1904–05
+Estimates. The submerged displacement in these rises to 313 tons, and
+the surface speed to thirteen knots, instead of eleven and a half,
+though, owing to improved lines, the horse-power was little increased.
+
+New boats, completed in 1906 and later, though generally identical
+with the B class, were known as the C class, and totalled thirty-eight
+altogether. One, C11, was lost at sea from a collision.
+
+In 1907 the earliest boat of a new type (D Class) was put in
+hand. Displacing 600 tons submerged, she practically doubled her
+predecessors. Her surface speed rose to sixteen knots with 1,200
+horse-power. Three instead of two torpedo tubes were fitted, also
+wireless telegraphy was experimentally adopted in her. She herself
+was never any great success, but the rest of the type were far more
+successful.
+
+By the end of 1911 eight boats of the D class had been launched. It was
+originally intended to build a total of nineteen of this class, but
+meanwhile an improved boat of the E type was evolved. The E class are
+177ft. long, with a submerged displacement of 800 tons or thereabouts,
+and four 21-inch tubes. They are fitted with wireless. Their special
+feature, however, is the fitting of guns, as a regular and integral
+part of the design.
+
+The first submarine to mount a gun was D4, in which a special
+12-pounder was experimentally mounted, so that it could be housed when
+the boat was submerged; for later boats two guns were decided on.
+
+The E class were followed by an F class--and a variety of other boats,
+most of which have been completed since the war began and concerning
+which it is obviously undesirable to say anything whatever.
+
+Guns for submarines were expected to appear sooner than they actually
+did. At an early stage it was foreseen that, once radii developed,
+submarines were likely enough to find themselves in contact with
+hostile submarines and to need something to attack them with. The
+original idea of the submarine as “the weapon of the weaker Power” soon
+went the same way as did a similar idea about torpedo boats at their
+first inception.
+
+In torpedo-boats it was at once self-evident that, whatever the value
+of the torpedo boat, the stronger Power was able to build far more than
+the weaker, and to annihilate accordingly.
+
+For a time the submarine seemed to defy this law. It was fatuously
+hoped that “submarines cannot injure hostile submarines”; and that the
+“torpedo boat is the answer to the torpedo boat” would not have as
+sequel “the submarine is the answer to the submarine.”
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Photo_]      [_Stephen Crabb. Southsea._
+
+SUBMARINE E 2.]
+
+It may well be in the womb of the future that submarines to-morrow,
+or perhaps to-day, may be what the ironclad was yesterday or the day
+before. The submarine battleship may appear and render obsolete the
+“Dreadnought” of to-day! But nothing can alter the cardinal fact that,
+given equal efficiency, the Power with most such craft must win,
+and that, given an inferior efficiency, defeat may be looked for as
+the natural corollary on lines entirely unconnected with whether
+the “capital ship” is of a type that floats only or one that can be
+submerged at will.
+
+Tactics may alter, the means may alter, and the most obvious
+instruments of naval strategy may do the same. But nothing whatever
+can affect the bedrock truth that, given equal efficiency, “numbers
+only can annihilate.” Given the “equal efficiency” nothing else really
+matters!
+
+If the creators of weapons keep themselves to date, if those who supply
+them see to it that the supply is sufficient, if those who work the
+weapons are efficient, the part of those in chief control resolves
+itself into little save achieving victory with the minimum of loss. The
+day may yet arrive when someone discovers that a good deal of what has
+been written about the genius of various famous admirals of the past is
+verbiage rather than fact, that they were a part of one great whole,
+rather than the sole controlling organisation--at any rate, once battle
+was engaged.
+
+In the future, if the submarine “Dreadnought” becomes an actuality,
+this is probably likely to be so to a greater extent than anything
+which obtained in the past. So far as we can to-day conceive of such
+future fights, much of the battle, at any rate, will entail more or
+less blind work under the surface, individual enemies engaging one
+another, the leader compelled to rely more and more upon the efficiency
+of his individual units and less and less upon his own tactical
+combinations.
+
+Of course things may turn out otherwise. Inventions yet undreamed of
+may come to the fore, and the nether waters present no greater obstacle
+to regular operations than the surface does to-day. Plunging may offer
+no salvation to a beaten enemy. We can only make idle speculations now.
+
+Yet, however things may shape, success or failure, victory or defeat
+must assuredly depend in a great measure on the makers of the
+weapons and the efficiency of those who work them--the tools, on the
+reliability of which every admiral must trust for victory.
+
+When this war started there were roughly thirty German submarines to
+something like seventy British. At the moment of writing (June, 1915)
+at least twenty of those German submarines have gone below. How and why
+cannot be published: but they have gone under in one way or another.
+Means of defeating submarines are being developed.
+
+Where big ships are concerned the principle means in use are high speed
+and a zig-zag course, the combination making it difficult for the
+relatively slow submarine to arrive at the correct striking point.
+
+In this connection it has to be remembered that the vision of a
+submarine is limited; and so that though the range of modern torpedoes
+is something like five miles, the actual effective range of a
+submarine’s torpedoes is nearer a mile or less.
+
+So much is this the case that German submarines are fitted with a
+torpedo which has a range of only a thousand yards or thereabouts, the
+reduced range being compensated for by a greatly increased charge. This
+charge, 420 lbs. of very high explosive instead of the usual charge
+of 300 lbs. or less, accounts for the devastating effects of German
+torpedoes fired from submarines.
+
+It is merely a phase in submarine warfare. At present a submarine
+dare not fire too near its victim lest it be involved in the common
+destruction. That, however, is likely enough to be guarded against
+in future construction, and the prospects of the early future is
+one of more importance for submarines rather than less. They are
+bound to become larger and larger, their radius increasing with the
+size. Coincidently with this we may expect to see the birth of small
+submarines designed to attack big ones: some new variant of the
+swordfish and the whale.
+
+
+
+
+VI.
+
+NAVAL AVIATION.
+
+
+The aeroplane idea is so old that we find it in Greek mythology, and it
+is consequently of unknown antiquity. Hundreds of years before Christ
+there were hoary old legends of Dædalus and Icarus, who made wings for
+themselves and flew. Icarus flew too high, the sun melted his wings,
+with the result that there happened to him what happens about once a
+week to aviators to-day, he fell and died. Contemporary with these
+legends, are legends of floating rocks which spurted out fire--stories
+which sounded inestimably silly till steamships came along. We may
+imagine prophets able to look ahead[39] and to invest their day with
+visions of the future. Equally we can discard prophets and imagine a
+civilisation long since dead which knew all about flying and steamers,
+and survives in legends only.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Photo_]      [“_Topical._”
+
+BRITISH NAVY SEAPLANE.]
+
+The latter alternative is really the more reasonable of the two. While
+imagination can do a very great deal and exaggerate to any extent,
+it must have a base to work on. It is easier to believe in some long
+gone and extinct civilisation which destroyed itself in the air, than
+to believe that pure imagination accounts for the flying stories
+of long ago. Africa is full of traces of vast cities older than any
+history, telling of past civilisations of which nothing is or ever will
+be known. Also there is practically no known age in which anything but
+the motive power stood between aeroplane theories and their realisation.
+
+In support of the theory that men flew before to-day there is the
+following:--Somewhere about the year 1100, that is to say, back in the
+reign of King Stephen, a French historian relates the appearance of “as
+it were, a ship, in the air over London.” It anchored, and the citizens
+of London got hold of the anchor. The airship sent a man down to free
+it, and the citizens of London caught him and drowned him in the river.
+The rest of the aviators then cut the rope and sailed away.
+
+This incident is mentioned so baldly and casually and so much mixed up
+with ordinary petty chat of the era (chat which proves to have been
+quite true), that it takes far more faith to accept it as “pure lies”
+than to accept it as fact more or less.
+
+These legends cannot be disregarded lightly. They one and all give
+priority to the aeroplane--the “heavier than air” vehicle. Once in a
+way the “lighter than air” idea got a casual look in; but it was not
+till the end of the eighteenth century that it got into the regions of
+practical politics with the French Montgolfiers. But there were people
+who invented elementary aeroplanes long before Montgolfier.
+
+From the end of the eighteenth century until to-day the Montgolfier
+idea of “lighter than air” has got little further. The shape has
+altered; instead of hot air, hydrogen gas is now employed; and by
+means of motors the balloon no longer drifts before the wind. But
+progress is terribly slow. That it is so, is a very important thing to
+recognise, as slow development is by no means a reason for ignoring an
+invention. Sometimes it is quite the opposite.
+
+It will probably be a good many years before it is definitely settled
+whether the “heavier than air” or “lighter than air” principle is the
+better for Naval purposes, though there are not wanting enthusiasts who
+decry the “lighter than air” machines altogether.
+
+This is probably a grave mistake, brought about by the fact that
+practical balloons existed long before practical aeroplanes, and
+dirigibles made flights before ever aeroplanes rose off the earth. Yet
+the dirigible is in a far more elementary stage than the aeroplane
+is. Not only is the aeroplane a much older idea in the theoretical
+direction, but, being very much smaller, it on that account has very
+possibly developed more quickly.
+
+The world has been building ships for thousands of years, yet it has
+only recently developed _Tigers_ and _Olympics_, and both are still
+developing and likely to do so for some time to come. Row-boats,
+however, arrived at perfection a good thousand years ago. That is
+to say, there has been no alteration or improvement in them at all
+commensurate with the alterations that have taken place in big ships
+during the same period.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Photo_]      [_Sport & General._
+
+HOISTING A NAVAL SEAPLANE ON BOARD THE _HIBERNIA_.]
+
+Something of the same sort is quite possible with aeroplanes. It is
+already comparatively easy to forecast their eventual form without much
+danger of being proved a false prophet later on. We may safely say
+that they will become capable of much higher speeds than at present;
+also (which is perhaps more important) _slower_ speeds; and that all
+existing troubles with stability will eventually be overcome. But
+experiments made with birds indicate that the run which an aeroplane
+has to take before it can rise occurs in much the same proportion with
+birds; and so there are few, if any, practical men who now expect to
+see future aeroplanes capable of rising vertically from the ground, or
+hovering in the air except under such conditions as any bird can hover
+without inconvenience.
+
+The possibilities of the dirigible, on the other hand, no man can
+foresee. The gasbag that can be brought to the ground by a single
+bullet hole in it, is a very different thing from the possibility of
+airships of the future, which may be a mile or two long, divided into
+innumerable compartments, filled with non-explosive gas such as is sure
+to be discovered sooner or later. Two miles seems an extraordinary
+length to-day, but a ship ten miles long would only be something like
+the ratio of the early dirigible to the future ones compared to the
+ratio Dreadnoughts bear to the first ships built by men.
+
+On the water, bulk is limited by the depth and size of harbours, but
+in the vast regions of the air there are practically no limitations
+whatever, and there is virtually nothing to limit size, save the
+building of land docks on open plains into which airships could descend
+for purposes of repair and so forth. Consequently those who hastily
+assume from a few accidents that the “lighter than air” craft has no
+future are probably making a mistake; at any rate, so far as naval work
+is concerned. Certain definite uses are apparent even now to those who
+think and ignore commercial rivalries.
+
+It has been wisely laid down that aeroplanes for naval purposes must
+be capable of rising from and descending on the water. The Curtiss
+was the first successful hydro-aeroplane, but since then floats have
+been fitted to various other types with equal success. It is doubtful
+whether naval aeroplanes will ever be carried on shipboard like boats,
+although this is by no means impossible. It will, however, be more
+convenient for a variety of reasons to use them like submarines with
+their own special depot ships.
+
+The main naval use of aeroplanes at the outbreak of war was for
+scouting purposes. How near they would be able to approach a hostile
+fleet was a question not likely to be solved until the day of battle.
+The question of their being hit is secondary to the question of their
+being upset, owing to tremendous concussions of heavy gun fire. The
+idea of aeroplanes dropping bombs down the funnels of warships can be
+dismissed as the entirely fanciful dreams of people who know nothing
+whatever about aeroplanes or the mathematical problems involved.
+Judging by recent events, dropping bombs anywhere upon a moving ship is
+nearly or entirely impossible, except at ranges where the aviator would
+at once be brought down by rifle fire.
+
+A far more likely and useful service would be the destruction of enemy
+aeroplanes. For this purpose a special gun, firing a species of chain
+shot, has already been suggested, and the naval aeroplane of the future
+was always certain to carry a gun of some kind. The off-chance of doing
+a certain amount of damage to a hostile ship by dropping a bomb upon
+it, is nothing compared to the importance of destroying the enemy’s
+aeroplanes. This last seems likely to be all-important as time goes on.
+
+The duties of naval airships will be of a different nature. Already a
+point kept in view in their design is ability to “keep the air” for a
+considerable period, and with what are in these days “large airships”
+of the Zeppelin type (to which the ill-fated Naval Airship No. 1
+_Mayfly_ belonged) there seems no reason why an airship should not be
+kept in the air for three or four days already.
+
+The fuel problem is not very difficult, because a great deal can
+already be done without the use of the engines, or with only partial
+use of them. It is also more than probable that with a view to
+further economy some kind of sails, combined with sea-anchors, will
+be evolved, whereby the ship might become able to sail in the air
+nearly as well as the old three-deckers, or, at any rate, as well as
+the masted ironclads, sailed in the water. The difficulty of “keeping
+the air” is the inevitable leakage of gas, but as leakage nowadays is
+infinitesimally less than it once was, the assumption is that as the
+years go on it will eventually be reduced to almost a minus quantity.
+Gales will be met by “bulk” and efficient anchors, on the principle
+that the gale which swamps a fishing-boat or blows over a haystack has
+no effect on a Dreadnought or a cathedral.
+
+Ability to keep the air will enable all Fleets to be accompanied by
+airships, which would detect mines and perhaps submarines, and with
+their ability to adapt their speeds at will, the presumption is that
+they would be able to destroy submarines by bombs.
+
+A further and very important duty would be the detection of torpedo
+attacks at night. Experiments carried out in Austria some few years
+ago with a captive balloon proved conclusively that except in cases
+of thick fog any vessels in motion are easily detected at a distance
+of ten or twelve miles. It is not merely the tell-tale flames in the
+funnels which betray attacking vessels; their wakes are always clearly
+visible, and as a general rule the vessels themselves, no matter how
+dark the night.
+
+Bomb-dropping from an airship must be a more serious matter than from
+aeroplanes, as so much more in the way of explosives could be carried.
+The chance of being hit, however, would probably be so much greater
+that it was (when war broke out) unlikely that any airships would be
+risked for such purposes. Nor is it very probable that naval airships
+will for some time to come attack each other, if they can possibly
+avoid it, the reason being that for a good many years they will be
+comparatively few in number, and the attack would have, in most cases,
+to be delivered in the presence of a fleet, which would make the
+attack, to say the least of it, very hazardous.
+
+Eventually, of course, aerial Dreadnoughts fighting each other are
+probable enough; but “the Trafalgar of the air” is unlikely to be
+witnessed within the lifetime of most or any of us now living. Nor is
+it likely that aerial Dreadnoughts will replace Dreadnoughts of the
+water, although as years go on they may cause profound modifications in
+design in order to allow of mounting guns for vertical fire.
+
+We are in the presence of the introduction of a “new arm.” But between
+what a “new arm” can actually accomplish, and what enthusiastic
+inventors say it will do, there is always an enormous gap. Inventors,
+when they come to prophesying, are usually one of two things--asses, or
+prodigious asses! France--once the second Naval Power in Europe--became
+of little or no account because it took the submarine at the
+enthusiastic inventor’s face value, and neglected the present and
+immediate future.
+
+The present stage of aerial progress in the British Navy is briefly to
+be summarised as follows:--
+
+1. A big Zeppelin type naval airship was built in 1909–1911. It proved
+a total failure.
+
+2. In 1911 four naval officers were appointed to learn aeroplane work.
+Subsequently a few others were appointed. Others, again, qualified
+privately. In 1912, the Royal Flying Corps was established--both naval
+and military aviators becoming “wings” of the same body--an excellent
+principle, but one necessarily experimental so far as practical work
+was concerned.
+
+3. In practice it proved a failure; so the Naval Air Service was formed
+into a branch by itself. Four small army airships were handed over
+to it--craft too small to be of any value except for instructional
+purposes.
+
+At the outbreak of war there were two effective dirigibles--one of
+French type of Astra-Torres design, the other a Parseval purchased in
+Germany. Neither of these ships is in any way comparable to the German
+Zeppelins in dimensions or endurance. A number of other dirigibles
+of varying sizes were on order, but it is inadvisable to publish any
+particulars on this subject. The designs for these were foreign, but
+the construction was British.
+
+In the matter of aeroplanes a number of special naval stations were
+established and supplied with seaplanes and landplanes of various
+types, while strenuous efforts were made towards the training of a
+large number of efficient pilots. The building of an aeroplane is a
+matter of only a few weeks, whereas the training of a really efficient
+pilot is a matter of a year or thereabouts.
+
+
+
+
+VII
+
+AUXILIARY NAVIES.
+
+
+No account of the British battle fleet would be complete without
+reference to the various auxiliary navies. Though none of them
+possesses any very serious fighting value, yet all possess
+potentialities for the future which can with difficulty be computed.
+
+The auxiliary navies may be divided into two main sections--(1) those
+which are direct branches of the British Navy, and (2) those which
+belong to the semi-independent colonies.
+
+Of the former, the principal is the Royal Indian Marine, which
+consists of a number of armed troopships. Of these the chief are the
+_Northbrook_, launched at Clydebank in 1907, 5,820 tons, 16 knot speed,
+and an armament of six 4-inch and six 3-pounders. The _Dufferin_, which
+was launched in 1904, is of 7,457 tons, has a speed of 19 knots, and an
+armament of eight 4-inch and eight 3-pounders. The _Hardinge_, launched
+1900, is of 6,520 tons, 18 knots speed, and carries six 4.7-inch guns
+as well as six 3-pounders and 4 Maxims.
+
+There are three older troopships, the _Minto_ (1893), the _Elphinstone_
+(1887), and the _Dalhousie_ (1886). These are supplemented by ten small
+steamers and nine small mining vessels.
+
+The germ of this fleet was created in the early seventies when the
+breastwork monitors _Abyssinia_ and _Magdala_ were sent out for the
+defence of Indian harbours. These were small predecessors of the
+_Devastation_, very similar to the home coast-defence monitors of the
+_Cyclops_ class, and carried four 18-ton muzzle-loading guns.
+
+About the year 1888 some new torpedo boats (Nos. 100–106) were lent for
+the Indian Marine service. These, with their names and numbers, were
+as follows:--_Baluch_ (100), _Ghurka_ (101), _Kahren_ (102), _Pathan_
+(103), _Maharatta_ (104), _Sikh_ (105), and _Rajput_ (106). The two
+earliest numbers were built by Thornycroft, and were of 92 tons; the
+others were built by White, of Cowes, and were of 95 tons displacement.
+
+In the years 1890–91 two torpedo gunboats, _Plassy_ and _Assaye_, of
+the _Sharpshooter_ class, were launched at Elswick for the Indian
+Marine, in which they remained until withdrawn in the early years of
+the present century.
+
+On a similar footing to the Royal Indian Marine are the flotillas,
+mostly consisting of river gunboats, maintained in North and South
+Nigeria and in Central Africa, and the gunboats on the Nile under the
+Egyptian Government.
+
+The Colonial Navies are on a different standing. First place in their
+formation belongs to Australia. The monitor _Cerberus_, practically a
+sister of the _Abyssinia_ and _Magdala_ already mentioned, was launched
+at Jarrow in 1868 for Victoria. This vessel (which still exists as a
+drill ship) is of 3,480 tons, armed with four 18-ton muzzle-loaders,
+and protected with an 8-inch belt.
+
+In 1884 Australia’s local defence was re-inforced with four gunboats as
+follows:--The _Protector_, of 920 tons, carrying one 8-inch and five
+6-inch guns, for South Australia. She, as well as the others, was built
+at Elswick. For Western Australia a similar vessel of 530 tons, named
+the _Victoria_, was built, armed with one 18-ton muzzle-loader. The
+_Gayundah_ and _Paluma_, also of the same type, carrying one old 8-inch
+and one 6-inch, were built for Queensland. Their displacement is 360
+tons each.
+
+From that time onward the Australian Navy occasionally sent a few
+officers and men for training in the British Navy.
+
+Towards the end of the eighties interest began to be taken in
+Australian naval defence, and five cruisers and two torpedo gunboats
+were ordered for local Australian service while borne on the Royal
+Navy List. Of these vessels the five cruisers were the _Katoomba_ (ex
+_Pandora_), _Mildura_ (ex _Pelorus_), _Ringarooma_ (ex _Psyche_),
+_Tauranga_ (ex _Phœnix_), and the _Wallaroo_ (ex _Persian_), all 2,575
+vessels of the old _Pallas_ class, of which at the time of writing
+the _Philomel_ still exists. These ships had a designed speed of 16.5
+knots, a protective deck, and an armament of eight 4.7-inch and some
+smaller guns.
+
+The torpedo gunboat _Boomerang_ (ex _Whiting_) and _Karrakatta_ (ex
+_Wizard_) belonged to the _Sharpshooter_ class, and were lent under the
+same conditions as the cruisers.
+
+In the course of time all of them wore out and were eventually recalled.
+
+Coincident with this the Australians commenced to have a revived
+interest in Imperial defence, and in the year 1905–6 Australia and New
+Zealand contributed £240,000 to Imperial naval defence, and a project
+was put forward for the building of eight destroyers and four torpedo
+gunboats for Colonial Defence purposes.
+
+A few years later this project took a more definite shape, and
+about the year 1910 the battle-cruiser _Australia_, a sister of the
+_Indefatigable_, was ordered. As part of the same programme, three
+protected cruisers of the _Dartmouth_ type, the _Melbourne_, _Sydney_,
+and _Brisbane_, were also ordered. Previously to this, three destroyers
+of the _Paramatta_ type had been commenced, and in 1911 three more were
+ordered, thus forming a nucleus of a serious Australian Navy.[40]
+
+New Zealand’s interest in the Imperial Navy may be said to have
+commenced about the year 1900. It eventuated in paying for the
+battleship _New Zealand_[41] of the _King Edward_ class, which was
+laid down in September, 1903. An old gunboat of the _Magpie_ class
+was purchased, re-christened the _Amokoura_, and used for training
+purposes, while to replace some old torpedo boats, which had been sent
+to New Zealand about the same time as similar boats went to Australia,
+three destroyers of the _Paramatta_ type were ordered. Finally, an
+offer from the New Zealand Premier to supplement the Dreadnought
+efficiency of the British Navy culminated in the battle-cruiser _New
+Zealand_, which was offered to be provided about the same time or a
+little before Australia offered a similar vessel.[42]
+
+[Illustration: BATTLE CRUISER “NEW ZEALAND” ON THE STOCKS--1912.]
+
+The Dominion of Canada has always maintained a certain number of
+small vessels for Customs duties or fishery protection, also for
+service on the Great Lakes. In 1909 the question of a Canadian Navy
+became insistent, and two old British cruisers--the _Niobe_ of the
+_Diadem_ class and the _Rainbow_ of the _Apollo_ class--were purchased
+as training ships for the Canadian Navy. A project was also brought
+forward for the creation of Canadian dockyards and building therein
+four second-class cruisers of the _Dartmouth_ class and six destroyers,
+though up to the time of writing none of these ships have materialised,
+and the Canadian Navy is still very much a project in the air.
+
+Newfoundland has a naval reserve, trained over many years in the
+drill-ship, which is ex H.M.S. _Calypso_.
+
+The whole subject of Colonial Navies is somewhat involved, owing to
+the question as to how far they should be under the orders of and part
+of the British Navy, liable to be used when and where required for
+Imperial needs, and how far they should be regarded as merely for local
+defence. It has been argued from one point of view that Colonial Navies
+acting on their own responsibility might create undesirable Imperial
+complications--as for instance, Australia with Japan, or Canada with
+the United States. On the other hand it is argued that it would not
+be possible to arouse Colonial enthusiasm for a Colonial fleet which
+was not always on the spot, despite any strategical grounds that might
+exist for its being elsewhere. New Zealand, in May, 1912, negatived
+this by presenting her battle-cruiser to the Imperial Navy for use
+where most needed, but generally speaking Colonials think first of
+local defence.
+
+These two divergent points of view, which are certainly extremely
+delicate, may be said to be still _subjudice_, but in the year 1911
+the following agreement, which is of the nature of a very judicious
+compromise, was drawn up:--
+
+1. The naval services and forces of the Dominions of Canada and
+Australia will be exclusively under the control of their respective
+Governments.
+
+2. The training and discipline of the naval forces of the Dominions
+will be generally uniform with the training and discipline of the fleet
+of the United Kingdom, and by arrangement, officers and men of the said
+forces will be interchangeable with those under the control of the
+British Admiralty.
+
+3. The ships of each Dominion naval force will hoist at the stern the
+white ensign as the symbol of the authority of the Crown, and at the
+jack-staff the distinctive flag of the Dominion.
+
+4. The Canadian and Australian Governments will have their own
+naval stations as agreed upon and from time to time. The limits of
+the stations are described in Schedule A (Canada) and Schedule B
+(Australia).
+
+5. In the event of the Canadian or Australian Government desiring
+to send ships to a part of the British Empire outside of their own
+respective stations, they will notify the British Admiralty.
+
+6. In the event of the Canadian or Australian Government desiring to
+send ships to a foreign port, they will obtain the concurrence of
+the Imperial Government, in order that the necessary arrangements
+with the Foreign Office may be made, as in the case of ships of the
+British Fleet, in such time and manner as is usual between the British
+Admiralty and the Foreign Office.
+
+7. While ships of the Dominions are at a foreign port a report of
+their proceedings will be forwarded by the officer in command to
+the Commander-in-Chief on the station or to the British Admiralty.
+The officer in command of a Dominion ship so long as he remains in
+the foreign port will obey any instructions he may receive from the
+Government of the United Kingdom as to the conduct of any international
+matters that may arise, the Dominion Government being informed.
+
+8. The commanding officer of a Dominion ship having to put into a
+foreign port without previous arrangement on account of stress of
+weather, damage, or any unforeseen emergency, will report his arrival
+and reason for calling to the Commander-in-Chief of the station or to
+the Admiralty, and will obey, so long as he remains in the foreign
+port, any instructions he may receive from the Government of the
+United Kingdom as to his relations with the authorities, the Dominion
+Government being informed.
+
+9. When a ship of the British Admiralty meets a ship of the Dominions,
+the senior officer will have the right to command in matters of
+ceremony or international intercourse, or where united action is agreed
+upon, but will have no power to direct the movements of ships of the
+other service unless the ships are ordered to co-operate by mutual
+arrangement.
+
+10. In foreign ports the senior officer will take command, but not so
+as to interfere with the orders that the junior may have received from
+his Government.
+
+11. When a court-martial has to be ordered by a Dominion and a
+sufficient number of officers are not available in the Dominion
+service at the time, the British Admiralty, if requested, will make
+the necessary arrangements to enable a court to be formed. Provision
+will be made by order of his Majesty in Council and by the Dominion
+Governments respectively to define the conditions under which officers
+of the different services are to sit on joint courts-martial.
+
+12. The British Admiralty undertakes to lend to the Dominions during
+the period of development of their services, under conditions to be
+agreed upon, such flag officers and other officers and men as may be
+needed. In their selection preference will be given to officers and
+men coming from, or connected with, the Dominions, but they should all
+be volunteers for the service.
+
+13. The service of officers of the British Fleet in the Dominion naval
+forces or of officers of those forces in the British Fleet will count
+in all respects for promotion, pay, retirement, etc., as service in
+their respective forces.
+
+14. In order to determine all questions of seniority that may arise,
+the names of all officers will be shown in the Navy List, and their
+seniority determined by the date of their commissions, whichever is the
+earlier, in the British, Canadian, or Australian services.
+
+15. It is desirable in the interests of efficiency and co-operation
+that arrangements should be made from time to time between the British
+Admiralty and the Dominion for the ships of the Dominions to take part
+in fleet exercises or for any other joint training considered necessary
+under the Senior Naval Officer. While so employed the ships will be
+under the command of that officer, who would not, however, interfere
+in the internal economy of ships of another service further than is
+absolutely necessary.
+
+16. In time of war, when the naval service of a Dominion or any part
+thereof has been put at the disposal of the Imperial Government by
+the Dominion authorities, the ships will form an integral part of
+the British Fleet, and will remain under the control of the British
+Admiralty during the continuance of the war.
+
+17. The Dominions having applied to their naval forces the King’s
+Regulations and Admiralty Instructions and the Naval Discipline Act,
+the British Admiralty and Dominion Governments will communicate to each
+other any changes which they propose to make in these Regulations or
+that Act.
+
+The Schedules A and B defined the stations of Canadian and Australian
+ships respectively. These stations cover the territorial and contiguous
+waters in each case. The agreement generally seems framed in an
+exceedingly able and statesmanlike spirit, designed so far as may be
+to avoid any possible friction or misunderstanding in the future, and
+in preparation for the day when the Imperial British Fleet shall be
+something very much more than a dream or just a fancy.
+
+This chapter merely records the birth of something the end of which
+none can foretell. It may be the first hint of a great world-wide
+English-speaking confederation: it may be the swan song of the British
+Empire. But it is probably one or the other in full measure.
+
+
+
+
+VIII.
+
+GENERAL MATTERS IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS.
+
+
+Since the Great French Wars the British Navy has altered out of all
+recognition in its _materiel_; but changes in the _personnel_ are often
+considerably less than appears on the surface.
+
+To take matters in the same order as they are taken in Chapter VIII,
+Vol. I., uniform has, of course, long established itself. It has done
+so with a formality which, in the view of many, has “established the
+régime of the tailor rather than the sailor.” Within the last few years
+a slight change for the better has occurred; but of the greater part
+of the period so far as concerns purposes for which uniform was first
+introduced--the sailor and tailor exchanged places. Much has been
+written about admirals and captains whose ideas of naval efficiency
+were limited by “spit and polish,”[43] but “spit and polish” at its
+worst was never so bad as that tailoring idea which was the ultimate
+result of George II admiring the costume of the Duchess of Bedford.[44]
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Photo_]      [_Stuart, Southampton._
+
+ADMIRAL FISHER.]
+
+The mischief is popularly supposed to lie with naval officers.
+Actually its roots lie with officials, who have piled regulation upon
+regulation, and the Vanity of Vanities is to be found so far back
+as the days of the great St. Vincent and his recorded orders about
+officers shoe-laces. Lesser lights than he, being in authority,
+blindly imitated. And so the uniform fetish grew and prospered.
+
+This is not to be taken wholly as a condemnation--for all that a system
+which made one of the most important duties of a lieutenant to be the
+carrying round of a tape measure with a view to ascertaining whether
+every man was “uniform” within a fraction of an inch may seem more
+suggestive of comic opera than of naval efficiency. Within reasonable
+limits, conformity has many virtues; and a man slovenly in observing
+uniform regulations is likely enough to be slovenly in things of
+greater moment. Like most bad things in the Navy, the principle was
+ideal: only the carrying of it too far was at fault. There is not the
+remotest reason to believe that a Navy not in uniform would be as
+efficient as one in uniform--all the probabilities are that it would
+be less so. The man who invented the saying that “a pigmy in uniform
+is more impressive than a giant in plain clothes” was making no idle
+statement, but stating a general verity. The trouble is solely in the
+difficulty that has ever been experienced in striking a common-sense
+mean--a difficulty created by the first mediocrity who tried to stand
+in St. Vincent’s shoes, and who lacked the brains to realise that
+what St. Vincent had started with a definite Service object in view,
+he--the unknown mediocrity--had merely lost in the _means_. An example
+once created had to be followed. The hardships of conformity--of which
+overmuch is heard nowadays--are actually trivial, on account of the
+custom. The mischief lies not in the conforming, but in the waste of
+time of those who are made responsible for that conformity.
+
+In essence, modern uniform is simple enough: that the various ranks
+should be noted by special insignia is obviously desirable. For
+combatant officers, the distinguishing sleeve-marks are:--
+
+[Illustration: Admiral  Vice-Admiral  Rear-Admiral  Commodore  Captain
+ Commander  Lieutenant-Commander  Lieutenant  Sub-Lieutenant]
+
+Engineer officers wear the same insignia with purple between the
+stripes. Non-combatant officers are without the curl to the stripes,
+and wear colours to distinguish them as follows:--Doctors, red;
+Paymasters, white; Naval Instructors, blue.
+
+The system for the supply of the _personnel_ is to-day altogether
+different from what it was a hundred years ago. Till comparatively
+recently future deck officers were taken very young, passed into the
+Service as Naval Cadets, and thence promoted up to Midshipmen, etc.,
+while Engineers and officers of the other civilian branches joined
+later in life.
+
+More or less contemporaneously with the Dreadnought era this was
+altered by the “New Scheme of Entry,” also known as the “Selbourne
+Scheme,” after the then first Lord of the Admiralty, but really the
+creation of Admiral Fisher, the Sea Lord who was the moving spirit at
+the Admiralty at that time.
+
+Few schemes have been more virulently criticised--few, in some cases,
+more unfairly. Like nearly all Admiral Fisher’s innovations, the scheme
+was better on paper than in fact. Like all his other schemes it was
+carried through at far too great a pace for the ultra-conservative
+moods of the British Navy, which has ever resented anything but the
+most gradual of changes. On the other hand, it is too often forgotten
+by critics that a great agitation on the part of naval engineer
+officers, backed by very considerable shore-influences, was then in
+existence. Something had to be done, and done quickly. Of Admiral
+Fisher it may ever be said that he acted where others merely argued.
+
+Under the New Scheme, the deck-officer, the engineer, and the
+marine-officer were all to enter as cadets at a very tender age,
+undergo a common training, and be specialised for any Branch at option
+or at Admiralty discretion later on.
+
+Whatever may be said against the New Scheme, it was magnificent on
+paper. Engineer officers had first come into the Navy as mechanics to
+work an auxiliary motive-power in which no “seamen” had much faith.
+From that humble beginning the status of their Branch grew and grew,
+till both motive-power and the existence of nearly everything on
+ship-board depended on the engineers. At the same time the official
+status of the Branch remained practically in the same stage as it
+did when the first few “greasers” were entered. The deck-officer was
+(nominally, at any rate) drawn from the aristocracy; the engineer
+officer from the democracy in a great measure. In so far as this
+obtained, “social war” was added to the real issue. It was obvious that
+this state of affairs was detrimental to naval efficiency. Something
+had to be done.
+
+Admiral Fisher cut the Gordian knot in his own fashion. In substance
+his Scheme provided that future engineer officers were to be drawn from
+the same class as deck-officers--to gild the pill, marine officers were
+flung into the same melting pot. He might have done better: but far
+more conceivably harm might have been perpetrated.
+
+As an argument behind him, he had Drake and Elizabethan conditions,
+the history of the days when every man was made to “sail his ship and
+fight it too.” The U.S. Navy had already plunged on a somewhat similar
+experiment. When the Russo-Japanese War came, the Japanese, in the
+middle of a life-and-death fight, suddenly granted executive rank to
+their engineer officers--_i.e._, that right to control and punish their
+own men which British marine officers have always had.
+
+The Scheme met its first rock in the Marines. For three hundred years
+or thereabouts the “Sea Regiment” has been afloat as a thing apart.
+The “leather-necks”--as the sailors call them--have built up their own
+traditions. They have ever remained a force apart from both Army and
+Navy, belonging to both and yet to neither. The record of the Marines
+is such that when, recently, it was proposed that they should have a
+regimental colour with their battles emblazoned on it, the idea had to
+be abandoned because there was not room on the flag for their services!
+
+Any attempt to interfere with the continuity of such a corps was
+fore-doomed to failure from the first. The Marines resisted being
+turned into sailors just as they would have resisted being turned
+into soldiers. They stood out uncompromisingly for being “the Sea
+Regiment.” The expected happened. By 1911 this part of the New Scheme
+was practically shelved, and the most unique body of men in the world
+was left to carry out its own traditions.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Photo_]      [_Russell & Sons, Southsea._
+
+ADMIRAL SIR JOHN JELLICOE.]
+
+In the matter of future engineers, snags were struck likewise, but
+here a more or less unreasoning conservatism on the part of parents
+played its full part. The average parent objected to his son becoming
+an engineer specialist over old-time reasons. A further and weightier
+objection was, and continues to be, raised by engineering experts,
+who argue that engineering is a life profession, not to be picked up
+efficiently by casual specialization.
+
+The matter is still under discussion, and its verification or otherwise
+rests with the future. As to the first point, a serious effort to
+overcome it was made early in 1912 by the promulgation of an order that
+New Scheme officers, specialised for engineering, would be eligible for
+the command of submarines equally with deck-officers.
+
+The importance of this particular point is great; for by the end
+of 1911 it was generally believed that the motor warship would at
+some more or less early date in the future replace the steam-driven
+one; and so the “sail-his-ship-and-fight-it-too” theory found a new
+interpretation.
+
+As regards the rank and file of the Navy, the difference of a hundred
+years has been so great and so commented on that to-day we perhaps tend
+to make it, seem far greater than it really is. It is to be doubted
+whether the “prime seaman” has altered to anything like the extent
+imagined. We are all too prone to forget that in the days of the Great
+French Wars _all_ the crews were not jail-birds, pressed-men, and
+riff-raff. The leaven of the mass were the “prime seamen,” who, in
+their own way, were as well trained for the naval service as are the
+bluejackets of to-day.
+
+Since then the “prime seamen” have had many vicissitudes. So long ago
+as the time of the Crimean War men of ten years’ continuous service
+were in existence, but whatever the “paper” value of this force may
+have been, the extracts given in Chapter VIII, Vol. I, make it
+abundantly clear that the “prime seaman” was in practice very scarce.
+It is long since then that the long service system was built up.
+
+Under this every bluejacket was a “prime seaman” either in _posse_
+or in _esse_. He was entered for a period of ten years, with option
+to re-engage for a further ten years at slightly increased pay and a
+pension on retirement. At a later and comparatively recent stage this
+total of twenty years got increased to twenty-two years. The prospects
+were improved to the extent that the best men of the Lower Deck upon
+reaching Warrant Rank were able, towards the close of their careers, to
+reach the rank of lieutenant on the Active List. In a word, the idea of
+a Navy consisting entirely of “prime seamen” was more or less actually
+reached.
+
+This system had, however, one drawback. It was, relatively speaking,
+very expensive. When the Fisher revolution took place Economy was very
+much the motto of the day. It was pointed out that outside the Royal
+Naval Reserve, consisting of merchant seamen, no effective reserve
+existed. It was further pointed out that on board a modern battleship
+there were many duties which could just as well be performed by
+partially trained or even untrained men as by skilled men.
+
+Out of these two points (according to some critics), by using the first
+as a cloak for the economy of the second, a certain retrograde movement
+was established in the institution of the Short Service System. Under
+this the old time “landsman” was revived under another name. Under
+the Short Service System a man could enter the Navy for five years,
+receiving ordinary pay for ordinary duties, but without prospects of
+promotion or pension, except in so far as he might afterwards be
+utilised for reserve purposes.
+
+How far this scheme made for efficiency is a moot point, but it
+certainly led to economy. As certainly it was bitterly resented by
+the men of the Navy. The views of the officers on the subject of
+“ticklers”--as Short Service men were termed afloat--were less decided.
+Some considered the scheme an abomination; others thought it very
+satisfactory.
+
+With so conservative an institution as the British Navy, it is yet too
+early to give a definite decision one way or the other on the subject.
+But it is worth noting that no one seems to have remarked on the fact
+that it was a tentative return, under modern and peace conditions, to
+what obtained in the days of the Great French Wars, and then at least
+satisfactorily answered requirements.
+
+No one really knew, and no one could do more than surmise, what would
+be required for manning the Fleet in the next great war in which the
+British Navy was engaged. It was generally assumed that in the present
+century the re-institution of the press-gang would be quite impossible
+owing to public opinion.
+
+Public opinion, however, is a variable quantity, and with a Navy in
+desperate plight for men there is no saying definitely what might or
+might not happen, either publicly or _sub rosa_. It was generally
+agreed on all hands that, large as the trained _personnel_ of the
+British Navy is, it might prove totally inadequate in a big naval
+war. In such case extra men would have to be found--sentiment or no
+sentiment. The Short Service System, despite all its drawbacks, has so
+far proved a loophole to avoid the horrors of the press-gang of the
+old days; and much which on the face of it was at the time obviously
+unsatisfactory may in the future prove to have been foresight of an
+unexpectedly high order.
+
+It only remains to add that nothing of this sort has ever been advanced
+in extenuation by advocates of Short Service, who have confined
+themselves entirely to the obvious point of economy and the more or
+less debatable point of an efficient reserve.
+
+To-day, of course, the crews do not find their ships a prison; but it
+is a moot question whether they are relatively much better off than
+in Nelson’s day. A great deal of leaven is given--far more, indeed,
+than is represented by philanthropic agitators--but it is mainly of
+the nature of “short leave.” This--in these days of travel--means very
+little relatively, since it rarely allows of a trip home. For good or
+ill, the bluejacket of to-day is a “home-bird”; consequently, what
+a hundred years ago would have represented “ample liberty,” to-day
+appears much on all fours with the old time confinement to the ship.
+Modern facilities for travel have swallowed up most of the difference!
+This is among the matters not understood by the Powers That Be. The
+perspective has changed; and Service Conditions have not yet been fully
+accommodated to the alteration.
+
+Food remains a source of naval grievance to-day almost as much as in
+the days of the Great Mutiny. That it does so is mostly an inherited
+tradition of the past; for both quality and quantity are now excellent.
+An impression prevails, however, that were messing provided by the
+Admiralty on non-profit lines instead of by contract, “extras” would
+either be cheaper, or that what are now “canteen profits” on them would
+be more available than they are at present. There is little reason
+to believe that this is so. Like the purser of a hundred years ago,
+the modern contractor probably does not make a tenth of the profit
+that he is legendarily supposed to make, nor is there any clear proof
+that things could be materially bettered, except in details which have
+little or nothing to do with the main point.
+
+When all is said and done, the bluejacket of the Twentieth Century
+has always been fed as well or better than his brother in civilian
+life, and his growls upon the subject of messing do not demand any
+very serious attention. Just as the Great Mutiny of 1797 brought about
+an attention to details of uniform, regulations and things of that
+sort which have ever since endured, so it perpetuated a corresponding
+impression that an official eye must ever be directed to keeping
+messing more or less up to the mark. And that eye has never slumbered.
+
+In Chapter VIII, Vol. I, a page is devoted to surgery in the Great War
+Era. Here, as in some other matters, progress may be more real than
+imaginary. Now, as then, the Navy offers little in the way of lucrative
+inducements to a good surgeon. In one sense it offers less than it did;
+for, though exceptions can be found, the general naval conception of
+the doctor is still the old-fashioned notion of someone to cure the
+sick man rather than the more modern idea of preventing the man from
+becoming sick.
+
+The problem, it must, however, be admitted, is a difficult one in many
+ways. In peace conditions the medical staff is rather too large than
+too small; for all that, for modern war conditions it is probably
+hopelessly inadequate.
+
+It is more or less accepted that in modern battle the wounded must lie
+where they fall. Theoretically, at any rate, this is mitigated by
+certain instructions in First Aid, and the furnishing of hypodermic
+syringes to one member of each gun’s crew for use on the badly wounded.
+The days when lint was forbidden as a useless extravagance, and
+sponges were restricted for the sake of economy, have indeed gone,
+just as surely as has the old-time surgeon who, unable to afford his
+own instruments, had to borrow from the carpenter an ordinary saw to
+amputate a limb! But--relatively to shore-practice of equal date--the
+naval medical service is not much less hampered than it was a hundred
+odd years ago; and a really big naval action is likely enough to see as
+much superfluous agony (relatively speaking) as in the old days!
+
+The true position of the surgeon in a warship is not recognised; the
+official duties of a doctor are officially purely “curative,” very
+rarely “preventive.” Some or most of this is due to the prevalence
+of old-fashioned obsolete ideas in high quarters; but some also
+is to be laid at the door of the “Churches,” and their fancy for
+differentiating between diseases. The matter is not one that admits of
+further discussion here; but the enforcement upon naval surgeons (who
+have to deal with large bodies of men crowded into spaces necessarily
+favourable for contagion) of conditions which, rightly or wrongly, are
+deemed to be for the public’s ultimate welfare on shore, are a terrible
+menace to naval efficiency. Things are indeed bettering in this
+respect, but still somewhat slowly.
+
+After the Great Mutiny of 1797 the pay of the men was approximately
+trebled. Although “extras” have since been added, the normal pay
+has remained to all intents and purposes stationary, while if
+qualifications be taken into account it has actually decreased, since
+the “ordinary” of to-day is called on to do just about what the “able
+seamen” of a hundred odd years had to do.
+
+The respective rates[45] are:--
+
+  ================+============+=============
+                  |    1797    |      1914
+                  |  per week. |    per week
+                  |            |   (minimum).
+  ----------------+------------+-------------
+  Ordinary seamen |    6/6     |      8/9
+  Able seamen     |    8/4     |     11/8
+  ================+============+=============
+
+Since the cost of living has certainly gone up at least twenty per
+cent. in the interim, and since the normal increase is undoubtedly
+under that, a _prima facie_ case is certainly made out for those who
+contend that the British sailor is, if anything, worse paid than he was
+a hundred years ago.
+
+The board and lodging which he obtains of course adds to the actual
+total; but the fact remains that the board and lodging labourer of
+to-day, who takes no risks of his life, is now as much ahead of the
+sailor as he was behind him in 1797. And “uniform” means a heavy extra
+expense for clothing.
+
+In 1912 the men of the Navy definitely asked for a twenty per cent.
+increase of pay. It amounted to nothing but an adjustment of 1797
+conditions to modern ones. They did not obtain it--unasked for
+off-chances of “Democracy on the Quarter Deck” were given instead.
+Later on a 3d. a day concession was made to able seamen after the
+completion of six years’ more service.
+
+There at the moment the question remains. It has to a certain extent
+been obscured by question of naval punishments; about which a good deal
+of nonsense has been written by people who in some cases should know
+better.
+
+Naval punishments are severe; but discipline necessitates punishments,
+and these have been regularly toned down to the spirit of the age.
+The real and genuine grievances of to-day are almost identical with
+the genuine grievances of which the “prime seamen” complained in
+1797:--pay, leave, and the treatment of men who happen to come into the
+hands of the ship’s medical staff through no fault of their own.
+
+In 1912 a Commission was enquiring into punishments, and further
+reductions in them to suit modern ideas resulted; but it is by no means
+certain that any advantage in efficiency will be acquired therefrom.
+Naval Discipline--no matter how harsh--is a tricky thing to tamper
+with. The highest possible ideal of Discipline was reached by the
+Japanese, who, previous to the war with Russia, ran their Navy on “the
+honour of the flag” lines; and presumably had some similar system in
+the Army. In what is certainly the most patriotic land of our era
+this succeeded in peace time. Yet in the attacks on Port Arthur, when
+a great assault was made, when the time came to cease bombarding the
+hostile position, the guns were turned on the possible line of retreat,
+ensuring that for a man to retire was more dangerous to him than to
+go forward. In the case of the Japanese it was perhaps an unnecessary
+precaution, but it was borrowed from old-time precautionary usage in
+Europe.
+
+Every system of discipline is based on the fact that either sooner or
+later there will be some man who will be frightened enough to turn
+tail, and lead others to follow his example, unless there is something
+still worse to stop him. On this foundation stone the most seemingly
+trivial items of discipline are based.
+
+No normal man, _when it comes to the point_, cares to risk his life
+or limbs. Here and there an individual of the “don’t care” order is
+to be found; but generally speaking he is an anomaly. In the ordinary
+way the safest assumption is that he will think more of his skin
+than anything else--and on this theory all systems of discipline are
+founded. All rely on the ultimate fact that “it is worse to go back
+than to go forward.” The curse of the present age is the semi-educated
+humanitarian who criticises the _means_ (often crude enough) without
+taking the _end_ into proper account. At the other extreme are those
+who, though familiar with the story of the Russian sentry regularly
+placed to protect a favourite flower which had died two hundred years
+before, understand that there is a _reason_ for everything, but fail to
+realise fully that conditions change.
+
+Many works have been written on the tactical and strategical
+superiority of those who have led British Fleets to victory; but in
+the great majority of cases there is little to show that the majority
+of our admirals were really more clever than many of their opponents.
+He would be a bold man who set out to prove in black and white that
+Collingwood had more brain than Villeneuve, or would have done better
+than that unlucky admiral had they changed places with each other. Nor
+would he have much more luck in attempting to prove that at any era in
+history British sailors were really braver than French ones.
+
+In one critical period of English history Drake appeared--and the most
+lasting sign of “how he did it” was “spit and polish”! In another
+dark time came St. Vincent--and his sign manual was “tailoring” and
+“routine.” In yet another critical hour came Nelson who supplied
+enthusiasm by his care for the health of his men. But it was Nelson who
+went out of his way to congratulate St. Vincent on hanging mutineers
+out of hand on a Sunday instead of keeping them till the Monday! These
+three great men knew what they relied upon.
+
+The real secret of British naval success has surely lain in the
+possession of naval architects able to create the kind of ship best
+calculated to stand hammering, and hard-hearted folk in authority who
+created a discipline which, however unreasonable some of it may now
+seem, has ever ensured victory.
+
+Superior British courage then, as now, was a pleasing topic for the
+music hall or its equivalent; but the real driving power of the British
+battle fleet in the past was “discipline.” Those who to-day would amend
+or alter even the most seemingly ridiculous anomalies of discipline
+will do well to ponder and walk warily, lest they upset greater things
+than they wot of--lest they damage the keystone embodied in the crude
+words of that unknown stoker who said: “It’s just this--do your blanky
+job.”
+
+
+
+
+WARSHIP NICKNAMES
+
+PAST AND PRESENT.
+
+
+  _Achilles_              A-chilles, _also_ The Chilly
+  _Aeolus_                Oily
+  _Anson_                 Handsome
+  _Agamemnon_             Aggie, _also_ Mother Weston
+  _Alexandra_             Alex
+  _Ajax_                  Queen of Hearts
+  _Andromache_            Andrew Mark
+  _Apollo_                Pollie
+  _Ariadne_               Harry Agony, _also_ Hairy Annie
+  _Bacchante_             Boozer, _also_ Black Shanty
+  _Belleisle_             Belle-isle
+  _Bellerophon_           Bellyfull
+  _Black Prince_          British Public
+  _Brilliant_             Hair Wash
+  _Caesar_                Gripes
+  _Calliope_              Cally-ope
+  _Cambrian_              Taffy
+  _Camperdown_            Scamperdown
+  _Circe_                 Sirse
+  _Collingwood_           Collywobbles
+  _Colossus_              Costly
+  _Conqueror_             Corncurer
+  _Cornwallis_            Colliwobbles
+  _Cumberland_            Cumbersome
+  _Curacoa_               Cocoa
+  _Curlew_                Curly
+  _Cyclops_               Sickly
+  _Daphne_                Duffer
+  _Devastation_           Devy
+  _Diana_                 Die Anyhow
+  _Dido_                  Diddler
+  _Donegal_               Don’t Again
+  _Duke of Wellington_    The Dook
+  _Dreadnought_           Fearnought
+  _Endymion_              Andy Man
+  _Fantome_               Ghost
+  _Galatea_               Gal to Tea
+  _Gibraltar_             Gib
+  _Glory_                 Ruddigore
+  _Gorgon_                Guzzler
+  _Grasshopper_           Grass Bug
+  _Hannibal_              Annie Bell
+  _Hawke_                 Awkward
+  _Hecate_                Tom Cat
+  _Hercules_              Her-cules
+  _Hermione_              Hermy-one
+  _Highflyer_             Aeroplane
+  _Hindustan_             Dusty One
+  _Hogue_                 Road Hog
+  _Howe_                  Anyhow
+  _Illustrious_           Lusty
+  _Immortalité_           Immortal Light, _also_ Immorality
+  _Imperieuse_            Impy
+  _Indefatigable_         Antipon
+  _Iphigenia_             Silly Jane
+  _Isis_                  Icy
+  _Jupiter_               Jupes
+  _King Alfred_           Alfie
+  _King Edward_           Neddie, _also_ King Ned
+  _Lancaster_             Lanky
+  _Leda_                  Bleeder
+  _Lion_                  Liar, _also_ Lie On
+  _Magnificent_           Maggie
+  _Melpomene_             Melpo-mean
+  _Montagu_               Montie
+  _Narcissus_             Nasty Sister
+  _Niger_                 Nigger
+  _Nile_                  Jew
+  _Northampton_           Northo’, _also_ Bradlaugh
+  _Northumberland_        Northo’
+  _Onyx_                  Only One
+  _Pandora_               Paddler
+  _Penelope_              Penny Lope
+  _Perseus_               Percy
+  _Philomel_              Filly
+  _Polyphemus_            Polly
+  _Prince George_         P.G.
+  _Psyche_                Sue, _or_ Sukey, _also_ Sickly
+  _Queen Elizabeth_       Black Bess, _also_ Bessie, _also_ Lizzie
+  _Ramillies_             Mutton Chop
+  _Rattlesnake_           Ratto
+  _Repulse_               Beecham
+  _Resolution_            Reso
+  _Royal Sovereign_       Royal Quid
+  _Salamander_            Sally and her Ma
+  _Sanspareil_            San Pan
+  _Scylla_                Silly
+  _Seagull_               Gull
+  _Sheldrake_             Shell Out
+  _St. Vincent_           Saint
+  _Sutlej_                Suble J.
+  _Tartar_                Emetic
+  _Téméraire_             Temmy
+  _Terrible_              Orrible
+  _Undaunted_             Dauntless
+  _Yarmouth_              Lunatic
+  _Warspite_              War Spider
+
+_Note._--From time to time Nicknames vary, as occasionally they are
+bestowed by other ships. This list is not quite complete on that
+account.
+
+
+
+
+FOOTNOTES
+
+
+[1] Most of the criticism past and present of the Barnaby era is
+rendered worthless by an ignoring of this report.
+
+[2] This is instanced by the increasing ahead fire given to the
+broadside ironclads.
+
+[3] _Our Ironclad Ships._
+
+[4] In this connection see _Imperieuse_ and _Warspite_ later on.
+
+[5] _Naval Developments of the Century_, by Sir N. Barnaby, pp. 163–164.
+
+[6] Re-designed to give extra protection.
+
+[7] _See_ Reed Era.
+
+[8] In the Chili-Peruvian War--as late as 1879–81--a torpedo fired from
+the _Huascar_ did this.
+
+[9] The full report is to be found in Part IV of _Brassey’s Naval
+Annual_, 1888–9.
+
+[10] It is worthy of note that these ships were abnormally
+“over-gunned” according to the ideas which were then in official
+favour, and which, later on, came more into favour still. The same
+applies to the _Arethusa_ class.
+
+[11] It is interesting to note that the Laird firm, who built the
+_Rattlesnake_, which was easily the fastest of her class, made her
+engines considerably heavier than Admiralty specifications. For this
+they were fined £1,000, which sum, however, was remitted after the
+brilliant success of the ship in the manœuvres above referred to.
+
+[12] Mr. W. T. Stead, who edited the _Pall Matt Gazette_ at that time,
+intimated some twenty years later that Lord Fisher was behind him in
+commencing the agitation. Lord Charles Beresford, then in political
+life, brought the Bill forward.
+
+[13] In 1899 the _Blake_ was re-boilered. The ships remained upon the
+effective list till 1906, when they were converted into sea-going depot
+ships for destroyers, most of their guns being removed. They now carry
+each 670 tons of coal of their own, and 470 tons stowed in one cwt.
+bags for use by destroyers.
+
+[14] This ship very greatly exceeded her nominal displacement of 14,200
+tons. She was actually 15,400 tons. The essentially White ships were,
+on the other hand, of about their nominal displacement. Of the _Hood_
+it may further be added that she was greatly inferior to the others as
+a sea-boat--a serious set-off against her superior big gun protection.
+
+[15] 4 _Astræas_ = 8--6in., 16--4.7. 5 _Apollos_ = 10--6in., 15--4.7
+
+[16] The _Lynch_ and _Condell_ (launched 1890) sank the Chilian _Blanco
+Encalada_ in 1891; the _G. Sampaio_ (1893) the Brazilian _Aquidaban_ in
+1894.
+
+[17] In 1894 the _Thunderer_ had her upper works painted in black and
+white chequers, like the old three-deckers of the Nelson era. Ships
+with the top of their upper works yellow were also not uncommon.
+
+[18] About 1902–3 four additional casemates for 6-inch guns were added
+on top of the four amidship casemates.
+
+[19] The large tube Yarrow, now so general, did not appear till at a
+later date.
+
+[20] Comparatively recently a ship--best left unnamed--made wonderful
+speed. With a new Engineer Commander she suddenly lost 25 per cent. of
+her horse-power. The newcomer was rather inexperienced in the type, and
+closely followed Admiralty regulations. Presently the ship recovered
+her power--he had given up following the book! It is only fair to
+say that the restrictive regulations of the Admiralty were mostly
+forced upon them by people ashore, who probably had not even a nodding
+acquaintance with the engine-room of a warship, or warship requirements.
+
+[21] This idea was borrowed from the Continent. Germany had long
+adopted batteries, and nearly every other nation had followed suit.
+
+[22] Also under Naval Defence Act an additional sum of £10,000,000,
+spread over seven years.
+
+[23] The _Nelsons_ were delayed in completion, as the 12-inch guns made
+for them were appropriated for the _Dreadnought_, in order to ensure
+rapid completion of that ship.
+
+[24] To some extent this is probably true of slower firing of larger
+guns. The only warships with single 12-inch--the Italian _Victor
+Emanuele_ class--have generally achieved almost as many hits at target
+practice as the _Brine_, with two pairs of 12-inch. Improved mountings
+have since appeared, but certain advantages still seem inevitable to
+the single gun. Its disadvantage lies, of course, in much extra weight,
+and to-day in the space question also.
+
+[25] Armament recently altered to 9--4 inch.
+
+[26] They had a bow tube besides broadside tubes. This bow tube was
+soon done away with and a couple of 6-pounders substituted.
+
+[27] The vessels of the _Amalfi_ class designed by Col. Cuniberti in
+1899 were of 8,000 tons displacement; they were to have been armed with
+twelve 203-m/m (8-inch), twelve 76-m/m (12-pounders), and twelve 47-m/m
+(3-pounders). The armour belt was 152-m/m (6-inches) thick, as also was
+the armour of the battery and of the turrets. The engines were to be
+19,000 H.P., and the speed with 15,000 H.P. was to be 22 knots.
+
+[28] The _Vittorio Emanuele_ proved a most successful ship, answering
+all expectations of her. One of her chief novelties was the employment
+of a special girder construction, and the scientific reduction of
+all superfluous weights upon a scale never before attempted. Though
+apparently lightly built the ship was found to be abnormally strong.
+
+[29] The false impression that a British battleship could be built in
+about a third of the time that German ships take to construct had far
+more to do with subsequent shipbuilding reductions than any deliberate
+ignoring of naval needs, such as those responsible were accused of.
+
+[30] They first appeared, as already recorded, in British cruisers
+of the _Minotaur_ class. Their safety record is to be found in the
+survival of the _Pallada_ at Port Arthur; their inconvenience in the
+fact that in the _Neptune_ they were abandoned.
+
+[31] These were announced as intended to carry four 12-inch and eight
+10-inch, besides smaller guns. The 10-inch proved later on to be
+mythical.
+
+[32] American scientific gunnery rather post-dates the _South Carolina_
+design.
+
+[33] It should be remembered that alterations were made in the
+_Invincible_ class in the course of construction, and this probably
+helped to swell the cost.
+
+[34] In the Chinese ships _Ting Yuen_ and _Chen Yuen_, built in Germany
+in 1882 with big guns _en échelon_, the former had the port big guns
+foremost, the latter the starboard ones--presumably an appreciation
+of and an attempt to overcome the inherent defect of the échelon
+system--the two ships being intended to fight in company, and so have
+one of the two always in the best fighting position were the enemy
+anywhere on the beam or quarter.
+
+[35] The torpedo, for example, may possibly bring about something
+of the sort by a state of speed and accuracy which leads to heavy
+or anticipated heavy long-range losses from it in fleet actions. To
+offer only one-fifth or so of the target would then be a serious
+consideration.
+
+[36] This is rumoured to have been abandoned for oil fuel.
+
+[37] Something of the same kind was also observed about 1870 or
+earlier, when a Whitworth gun punched through a 6-inch iron plate!
+
+[38] Since these words were written the _Lusitania_ has been torpedoed.
+I see no reason whatever to alter the original thesis.
+
+[39] Dean Swift in “Gulliver’s Travels” described almost exactly the
+moons of Mars long before their existence was ever suspected.
+
+[40] Of these, the third in either case was built or put together in
+Australia.
+
+[41] Now renamed _Zelandia_.
+
+[42] In May, 1912, the _New Zealand_ was definitely handed over to the
+British Navy. The _Australia_ still remains a Commonwealth ship.
+
+[43] See Vol. I., Chap. III. No less a man than Sir Francis Drake
+appears to have invented “spit and polish.”
+
+[44] See Vol. I., page 194.
+
+[45] The minimum is given in each case.
+
+
+
+
+Index.
+
+
+  Aboukir, Battle of, 152, v. i
+
+  Abuses, Naval, 65, v. i
+
+  Acquitaine, 11, v. i
+
+  Admiral Bacon’s Theory, 204, v. ii
+
+  Admiral Hopkins--Earliest Advocate of Centre-Line in England, 179, v.
+        ii
+
+  Aerial Bombs First Provided Against, 173, v. ii
+
+  Aerial Dreadnoughts, 171, v. ii
+
+  Aerial Experiments in Austria, 228, v. ii
+
+  Aerial Guns, 226, v. ii
+
+  Aeroplanes for Naval Purposes, 226, v. ii
+
+  Agreement with the Colonies, Naval, 237, v. ii
+
+  Aircraft, Possibilities of, 95, v. i
+
+  Aircraft, Potentialities in, 228, v. i
+
+  Alexander, 162, v. i
+
+  Alexandria, 163, v. i
+
+  Alfred the Great, 1, 14, v. i
+
+  Alfred, King, 60, 73, v. i
+
+  Algiers, 59, v. i
+
+  All-Big-Gun Ship Arguments, 143, v. ii
+
+  Alterations to “Lion,” 185, v. ii
+
+  Alternative “Dreadnought” Ideal, 165, v. ii
+
+  Alva, Duke of, 48, v. i
+
+  American Colonies Revolution, 124, v. i
+
+  American Frigates, 189, v. i
+
+  Americanising of British Naval Designs, 176, v. ii
+
+  American Monitors and Conning Towers, 272, v. i
+
+  American Monitors, limitations of, 292, v. i
+
+  American Navy, 189, v. i
+
+  American War, 189, v. i
+
+  Amiens, Peace of, 163, v. i
+
+  Anson, Commodore, 109, v. i
+
+  “Answer” British, to frégates blindées, 249, v. i
+
+  Antigua, 172, v. i
+
+  Antwerp, 183, v. i
+
+  Appreciation of Barnaby, 49, v. ii
+
+  Arch Duke Charles, 98, v. i
+
+  Archers, English, 27, v. i
+
+  Armada, Defeat of, 57, v. i
+
+  Armada, Delayed, 48, v. i
+
+  Armada, Force of, 49, v. i
+
+  Armada, Indifferent Gunnery of, 50, v. i
+
+  Armada, Real History of, 57, v. i
+
+  Armament, Ratio of Size, 95, v. i
+
+  Armed Neutrality, The, 161, v. i
+
+  Armour, 204, v. ii
+
+  Armoured Cruisers Re-appear, 101, v. ii
+
+  Armour Experiments at Woolwich, 219, v. i
+
+  Armoured Forecastles, 284, v. i
+
+  Armoured Scouts, 197, v. ii
+
+  Armstrong and Percussion Shell, 227, v. i
+
+  “Army of Invasion,” 170, v. i
+
+  Articles of War, 11, v. i
+
+  Artificial Ventilation, 225, v. i
+
+  Armstrong, Guns of, 241, v. i
+
+  Artillery, Superior, 229, v. i
+
+  Assize of Arms, The, 10, v. i
+
+  Athelston, 7, v. i
+
+  Australia, Navy of, 233, v. ii
+
+  Auxiliary Navies, 231, v. ii
+
+
+  Battle of Trafalgar, 177, v. i
+
+  Belle Island Captured, 122, v. i
+
+  Berwick Captured by French (1795), 138, v. i
+
+  Blockade, Scientific, First Instituted, 120, v. i
+
+  Blockade Work, 165, v. i
+
+  Bomb Dropping, 226, 228, v. ii
+
+  Bombs from Airships, 228, v. ii
+
+  Bomb Vessels Introduced, 87, v. i
+
+  Bonaparte (see Napoleon), 230, v. i
+
+  Bordelais Captured, 158, v. i
+
+  Boscawen, 120, v. i
+
+  Boswell, Invention of, 107, v. i
+
+  Bounty, 200, v. i
+
+  Bounty, Given by Henry VII, 36, v. i
+
+  Bounty to Seamen, 234, v. i
+
+  Bourbon, Isle of, Captured, 185, v. i
+
+  Box-Battery Ironclads, 318, v. i
+
+  Brading, Battle of, 5, v. i
+
+  Breaking the Line, First Attempt at, 128, v. i
+
+  Breaking the Line by Rodney, 129, v. i
+
+  Breastwork Monitors, 292, 307, 308, v. i
+
+  Breech Blocks, Elementary, 320, v. i
+
+  Breechloaders, Armstrongs, 320, v. i
+
+  Brest, 157, v. i
+
+  Brest, Cornwallis off, 172, v. i
+
+  Bridport, 139, v. i
+
+  Brig Sloop of 18 Guns, 178, v. i
+
+  British Battle Fleet, 257, v. i
+
+  British Defects in the Crimean War, 234, v. i
+
+  British Empire, an English-Speaking Confederation, 241, v. ii
+
+  British Flag, 75, v. i
+
+  British and French Ideals, 249, v. i
+
+  British v. French Ships Discussed in Parliament, 37, v. i
+
+  British Guns, 232, v. i
+
+  British Merchant Ships Trade with Russia During War, 186, v. i
+
+  British Methods of Warfare, 41, v. i
+
+  British Navy, Birth of, 34, v. i
+
+  British Squadron, Defeat of, 186, v. i
+
+  British Tactics, 231, v. i
+
+  Broadside Ironclads, 257, v. i
+
+  Broke, Captain, 189, v. i
+
+  Brown, Samuel, Invents a Propeller (1825), 216, v. i
+
+  Bruat, 234, v. i
+
+  Brueys, 152, v. i
+
+  Bruix, 154, v. i
+
+  Buckingham, Duke of, 65, v. i
+
+  Bullivant Torpedo Defence, 53, v. ii
+
+  Burchett, 92, v. i
+
+  Burgoyne, Alan H., 59, v. i
+
+  Burgoyne, Captain, 288, v. i
+
+  Bushnell, David, and his Submarine, 124, v. i
+
+  Busk, Hans, 237, v. i
+
+  Busses, 11, v. i
+
+  Byng, 99, v. i
+
+  Byng, Shot, 116, v. i
+
+
+  Cadiz, 171, v. i
+
+  Cadiz, Collingwood off, 175, v. i
+
+  Calais, 27, 30, 33, v. i
+
+  Colder, 172, v. i
+
+  Calcutta, Recapture of (1757), 119, v. i
+
+  Calypso, 237, v. ii
+
+  Campaign of Trafalgar (Corbett), 170, v. i
+
+  Camperdown, Battle of, 150, v. i
+
+  Canada Acquired by England, 123, v. i
+
+  Canadian Dockyards, 237, v. ii
+
+  Canadian Navy, 237, v. ii
+
+  Cannon, Early, 38, v. i
+
+  Cannon, First use of, 29, v. i
+
+  Canute, 8, v. i
+
+  Cape St. Vincent, Battle of (1759), 121, v. i
+
+  “Capital Ship” Adjusts Itself, 218, v. ii
+
+  Capital Ship, Galley Replaced by Galleon, 27, v. i
+
+  Cape La Hogue, Battle of, 90, v. i
+
+  Capraja, “Queen Charlotte” blown up off (1880), 160, v. i
+
+  “Captain,” Nelson in, 142, v. i
+
+  Carronades, 129, v. i
+
+  Carronades, Part of Armament, 201, v. i
+
+  Cartagena, Vernon Fails at, 109, v. i
+
+  Catapults, 15, 30, 38, v. i
+
+  Catherine the Great, 154, v. i
+
+  Cayenne Captured, 184, v. i
+
+  Cellular Construction, 267, v. i
+
+  Central Africa, 232, v. ii
+
+  Central Battery Ironclads, 292, v. i
+
+  Centre-line, System, 179, v. ii
+
+  Cerberus, 232, v. ii
+
+  Cette, 103, v. i
+
+  Chads, Captain and Gunnery Experiments, 220, v. i
+
+  Chads, Captain, 223, v. i
+
+  Chagres Bombarded, 109, v. i
+
+  Channel Policed, 10, v. i
+
+  Channel Protected by Merchants, 33, v. i
+
+  Chappel, Captain, 215, v. i
+
+  Charles I, 65, v. i
+
+  Charles II, 81, v. i
+
+  Charles, Prince, 73, v. i
+
+  Charring, 107, v. i
+
+  Charter of Ethelred, 8, v. i
+
+  Chartres, Duke of, 126, v. i
+
+  Chateau, Renault, 96, v. i
+
+  Chatham, Earl of, 183, v. i
+
+  Christian VII, 180, v. i
+
+  Cinque Ports, 22, 29, 35, v. i
+
+  Cinque Ports Established, 10, v. i
+
+  Civil War, 75, v. i
+
+  Claxton, Captain, 215, v. i
+
+  Clive, 119, v. i
+
+  Clothing, 65, v. i
+
+  Clydebank, 188, v. ii
+
+  Coal, Larger Store of, Affects
+
+  Construction, 263, v. i
+
+  Coal Stores, 185, v. ii
+
+  “Coastals,” 199, v. ii
+
+  “Coastal Destroyers,” 199, v. ii
+
+  Coast Defence Ironclads, 199, v. ii
+
+  Coat of Mail Idea, 249, v. i
+
+  Cockpit, Horrors of, 204, v. i
+
+  Cochrane, Lord, and Fire Ships, 183, v. i
+
+  Cochrane Opposes Vote of Thanks to Lord Gambier, 183, v. i
+
+  Code of Naval Discipline, 12, v. i
+
+  Colonials and Local Defence, 237, v. ii
+
+  Colour Experiments, 89, v. ii
+
+  Command of the Sea (First Appearance of), 75, v. i
+
+  Commerce Defence, 75, v. i
+
+  Commission, Report of (1806), 187, v. i
+
+  Compass, 12, v. i
+
+  Coles, Captain Cowper, 272, v. i
+
+  Coles, Captain, 280, v. i
+
+  Coles, 275, v. i
+
+  Coles, Captain, 284, v. i
+
+  Collingwood Incompetent, 202, v. i
+
+  Collingwood, Resignation of, 148, v. i
+
+  Colomb, Admiral, Quoted, 53, v. i
+
+  Communication Tube, First for
+
+  Conning Tower, 318, v. i
+
+  Conflict Between Steam and Gas Engines, 201, v. ii
+
+  Congreve Rocket, 236, v. i
+
+  Conning Towers in American Monitors, 272, v. i
+
+  Constantinople Bombarded, 179, v. i
+
+  Continuous Service, 251, v. ii
+
+  Contractors, Unscrupulous, 65, v. i
+
+  Contemporary Art, 195, v. i
+
+  Contraband of War, 161, v. i
+
+  Contract-Built Ships First Advocated, 280, v. i
+
+  Controller of the Navy and Constructor, Disputes Between, 258, v. i
+
+  Converted Ironclads, 257, 258, v. i
+
+  Convoys, 92, v. i
+
+  Cook, Captain, 115, v. i
+
+  Copper Bottoms, 123, v. i
+
+  Copper Bottoms, Rapid Deterioration of, 129, v. i
+
+  Copenhagen, 161, v. i
+
+  Cornwall, Captain, 108, v. i
+
+  Cornwallis off Brest, 172, v. i
+
+  Cornwallis, 139, v. i
+
+  Corsairs, 91, 102, v. i
+
+  Cost per Gun for Sailing Man-of-War, 238, v. i
+
+  Cost per Gun for Steamers, 238, v. i
+
+  Cotton, Sir Charles, 184, v. i
+
+  Crimean War, British Defects in, 237, v. i
+
+  Crimean War, the British Navy in: Little Better than a Paper Force,
+        228, v. i
+
+  Cromwell, 73, v. i
+
+  Cronstadt, 226, v. i
+
+  Cross Raiding, 75, v. i
+
+  Cruisers of the Super-Dreadnought Era, 188, v. ii
+
+  Crusaders, 10, v. i
+
+  “Conditional” Ships, 174, v. ii
+
+  Cost of Oak, 132, v. i
+
+  Cost per Gun for Early Ironclads, 238, v. i
+
+  Cumberland, Inventor of Stoving, 107, v. i
+
+  Cuniberti, 179, v. ii
+
+  Cuniberti’s Conception of All Big-Gun ships, 139, v. ii
+
+  Curtis, Captain of the Fleet, 136, v. i
+
+  Curtiss Aeroplane, 226, v. ii
+
+  Curtiss Turbines, 196, v. ii
+
+  Cutting Out Expeditions Instituted, 41, v. i
+
+
+  Daedalus, 221, v. ii
+
+  “Dandy” Captains, 195, v. i
+
+  “Dandy” Sailors, 195, v. i
+
+  Danes, 1, v. i
+
+  Danish Fleet Surrendered, 162, v. i
+
+  Danish Ships Hired, 5, v. i
+
+  Darien, 108, v. i
+
+  Dawkins, Captain, 299, v. i
+
+  Dean, Sir Anthony, 94, v. i
+
+  Dean, Sir John, 94, v. i
+
+  Decline of the Navy, 43, v. i
+
+  De Conflans, 121, v. i
+
+  Defects of the échelon System, 179, v. ii
+
+  Defects of the “Royal Sovereigns,” 69, v. ii
+
+  De la Clue, 120, v. i
+
+  Delegates of Mutineers, 147, v. i
+
+  “Democracy on the Quarter Deck,” 257, v. ii
+
+  De Pontis, 102, v. i
+
+  De Witt, 79, v. i
+
+  Deptford Yard, 107, v. i
+
+  De Ruyter, 85, v. i
+
+  D’Estaing, 126, v. i
+
+  D’Estrees, 85, v. i
+
+  Descharges, Inventor of Portholes, 38, v. i
+
+  Destroyer Attack Bound to Succeed, 195, v. ii
+
+  Destroyers in the Dreadnought Era, 199, v. ii
+
+  De Tourville, 90, v. i
+
+  Devastation idea evolved, 232, v. ii
+
+  Devonport Yard, 191, v. ii
+
+  Dibden (ref.), 34, v. i
+
+  Diesel Engine, 201, v. ii
+
+  Dirigibles, 222, v. ii
+
+  Discipline, 20, v. i; 258, v. ii
+
+  Discipline, Jervis Idea of, 141, v. i
+
+  Discipline, Lack of, in time of Charles I, 66, v. i
+
+  Disputes Between the Controller of the Navy and Constructor, 258, v. i
+
+  Doctors, Naval, 256, v. ii
+
+  Dominion of Canada, 234, v. ii
+
+  D’Orvilliers, 125, v. i
+
+  Double Bottoms, 267, v. i
+
+  Dover, 219, v. i
+
+  Downs, Battle in (1639), 76, v. i
+
+  Drake, Character of, 48, v. i
+
+  Drake, Sir Francis, 47, v. i
+
+  Drake, Methods of, 48, v. i; 259, v. ii
+
+  Dreadnought (analogy), 69, v. i
+
+  Dreadnought, first idea of, 164, v. ii
+
+  Dromons, 33, v. i
+
+  Dropping Bombs, 226, v. ii
+
+  Dry Dock, First, 35, v. i
+
+  Dubourdieu, 186, v. i
+
+  Du Casse, 97, v. i
+
+  Ducas, 234, v. i
+
+  Duchess of Bedford and Uniform, 194, v. i
+
+  Ducking, 12, v. i
+
+  Duckworth, Sir John, 179, v. i
+
+  Duguay-Trouin, 92, 177, v. i
+
+  Dumanoir, 177, v. i
+
+  Duncan, 147, v. i
+
+  Dundonald, Earl of (Cochrane), 216, v. i
+
+  Dutch Fleet Captured by Anglo-Russian Force, 159, v. i
+
+  Dutch War, First, 75, v. i
+
+  Dutch War, Second, 81, v. i
+
+  Dutch War, Third, 83, v. i
+
+
+  Eagle attacked by Submarine, 124, v. i
+
+  Earliest Advocate of the centre-line in England, Admiral Hopkins,
+        179, v. ii
+
+  Early Aerial Ideas, 218, v. ii
+
+  Early Wire Guns, 247, v. i
+
+  Economists Limit Lint and Sponges, 207, v. i
+
+  Economists on Shore, 201, v. i
+
+  Economy, 36, 114, v. i
+
+  Economy in Construction, 97, v. i
+
+  Edgar, 7, v. i
+
+  Edmund, 7, v. i
+
+  Edward I, 22, v. i
+
+  Edward II, 23, v. i
+
+  Edward III, 23, v. i
+
+  Edward IV, 33, v. i
+
+  Edward the Confessor, 8, v. i
+
+  Effects of Shell Fire, 219, v. i
+
+  Egyptian Government, 232, v. ii
+
+  Electro, 219, v. i
+
+  Elementary Quickfirers, 243, v. i
+
+  Elizabeth, 73, v. i
+
+  Elizabeth, First Acts of, 44, v. i
+
+  Elizabethan Fleet, 73, v. i
+
+  Elphinstone, Captain in Russian Navy, 154, v. i
+
+  Elswick, 227, v. i; 232, v. ii
+
+  End-on Fire, 176, v. ii
+
+  End-on Idea, 179, v. ii
+
+  End of the White Era, 116, v. ii
+
+  Engineer Agitation, 247, v. ii
+
+  Engines of “Glatton” built in Royal Dockyard, 311, v. i
+
+  England, Austria, and Sweden at war, 180, v. i
+
+  “Equal Efficiency,” 215, v. ii
+
+  Ericsson, 272, v. i
+
+  Ericsson Patents Propeller (1836), 216, v. i
+
+  Espagnols-sur-Mer, Les, 29, v. i
+
+  Ethelred’s Navy, 8, v. i
+
+  Excellence of the “Warrior” Class, 121, v. ii
+
+  Experiments, Gunnery, 219, v. i
+
+  Experiments to Improve Sailing Ships, 211, v. i
+
+  “Explosion” Vessels, 182, v. i
+
+  Eustace the Monk, 21, v. i
+
+
+  Feeding of Men During Great War, 200, v. i
+
+  Ferrol, 96, 172, v. i
+
+  Fight--Shannon (British) v. Chesapeake (U.S.), 189, v. i
+
+  Finisterre, 172, v. i
+
+  Finisterre, Rodney off, 127, v. i
+
+  Fire, Raking, 211, v. i
+
+  Fire Ships, 54, 84, 182, v. i
+
+  Fire Ships, Decline of, 131, v. i
+
+  Fireworks, Use of, 69, v. i
+
+  First English Over-Sea Voyage, 11, v. i
+
+  First of June, Battle of, 135, v. i
+
+  First Ship of Royal Navy, 35, v. i
+
+  Fisher, Admiral Lord, 247, v. ii
+
+  Flag, Neutral, 161, v. i
+
+  Fleet Decoyed Away, 172, v. i
+
+  Fleet Saved by a Military Officer, 103, v. i
+
+  Fleet of Richard I, 10, v. i
+
+  Floating Batteries, First Use of, 130, v. i
+
+  Florida Acquired by England, 123, v. i
+
+  Flotilla, 163, v. i
+
+  Flotilla Invasion, 166, v. i
+
+  Flushing Blockaded, 183, v. i
+
+  Food, 65, v. i; 254, v. ii
+
+  Forecastle, Armoured, 284, v. i
+
+  Forecastles on Turret Ships, 284, v. i
+
+  Fort, S. Phillip, 116, v. i
+
+  Frames, Trussed, Introduced, 210, v. i
+
+  France, Why Beaten in Great War, 233, v. i
+
+  France, War with, 37, 113, v. i
+
+  Frégates Blindées, 247, 250, v. i
+
+  French Fleet in Crimean War, 230, v. i
+
+  French and British Ideals, 253, v. i
+
+  French Warships, Superb Qualities of, 92, v. i
+
+  French Fleet Superior to British, 193, v. i
+
+  French Floating Batteries, 225, v. i
+
+  French Revolution, 132, v. i
+
+  Freya, Danish Frigate, Captured, 159, v. i
+
+  Frisians, 5, v. i
+
+  “Fulton” Driven by steam Paddle, 193, v. i
+
+  Future Fights, 215, v. ii
+
+
+  “Galatea” Fitted with Paddles, 213, v. i
+
+  Galleon as Dreadnought of the 14th Century, 27, v. i
+
+  Galley, Replaced as Capital Ship, 27, v. i
+
+  Gambier, Admiral, 179, v. i
+
+  Gambier, Lack of Energy of, 182, v. i
+
+  Gambier, Lord, Acquitted, 183, v. i
+
+  Gambier, Lord, Vote of Thanks to Opposed by Cochrane, 183, v. i
+
+  Gambling, Punishment for, 12, v. i
+
+  Ganteaume, 163, v. i
+
+  Ganteaume, Admiral Escapes from Rochefort, 181, v. i
+
+  Garay, Inventor of Steamship, (1543), 214, v. i
+
+  Genereux Captured by Nelson, 160, v. i
+
+  Genius of Famous Admirals, 216, v. ii
+
+  Genoa, Hotham’s Battle of, 138, v. i
+
+  Gentlemen Adventurers, 45, v. i
+
+  George I, 104, v. i
+
+  George II, 107, v. i
+
+  George II and Institution of Uniform, 194, v. i
+
+  German Seamen, 233, v. i
+
+  Germans Agitate for British Naval Efficiency, 231, v. i
+
+  Germany, 233, v. i
+
+  Germany (analogy), 65, v. i
+
+  Germany, Guns from, 43, v. i
+
+  Gibraltar, 130, 172, v. i
+
+  Gibraltar, Nelson at, 172, v. i
+
+  Glasgow, “Black Prince,” Built at, 250, v. i
+
+  Globe Circumnavigated by Drake, 45, v. i
+
+  Godwin, 9, v. i
+
+  Good Hope, Cape Dutch Squadron Captured at, 141, v. i
+
+  Graham, Sir James, 236, v. i
+
+  Grasse, De, 129, v. i
+
+  Greek Fire, 15, 243, v. i
+
+  Guadaloup Captured, 137, 185, v. i
+
+  Guarda-Costas, 108, v. i
+
+  Guerre de Course, 102, v. i
+
+  Guichen, 128, v. i
+
+  Guillaume Tell Captured, 161, v. i
+
+  Gunners, Training of, 241, v. i
+
+  Gunnery, Enemy’s Inefficiency of, 176, v. i
+
+  Gunnery Errors, 179, v. ii
+
+  Gunnery Experiments, 231, v. ii
+
+  Guns Against Aircraft, 226, v. ii
+
+  Guns, British, 232, v. i
+
+  Guns in the Reed Era, 319, v. i
+
+  Guns in Submarine, 212, v. ii
+
+  Guns of the Watts Era, 202, v. ii
+
+  Guns, Pivot, 272, v. i
+
+  Guns, Rapid Fire, Development of, 227, v. i
+
+  Guns, Turkish Monster, 179, v. i
+
+
+  Hales, Dr., Ventilation System of, 115, v. i
+
+  Hamelin, 234, v. i
+
+  Hampden, John, 73, v. i
+
+  Hanniken, 28, v. i
+
+  Hardcastle Torpedo, 204, v. ii
+
+  Hardy, Sir Charles, 127, v. i
+
+  Harvey-Nickel Armour Introduced, 99, v. ii
+
+  Hawkins, 46, v. i
+
+  Hawthorn, 188, v. ii
+
+  “Heavier than Air,” 221, v. ii
+
+  Heavy Rolling of the “Orion,” 183, v. ii
+
+  Henry II, 10, v. i
+
+  Henry III, 20, v. i
+
+  Henry IV, 30, v. i
+
+  Henry V, 33, v. i
+
+  Henry VII, 34, v. i
+
+  Henry VIII, 37, v. i
+
+  “Hermione,” Mutiny in, 145, v. i
+
+  Hickley, Captain, 299, v. i
+
+  Hire of Danish Ships, 8, v. i
+
+  Hired Ships, 28, 33, 36, v. i
+
+  Holy Land, 11, v. i
+
+  Hood, 130, 137, v. i
+
+  Hopkins, Admiral, Ideas of, 134, v. ii
+
+  Horsey, Admiral de, 322, v. i
+
+  Hoste, Captain William, 186, v. i
+
+  Hotham, 138, v. i
+
+  Howard, Sir Edward, 41, v. i
+
+  Howe, 134, v. i
+
+  Hubert de Burgh, 20, v. i
+
+  Hurrying Ships, 185, v. ii
+
+  Hyeres, Battle of, 138, v. i
+
+
+  Icarus, 218, v. ii
+
+  Imperial British Fleet, 241, v. ii
+
+  Imperial Needs, 237, v. ii
+
+  Impressment, 234, v. i
+
+  Increased Gun-Power, 203, v. ii
+
+  Increased Smashing Power of Projectiles, 175, v. ii
+
+  Indecisiveness in British Operations, 137, v. i
+
+  Indies, Spanish Wealth from, 47, v. i
+
+  Inexperienced Officers, 233, v. i
+
+  “Inflexible” at the Nore Mutiny, 147, v. i
+
+  Inman, Dr., 187, v. i
+
+  Inscription, Maritime, 233, v. i
+
+  Instructors, Spanish, in English Navy, 42, v. i
+
+  “Insular Spirit,” 5, 73, 82, v. i
+
+  Insurance, 206, v. ii
+
+  Internal Armour, 206, v. ii
+
+  Introduction of Steam, 214, v. i
+
+  Introduction of 13.5-inch Gun, 175, v. ii
+
+  Invasion, 30, 163, v. i
+
+  Invasion, Nelson’s Schemes Against, 161, v. i
+
+  Invasion of England, 47, 119, v. i
+
+  Invasion Projected by French, 91, v. i
+
+  Ironclads, Converted, 257, 263, v. i
+
+  Ironclads, The First British, 249, v. i
+
+  Ironclad Ships, 229, v. i
+
+  Iron for Shipbuilding Instead of Oak, 219, v. i
+
+  Iron-plated Ships, 237, v. i
+
+  Iron Ships Condemned (1850), 223, v. i
+
+  Iron Steamer Existed in 1821, 219, v. i
+
+  Island Empires, 6, v. i
+
+
+  Jacobite Element in the Fleet, 88, v. i
+
+  Jacobite Rising, 105, v. i
+
+  James I, 59, v. i
+
+  James II, 86, v. i
+
+  James Watt, 236, v. i
+
+  Jarrow, 232, v. i
+
+  Java, Isle of, Captured, 187, v. i
+
+  Jean Bart, 92, v. i
+
+  Jervis, Sir John, 141, v. i
+
+  Jews, 209, v. i
+
+  John, King, 16, 30, 60, v. i
+
+  Juan, Fernandez, 110, v. i
+
+  Julius Cæsar, 1, v. i
+
+  Junction of the Fleets, 98, v. i
+
+
+  “Kamptulicon,” 219, v. i
+
+  Keel-Hauling, 12, v. i
+
+  “Keeping the Air,” 227, v. ii
+
+  Keith, 154, 163, v. i
+
+  Keppel, 125, v. i
+
+  Killala Bay, French Expedition to, 151, v. i
+
+  Kinburn Bombarded, 225, 248, v. i
+
+  Kipling (ref.), 34, v. i
+
+  Kronstadt, 162, v. i
+
+  Kronstadt, Anglo-Danish Demonstration at, 107, v. i
+
+  Krupp Fire, Shell, 244, v. i
+
+
+  La Gallisonnier, 116, v. i
+
+  “Labour” and the Navy, 207, v. ii
+
+  Lagane, 204, v. ii
+
+  Laird, Messrs., of Birkenhead, 284, 288, v. i
+
+  Laird, 321, v. i; 186, v. ii
+
+  Lalande de Joinville, 234, v. i
+
+  Lancaster Guns, 227, v. i
+
+  “Lancaster,” The, at Camperdown, 150, v. i
+
+  “Landsmen,” 252, v. ii
+
+  La Rochelle, 30, v. i
+
+  La Rochelle, Expedition to, in time of Charles I, 66, v. i
+
+  “Last Word,” 258, v. i
+
+  Latouche-Treville, 169, v. i
+
+  Laughton, Professor, Quoted, 50, v. i
+
+  Laughton’s, Professor, Summary, 176, v. i
+
+  Laws of Oberon, 17, v. i
+
+  Leake, Sir John, 101, v. i
+
+  Leave, 254, v. ii
+
+  Legends of Floating Rocks, 218, v. ii
+
+  Leissegues, Vice-Admiral, 177, v. i
+
+  Louisbourg Invested (1758), 119, v. i
+
+  “Lighter than Air,” 221, v. ii
+
+  Linois, 163, v. i
+
+  Liquid Fire, Norton’s, 243, v. i
+
+  Lisbon, 102, v. i
+
+  Lissa, Battle of, 186, 300, v. i
+
+  Little Englanders, 73, v. i
+
+  Lloyd, 237, v. i
+
+  Loading, Greater Rapidity in, 231, v. i
+
+  London, Citizens of, Fit out Fleet Against Spain, 48, v. i
+
+  London, Dutch Guns heard in, 83, v. i
+
+  Longridge, C. E., 244, v. i
+
+  Lord Charles Beresford, 195, v. ii
+
+  Lord of the Sea, 22, v. i
+
+  Lorient, French Squadron, break-out of, 188, v. i
+
+  Lorient, Partial Battle of (1795), 139, v. i
+
+  Loss of the “Victoria,” 39, v. ii
+
+  Louis Napoleon, 230, v. i
+
+  Lower Deck, The, 97, v. i
+
+  Lowestoft, 207, v. ii
+
+
+  Machine of Meerlers, 90, v. i
+
+  Macintosh, 226, v. i
+
+  Maderia Captured, 180, v. i
+
+  Maintenance Allowance Increased, 182, v. i
+
+  Malaga, Battle of, 101, v. i
+
+  Mallett, 244, v. i
+
+  Malta, Russian Designs on, 159, v. i
+
+  Malta Captured, 160, v. i
+
+  Malta Starved into Surrender, 160, v. i
+
+  Marines, Objection to New Scheme, of the, 251, v. ii
+
+  Marryat, Captain, 12, 212, v. i
+
+  Martinique, 137, v. i
+
+  Masefield, John, Quoted, 204, v. i
+
+  Mastless Ships, 292, v. i
+
+  Masts, Tripod, 287, v. i
+
+  Mauritius Attacked, 185, v. i
+
+  Medal, Tempus, Charles I, 74, v. i
+
+  Medine Sidonia, 53, v. i
+
+  Mediterranean, 59, v. i
+
+  Mediterranean, English Fleet First Stationed, 91, v. i
+
+  Meerlers, Machine Ships of, 90, v. i
+
+  Meerlers “Smoak-boat,” 90, v. i
+
+  Memoirs of Torrington, 100, v. i
+
+  Men Wanting, 237, v. i
+
+  Men, Lack of Training of, 236, v. i
+
+  Messing, 254, v. ii
+
+  Messing in Tudor Times, 43, v. i
+
+  Methods of Drake, 45, v. i
+
+  Military Officer Saves Fleet, 103, v. i
+
+  Military Warfare, 7, v. i
+
+  Milne, Admiral, 288, v. i
+
+  Mines Appear, 226, v. i
+
+  Mines, Russian, 226, v. i
+
+  Minorca, Battle of, 119, v. i
+
+  Moderate Dimensions, 135, v. i
+
+  Modern Protective Decks Introduced, 85, v. ii
+
+  Modern Variant of “Case Shot,” 195, v. ii
+
+  Monk, 76, v. i
+
+  Monitor and Merrimac, Fight between, 275, v. i
+
+  Montgolfier, 221, v. ii
+
+  Motor-Destroyers, 201, v. ii
+
+  Mounting of Small Guns Between the échelon Turrets done away with,
+        175, v. ii
+
+  Murder, Punishment for, 12, v. i
+
+  Mutiny at Spithead, 145, 200, v. i
+
+  Mutiny, The Great, 255, v. ii
+
+  Muzzle Loaders, 320, v. i
+
+
+  Nachimoff, Admiral (Russian), 223, v. i
+
+  Napier, Admiral Sir Charles, K.C.B., 234, 235, v. i
+
+  Napoleon, at Toulon, 133, v. i
+
+  Napoleon, Deportation of, to Elba, 193, v. i
+
+  Napoleon, Deportation of, to St. Helena, 193, v. i
+
+  Napoleon, Emperor, 164, v. i
+
+  Napoleon, First Consul, 159, v. i
+
+  Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia, 188, v. i
+
+  Napoleon and Nelson, 169, v. i
+
+  Napoleon, Re-appearance of, 193, v. i
+
+  Napoleon, Renovates his Navy, 181, v. i
+
+  Napoleon and “Sea Power,” 163, v. i
+
+  National Interests, 206, v. ii
+
+  Naval Abuses, 65, v. i
+
+  Naval Aeroplanes, 225, v. ii
+
+  Naval Agreement with the Colonies, 237, v. ii
+
+  Naval Aviation, 222, v. ii
+
+  Naval Defence Act, 63, v. ii
+
+  Naval Defence Act Cruisers, 71, v. ii
+
+  Naval Commission, 81, v. i
+
+  Naval Regulations of John, 16, v. i
+
+  Naval Pay in Great War, 209, v. i
+
+  Naval Scare of 1887–89, 61, v. ii
+
+  Naval Punishments, 20, v. i
+
+  Naval War, The Next, 265, v. ii
+
+  Navarino, Battle of, 213, v. i
+
+  Navy of Canute, 8, v. i
+
+  Navy, Non-Existence of, in Early Times, 19, v. i
+
+  Nelson, 12, 97, 162, v. i; 260, v. ii
+
+  Nelson (analogy), 42, v. i
+
+  Nelson at Gibraltar, 172, v. i
+
+  Nelson at Toulon, 133, v. i
+
+  Nelson in the “Agamemnon,” 138, v. i
+
+  Nelson in the Mediterranean, 157, v. i
+
+  Nelson (ref.), 34, v. i
+
+  Nelson at Cadiz, 149, v. i
+
+  Nelson, First Appearance of (1780), 128, v. i
+
+  Nelson, Costume of Men, in Era of, 196, v. i
+
+  Nelson Defeated at Santa Cruz, 150, v. i
+
+  Nelson, Drawing Away of, 171, v. i
+
+  Nelson Institutes Theatricals, 200, v. i
+
+  Nelson, Last Order of, 177, v. i
+
+  Nelson’s Limitations, 169, v. i
+
+  Nelson Mortally Wounded, 176, v. i
+
+  Nelson and Mutineers, 151, v. i
+
+  Nelson’s Schemes of Invasion, 162, v. i
+
+  Neutral Flag, Property Under, 161, v. i
+
+  Neutrality, Armed, 161, v. i
+
+  New Forest, Oak Plantations, 132, v. i
+
+  New Scheme, The, 247, v. ii
+
+  Newfoundland Naval Reserve, 237, v. ii
+
+  New Zealand and the British Fleet, 234, 237, v. ii
+
+  New Zealand’s Interest in the Imperial Navy, 234, v. ii
+
+  Nore, Mutiny at, 146, v. i
+
+  Norman Invasion, 9, v. i
+
+  Normans, 21, v. i
+
+  Norris, Sir John, 105, v. i
+
+  Norton’s Liquid Fire, 243, v. i
+
+  North Foreland, Battle of, 82, v. i
+
+  Nova Scotia, 103, v. i
+
+  Nile, Battle of (analogy), 42, v. i
+
+  North and South Nigeria, 232, v. ii
+
+  “Numbers Only Can Annihilate,” 215, v. ii
+
+
+  Oak Plantations, 132, v. i
+
+  Oberon, Laws of, 17, v. i
+
+  Ocean-going Destroyers, 199, v. ii
+
+  Odessa Bombarded, 224, v. i
+
+  Odin, 216, v. i
+
+  Officering the Fleet, 115, v. i
+
+  Officers, Inexperience of, 233, v. i
+
+  Officers’ Wine for Wounded, 207, v. i
+
+  Ogle, 109, v. i
+
+  Oil Fuel, 200, v. ii
+
+  Original Conception of the Dreadnought Era, 196, v. ii
+
+  Ormonde, Duke of, 96, v. i
+
+  Ornamental Work Reduced, 97, v. i
+
+  Ostend Attacked, 82, v. i
+
+  Ostend Captured (1706), 103, v. i
+
+
+  Paddle Experiments, 212, v. i
+
+  Paddles, “Galatea” Fitted with, 213, v. i
+
+  Paddle Recognised as a Source of Danger (1825), 216, v. i
+
+  Paddle Wheels Exposed, 216, v. i
+
+  Paint on Warships, 69, v. i
+
+  Paixham, General, 223, v. i
+
+  Palmer’s, 175, v. ii
+
+  Parma, Duke of, 49, v. i
+
+  Parker, Sir Hyde, 161, v. i
+
+  Parliament Discusses French v. British Ships, 137, v. i
+
+  Parliamentarians, 74, v. i
+
+  Parson’s Turbine, 183, 196, 200, v. ii
+
+  Paul, Russia, 159, v. i
+
+  Pay (1653), 65, v. i
+
+  Pay, Modern, 257, v. ii
+
+  Payta Captured by Captain Anson, 111, v. i
+
+  Peace of Amiens, 86, v. i
+
+  Pembroke, Earl of, 29, v. i
+
+  “Penelope” Fitted with Engines, 216, v. i
+
+  Penelope Frigate attacks Guillaume Tell, 160, v. i
+
+  Pennington, Sir John, 73, v. i
+
+  Pensions for Wounds, Time of John, 17, v. i
+
+  Pepys, 79, v. i
+
+  Period of Broadside Ironclads Ends, 263, v. i
+
+  Personality, 97, v. i
+
+  Peterborough, Earl of, 103, v. i
+
+  Peter the Great, 95, v. i
+
+  Phineas Petts, 59, 69, 80, v. i
+
+  Phœnicians, 1, v. i
+
+  Pierola, 322, v. i
+
+  Pigot, Captain of “Hermione,” 151, v. i
+
+  Pigtail, Origin of, 197, v. i
+
+  Pinnaces, 41, v. i
+
+  Piracy, 43, 44, v. i
+
+  Piracy, English Acts of, 22, v. i
+
+  Pirates, 30, v. i
+
+  Pitt and Sea Power, 141, v. i
+
+  Pivot Guns, 272, v. i
+
+  Pizarro, 110, v. i
+
+  Plymouth Hoe, Drake on, 50, v. i
+
+  Plymouth, Mutiny at, 146, v. i
+
+  Plymouth Sacked, 23, v. i
+
+  Policing the Channel, 10, v. i
+
+  Politics and Admirals, 130, v. i
+
+  Pomone, French Frigate, Captured (1794), 135, v. i
+
+  Portholes, 49, v. i
+
+  Portsmouth, Review at (1512), 37, v. i
+
+  Portsmouth Sacked, 29, v. i
+
+  Portsmouth Yard, 191, v. ii
+
+  Possibility of Airships in the Future, 226, v. ii
+
+  Possibility of Dreadnoughts Considered, 145, v. ii
+
+  Present Stage of Aerial Progress, 229, v. ii
+
+  Press Gang, 199, 200, v. i
+
+  Presumed End of Ironclads, 47, v. ii
+
+  Prime Seamen, 115, 196, v. i; 251, v. ii
+
+  Prince Charles, 74, v. i
+
+  Prince of Hesse, 99, v. i
+
+  Private Ships, 36, v. i
+
+  Privateering, 43, 91, 111, v. i
+
+  Privateers Attack Henry IV, 30, v. i
+
+  Privateers, French, Activity of, 189, v. i
+
+  Private Yards, 132, v. i
+
+  Progress Nullified During the Last Twenty Years, 203, v. ii
+
+  Progressive Naval Ideas, 196, v. ii
+
+  Promotion on the Lower Deck, 252, v. ii
+
+  Protection of Boats in Action, 184, v. ii
+
+  Providence and the Armada, 53, v. i
+
+  Provisioning of Ships Under John, 17, v. i
+
+  Punishments, 12, v. i
+
+  Punishments (Modern), 259, v. ii
+
+  Pursers, 146, v. i
+
+  Pym, Captain, 185, v. i
+
+
+  Quebec, Abortive Attack on, 104, v. i
+
+  Queen Anne, 95, v. i
+
+  Queensland, 233, v. ii
+
+  Quiberon, 121, v. i
+
+  Quick Firers, Elementary, 243, v. i
+
+  Quick Lime, Use of, 21, v. i
+
+
+  Raking Fire, 211, v. i
+
+  Raleigh, Sir Walter, 60, 65, v. i
+
+  Ram Tactics, 300, v. i
+
+  Ramming, 17, v. i
+
+  Rapidity in Loading, 231, v. i
+
+  Rates in English Navy, Time of Queen Anne, 95, v. i
+
+  Rating, New, of Ships Introduced (1817), 211, v. i
+
+  “Re-construction Never Pay,” 312, v. i
+
+  Reed, Sir E. J., 257, 266, v. i
+
+  Reed, Sir E. J., Anticipates Torpedoes, 268, v. i
+
+  Reed Broadside Ships, 283, v. i
+
+  Reed Ideals in the White Era, 115, v. ii
+
+  Reed, Sir E. J., Turret Ships, 292, v. i
+
+  Regular Stores Instituted, 132, v. i
+
+  Repairs, Cost of, 132, v. i
+
+  Reserve Ships, Speedy Equipment of, 132, v. i
+
+  Restoration, The, 81, v. i
+
+  Retirement of Sir W. White, 113, v. ii
+
+  Richard I, 10, v. i
+
+  Richard II, 10, 30, v. i
+
+  Richard III, 33, 60, v. i
+
+  Right Ahead Fire, 258, v. i
+
+  Rigging, Firing at, 129, v. i
+
+  Right of Search, 159, 161, v. i
+
+  Robinson, Commander, on Causes of Mutiny, 146, v. i
+
+  Robinson, Commander, R.N., Quoted, 194, v. i
+
+  Rocket, Congreve, 236, v. i
+
+  Rodjestvensky (analogy), 53, v. i
+
+  Rodney, 127, 129, v. i
+
+  Rogerswick, Harbour of, 180, v. i
+
+  Rogues in Authority, 201, v. i
+
+  Rolling of the “Orion,” 183, v. ii
+
+  Romans in Britain, 1, v. i
+
+  Rooke, Sir George, 96, v. i
+
+  Routine, 260, v. ii
+
+  Row Boats, 222, v. ii
+
+  Royal Indian Marine, 233, v. ii
+
+  Royal Naval College Established, Portsmouth, 187, v. i
+
+  Royal Navy, Birth of, 35, v. i
+
+  Royal Ships, 35, v. i
+
+  Royal Yachts, 33, v. i
+
+  “Ruinous Competition in Naval Armaments,” 206, v. ii
+
+  Russel, 90, 91, v. i
+
+  Russell, John Scott, 237, 249, v. i
+
+  Russia, War with (1720), 106, v. i
+
+  Russian Mines, 226, v. i
+
+  Russian Navy Established by England, 95, v. i
+
+  Russo-Japanese War, 205, v. ii
+
+  Ryswick, Peace of, 92, v. i
+
+
+  Samaurez, 163, v. i
+
+  Samaurez in the Baltic, 180, v. i
+
+  San Domingo, Battle of, 178, v. i
+
+  Sandwich, Earl of, 84, v. i
+
+  Saints, Battle of the, 129, v. i
+
+  San Juan Nicaragua, Nelson at, 128, v. i
+
+  Santa Croix, Capture of, 180, v. i
+
+  Santa Cruz, Marquis of, 49, v. i
+
+  Santissima Trinidad (130), 145, v. i
+
+  Saxon Fleet, 8, v. i
+
+  Saxons, 1, v. i
+
+  Scantlings, 135, v. i
+
+  Scarcity of Oak, 132, v. i
+
+  “Scouts” Appear, 127, v. ii
+
+  “Scrapping,” 311, v. i
+
+  Scheldt, 183, v. i
+
+  School of Naval Architecture, 187, v. i
+
+  Scotts, 186, v. ii
+
+  Scott Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, 175, v. ii
+
+  Sea-Fights with the Danes, 2, v. i
+
+  Seamen, Bounty to, 234, v. i
+
+  Seamen, Foreign, 235, v. i
+
+  Seamen, German, 233, v. i
+
+  Sea-Going Masted Turret Ship, 276, v. i
+
+  Sea-Going Qualities of Barnaby Ships, 59, v. ii
+
+  Seamen, Improved, 44, v. i
+
+  Sea Kings, Elizabethan, 47, v. i
+
+  Seamanship, 114, v. i
+
+  Sea Power and Napoleon, 163, 169, v. i
+
+  Sea Regiment, The, 251, v. ii
+
+  Search, Right of, 159, 161, v. i
+
+  Sebastopol Attacked, 224, v. i
+
+  Sebastopol, Siege of, 224, v. i
+
+  Semenoff, Captain (quoted), 243, v. i
+
+  “Semi-Dreadnoughts,” 127, v. ii
+
+  Senegal Captured, 184, v. i
+
+  Senyavin in the Mediterranean, 181, v. i
+
+  Senyavin, Ships of, Restored, 186, v. i
+
+  Serpents, 15, v. i
+
+  Seymour, Sir Hamilton, 235, v. i
+
+  Shah and Huascar Action, 322, v. i
+
+  Shell Guns, Adopted, 220, v. i
+
+  Shell, Percussion, 227, v. i
+
+  Shell, Thermite, 244, v. i
+
+  Sheerness, Dutch at, 83, v. i
+
+  Ships, Engaging exactly End-on, 179, v. ii
+
+  Ships, Iron-plated, 237, v. i
+
+  Ships, Ironclad, 239, v. i
+
+  Ships of King Alfred, 5, v. i
+
+
+  _SHIPS MENTIONED BY NAME._
+
+    Aboukir, 101, v. ii
+
+    Abyssinia, 231, v. ii
+
+    Acheron class, 200, v. ii
+
+    Achilles, 257, 258, v. i
+
+    Acorn class, 200, v. ii
+
+    Active, 197, v. ii
+
+    Admiral class, 47, v. ii
+
+    Adventure, 127, v. ii
+
+    Aeolus, 72, v. ii
+
+    Africa, 108, v. ii
+
+    Agamemnon, 133, 138, v. i
+
+    Agincourt, 279, v. i
+
+    Ajax, 186, v. ii
+
+    Aki, 146, v. ii
+
+    Alarm, 76, v. ii
+
+    Albemarle, 105, v. ii
+
+    Albion, 99, v. ii
+
+    Alexandra, 277, 318, v. i
+
+    Amphitrite, 99, v. ii
+
+    Amethyst, 322, v. i
+
+    Antrim, 109, v. ii
+
+    Amokoura, 234, v. ii
+
+    Amphion, 47, 197, v. ii
+
+    Andromache, 72, v. ii
+
+    Andromeda, 99, v. ii
+
+    Anna Pink (1740), 111, v. i
+
+    Antelope, 76, v. ii
+
+    Apollo class, 72, v. ii
+
+    Aquidaban, 77, v. ii
+
+    Archer, 201, v. ii
+
+    Argonaut, 99, v. ii
+
+    Arethusa, 197, v. ii
+
+    Ariadne, 99, v. ii
+
+    Argyll, 109, v. ii
+
+    Assaye, 232, 76, v. ii
+
+    Astraeas, 76, v. ii
+
+    Atalanta, 187, v. i
+
+    Attack, 200, v. ii
+
+    Attentive, 127, v. ii
+
+    Audacious, 277, 295, v. i
+
+    Audacious (1794), 134, 295, v. i; 186, v. ii
+
+    Aurora, 197, v. ii
+
+    Australia, 174, v. ii
+
+
+    Bacchante, 101, v. ii
+
+    Badere Zaffer (Turkish), 232, v. i
+
+    Bahama (Spanish), 177, v. i
+
+    Baluch, 232, v. ii
+
+    Barfluer, 69, 70, v. ii
+
+    Beagle class, 200, v. ii
+
+    Bellerophon, 266, 279, v. i; 169, v. ii
+
+    Belleisle, 232, v. i
+
+    Bellona, 197, v. ii
+
+    Berwick, 106, v. ii
+
+    Birmingham, 197, v. ii
+
+    Black Prince, 250, v. i; 35, v. ii
+
+    Blake, 61, 63, v. ii
+
+    Blanco Encalada (Chilian), 77, v. ii
+
+    Blanche, 197, v. ii
+
+    Blenheim, 61, 63, v. ii
+
+    Blonde, 321, v. i; 197, v. ii
+
+    Boadicea, 197, v. ii
+
+    Bonaventure, 72, v. ii
+
+    Boomerang, 76, 233, v. ii
+
+    Brilliant, 72, v. ii
+
+    Britannia (1688), 87, v. i
+
+    Britannia, 108, v. ii
+
+    Brisbane, 197, v. ii
+
+    Bulwark, 102, v. ii
+
+
+    Cæsar, 87, v. ii
+
+    Caledonia, 181, 263, v. i
+
+    Calypso, 237, v. ii
+
+    Cambrian, 72, v. ii
+
+    Camperdown, 39, v. ii
+
+    Canopus, ex-Franklin (French prize), 150, v. i
+
+    Canopus, 99, 100, v. ii
+
+    Carnarvon, 109, v. ii
+
+    Captain, 283, v. i
+
+    Captain, Loss of, 291, v. i
+
+    Centurion (1740), 112, v. i
+
+    Centurion (1891), 81, v. ii
+
+    Cerebus (Australian), 292, v. i
+
+    Charybdis, 72, v. ii
+
+    Chatham, 196, v. ii
+
+    Chen Yuen (Chinese), 180, v. ii
+
+    Chicago (U.S.), 43, v. ii
+
+    Circe, 76, v. ii
+
+    Cog, Thomas, The, 28, v. i
+
+    Commonwealth, 108, v. ii
+
+    Conqueror, 59, 174, v. ii
+
+    Cornwall, 106, v. ii
+
+    Cornwallis, 105, v. ii
+
+    County class, 105, v. ii
+
+    Crescent, 71, v. ii
+
+    Cressy, 101, v. ii
+
+    Cumberland, 106, v. ii
+
+    Cyclops, 308, v. i; 242, v. ii
+
+
+    Dalhousie, 231, v. ii
+
+    Dartmouth, 234, 237, v. ii
+
+    Dauntless, 219, v. i
+
+    Defence, 257, v. i
+
+    Devastation (1870), 248, 312, v. i
+
+    Devonshires, 109, v. ii
+
+    Diadem, 99, v. ii
+
+    Diana, 212, v. i
+
+    Dominion, 108, v. ii
+
+    Donegal, 106, v. ii
+
+    Drake, 105, 106, v. ii
+
+    Dreadnought (old), 292, 317, v. i
+
+    Dreadnought (1908), 164, v. ii
+
+    Dublin, 196, v. ii
+
+    Dufferin, 231, v. ii
+
+    Duncans, 105, v. ii
+
+
+    Edgar, 71, v. ii
+
+    Elphinstone, 231, v. ii
+
+    Endymion, 71, v. ii
+
+    Entrepennant (French), 187, v. i
+
+    Erebus, 225, v. i
+
+    Essex, 106, v. ii
+
+    Etna, 225, v. i
+
+    Europa, 99, v. ii
+
+    Euryalus, 101, v. ii
+
+    Exmouth, 105, v. ii
+
+
+    Fearless, 197, v. ii
+
+    Flora, 72, v. ii
+
+    Formidable, 100, 102, v. ii
+
+    Foresight, 129, v. ii
+
+    Forth, 48, v. ii
+
+    Forward, 129, v. ii
+
+    Foudroyant, 140, 160, v. i
+
+    Franklin (French prize), 150, v. i
+
+    Fulton, 190, v. i
+
+
+    Galatea, 197, v. ii
+
+    Gayundah, 233, v. ii
+
+    Gazelle, 78, v. ii
+
+    Gibraltar, 71, v. ii
+
+    Glasgow, 196, v. ii
+
+    Glatton (1795), 140, v. i
+
+    Glatton, 308, v. i
+
+    Gleaner, 76, v. ii
+
+    Glory, 99, v. ii
+
+    Gloucester (1740), 112, v. i
+
+    Gloucester, 204, v. ii
+
+    Goliath, 99, v. ii
+
+    Good Hope, 103, v. ii
+
+    Gorgon, 308, v. i
+
+    Gossamer, 76, v. ii
+
+    Grace de Dieu, The, 38, v. i
+
+    Grafton, 71, v. ii
+
+    Great Harry, 35, 37, v. i
+
+    Ghurka, 237, v. ii
+
+
+    Hampshire, 109, v. ii
+
+    Hannibal, 87, v. ii
+
+    Hardinge, 231, v. ii
+
+    Havock, 129, v. ii
+
+    Hawke, 71, v. ii
+
+    Hebe, 76, v. ii
+
+    Hecate, 308, v. i
+
+    Hector, 257, v. i
+
+    Hela (German), 78, v. ii
+
+    Henri IV (French), 204, v. ii
+
+    Hercules, 279, 283, 288, 295, v. i; 175, v. ii
+
+    Hermione, 72, v. ii
+
+    Hero, 59, v. ii
+
+    Hibernia, 108, v. ii
+
+    Hindustan, 108, v. ii
+
+    Holland, 218, v. i
+
+    Hood, 68, v. ii
+
+    Hornet, 129, v. ii
+
+    Hotspur (British), 321, v. i
+
+    Huascar (Peruvian), 322, v. i
+
+    Hydra, 308, v. i
+
+
+    Immortalitie, 43, v. ii
+
+    Inflexible, 52, v. ii
+
+    Intrepid, 72, v. ii
+
+    Imperieuse, 43, v. ii
+
+    Iphigenia, 72, v. ii
+
+    Iron Duke, 187, v. ii
+
+    Illustrious, 87, v. ii
+
+    Implacable, 100, v. ii
+
+    Inconstant, 321, v. i
+
+    Indefatigable, 72, 100, v. ii
+
+    Independencia, 280, v. i
+
+    Invincible, 295, 319, v. i; 183, v. ii
+
+    Iphigenia, 185, v. i
+
+    Irresistible, 100, v. ii
+
+    Italia (Italian), 63, v. ii
+
+
+    Jupiter, 87, v. ii
+
+
+    Kahren, 232, v. ii
+
+    Karrahatta, 76, 233, v. ii
+
+    Katoomba, 76, 233, v. ii
+
+    Kent, 106, v. ii
+
+    King Alfred, 103, v. ii
+
+    King Edward VII class, 107, 108, 114, 233, v. ii
+
+    King George V, 186, v. ii
+
+
+    Lady Nancy (Gun raft), 272, v. i
+
+    La Forte (French), 231, v. i
+
+    La Gloire (French), 254, v. i
+
+    Lancaster, 106, v. ii
+
+    Latona, 72, v. ii
+
+    Lave La, 248, v. i
+
+    Lavinia, 232, v. i
+
+    Leander, 47, v. ii
+
+    Lepanto (Italian), 63, v. ii
+
+    Leviathan, 103, v. ii
+
+    L’Hercule (French), 231, v. i
+
+    Liberté class (French), 82, v. ii
+
+    Lion, The (1800), 160, v. i
+
+    Lively, frégate, 141, v. i
+
+    Liverpool, 196, v. ii
+
+    London, 231, v. i; 104, 107, v. ii
+
+    Lord Clyde, 263, v. i
+
+    Lord Nelson, 133, v. ii
+
+    Lord Warden (British), 288, v. i
+
+    Lorne, 212, v. i
+
+    Lynch, 78, v. ii
+
+
+    Magdala class, 232, v. ii
+
+    Magnificent, 87, 88, v. ii
+
+    Maharatta, 232, v. ii
+
+    Majestic, 236, v. i; 85, 86, v. ii
+
+    Marengo (French), 231, v. i
+
+    Marlborough, 187, v. ii
+
+    Mars, 231, v. i; 87, v. ii
+
+    Melampus, 72, v. ii
+
+    Melbourne, 234, v. ii
+
+    Melpomene, 72, v. ii
+
+    Merrimac, 190, v. i
+
+    Mersey, 48, v. ii
+
+    Meteor, 225, v. i
+
+    Mildura, 76, 233, v. ii
+
+    Minotaur, 258, 272, v. i
+
+    Monarch, 280, 283, 284, v. i; 175, v. ii
+
+    Monarch, 183, v. ii
+
+    Montagu, 105, v. ii
+
+
+    Naiad, 72, v. ii
+
+    Narcissus, 43, v. ii
+
+    Neptune (1797), 151, v. i
+
+    Newcastle, 196, v. ii
+
+    New Zealand, 107, 108, v. ii
+
+    Nile, 44, v. ii
+
+    Niobe, 99, 234, v. ii
+
+    Northbrook, 231, v. ii
+
+    Northumberland, 257, 258, v. i; 59, v. ii
+
+    Nottingham, 197, v. ii
+
+
+    Oberon, 53, v. ii
+
+    Ocean, 263, v. i; 99, v. ii
+
+    Olympic, 71, v. ii
+
+    Orion, 183, v. ii
+
+    Orlando, 48, 63, v. ii
+
+
+    Pallas class, 76, 233, v. ii
+
+    Paluma, 233, v. ii
+
+    Pandora, 76, v. ii
+
+    Pathan, 232, v. ii
+
+    Pathfinder, 127, v. ii
+
+    Pearl (1740), 112, v. i; 76, v. ii
+
+    Pelican, The, 45, v. i
+
+    Pelorus, 72, v. ii
+
+    Penelope, 279, v. i
+
+    Persian, 76, v. ii
+
+    Phaeton, 197, v. ii
+
+    Phœbe, 76, v. ii
+
+    Philomel, 76, 233, v. ii
+
+    Pique, 72, v. ii
+
+    Plassy, 76, 232, v. ii
+
+    Polyphemus, 64, v. ii
+
+    Powerful, 89, v. ii
+
+    Prince Albert, 275, v. i; 134, v. ii
+
+    Prince Consort, 261, 263, v. i
+
+    Prince George, 87, v. ii
+
+    Prince of Wales, 107, v. ii
+
+    Prince Regent, 236, v. i
+
+    Prince Royal, The, 59, v. i; 174, v. ii
+
+    Princessa (Spanish), 114, v. i
+
+    Protector, 232, v. ii
+
+    Psyche, 76, v. ii
+
+
+    Queen, 107, v. ii
+
+    Queen Charlotte, 161, v. i
+
+    Queen Mary, 186, v. ii
+
+
+    Rainbow, 72, 234, v. ii
+
+    Rajput, 232, v. ii
+
+    Raleigh, 321, v. i
+
+    Ram, The, 300, v. i
+
+    Rattler, 219, v. i
+
+    Rattlesnake class, 76, v. ii
+
+    Re d’Italia, 300, v. i
+
+    Regent, 35, v. i
+
+    Renard, 76, v. ii
+
+    Renown, 79, 81, v. ii
+
+    Republique (French), 82, v. ii
+
+    Repulse, 263, v. i
+
+    Resistance, 255, 257, v. i
+
+    Retribution, 72, v. ii
+
+    Revolutionaire (French), (1794), 134, 158, v. i
+
+    Ringarooma, 76, 233, v. ii
+
+    “River” class destroyers, 131, v. ii
+
+    Rossiya (Russian), 89, v. ii
+
+    Royal Alfred, 263, v. i
+
+    Royal Arthur, 71, v. ii
+
+    Royal George, The, 114, v. i
+
+    Royal James, The, 84, v. i
+
+    Royal Oak, 263, v. i
+
+    Royal Sovereign, 275, 284, v. i; 198, v. ii
+
+    Royal Sovereign (1657), 69, v. i
+
+    Royal Sovereign (1795), 139, v. i
+
+    Royal Sovereigns, (old), 81, v. i
+
+    Roxburgh, 109, v. ii
+
+    Rupert reconstructed, 311, v. i
+
+    Rurik (Russian), 89, v. ii
+
+    Russell, 105, v. ii
+
+
+    Salamander, 93, 76, v. ii
+
+    Sampaio, 78, v. ii
+
+    San Ildefonso (Spanish), 177, v. i
+
+    Sappho, 72, v. ii
+
+    Satsuma (Japanese), 146, v. ii
+
+    Scorpion, 287, v. i
+
+    Scylla, 72, v. ii
+
+    Sea Gull, 76, 93, v. ii
+
+    Sea-horse, 232, v. i
+
+    Sentinel, 129, v. ii
+
+    Severn, 112, v. i; 48, v. ii
+
+    Shah, 321, v. i
+
+    Sharpshooter class, 90, 93, 232, v. ii
+
+    Sheldrake, 76, 93, v. ii
+
+    Sikh, 232, v. ii
+
+    Sirius, 185, v. i
+
+    Skipjack, 76, v. ii
+
+    Skirmisher, 127, v. ii
+
+    Southampton, 196, v. ii
+
+    Sovereign, The, 37, v. i
+
+    Spanker, floating battery, 188, v. i
+
+    Spanker, 76, 93, v. ii
+
+    Spartan, 72, v. ii
+
+    Spartiate, 99, v. ii
+
+    Speedwell, 76, v. ii
+
+    Speedy, 76, 93, v. ii
+
+    St. George, 71, v. ii
+
+    Suffolk, 106, v. ii
+
+    Sultan, 304, 313, 318, v. i
+
+    Sutlej, 101, v. ii
+
+    Swift, 200, v. ii
+
+    Swiftsure, 177, 295, v. i
+
+    Sybil, 231, v. i
+
+    Sydney, 197, v. ii
+
+
+    Talbot, 89, v. ii
+
+    Tauranga, 76, 233, v. ii
+
+    Terpsichore, 72, v. ii
+
+    Terrible, 89, v. ii
+
+    Terror, 225, v. i
+
+    Thames, 48, v. ii
+
+    Thetis, 72, v. ii
+
+    Thunder, 225, v. i
+
+    Thunderer, 50, 175, v. ii
+
+    Thunderbolt, 225, v. i; 50, v. ii
+
+    Tiger, 188, v. ii
+
+    Ting Yuen (Chinese), 180, v. ii
+
+    Tonnant (French), 248, v. i
+
+    “Town” class cruisers, 197, v. ii
+
+    Trafalgar, 43, 64, v. ii
+
+    Transports, 22, v. i
+
+    “Tribals,” 199, v. ii
+
+    Tribune, 72, v. ii
+
+    Triumph, 58, 295, v. i
+
+    Trusty, 225, v. i
+
+    Tryal (1740), 111, v. i
+
+    Tsarevitch (Russian), 204, v. ii
+
+
+    Undaunted, 197, v. ii
+
+
+    Valiant, 257, v. i
+
+    Vanguard, 268, 295, v. i; 169, v. ii
+
+    Venerable, 102, v. ii
+
+    Vengeance, 99, v. ii
+
+    Vernon, 254, v. i
+
+    Victoria, 48, v. ii
+
+    Victoria (Colonial), 233, v. ii
+
+    Victorious, 189, v. i; 87, v. ii
+
+    Victory, 231, v. i
+
+    Viper, 276, v. i
+
+    Vixen, 276, v. i
+
+    Von der Tann (German), 180, v. ii
+
+
+    Wager (1740), 111, v. i
+
+    Wallaroo, 76, 233, 256, v. ii
+
+    Wampanoag (U.S.), 320, v. i; 233, v. ii
+
+    Warrior, 254, 257, 267, v. i
+
+    Warspite, 195, v. ii
+
+    Waterwitch, 276, v. i
+
+    Weymouth class, 196, v. ii
+
+    Whiting, 76, v. ii
+
+    Wizard, 76, v. ii
+
+    Wsewolod (Russian), 232, v. i
+
+
+    Yarmouth, 196, v. ii
+
+
+    Zealous, 263, v. i
+
+    Zelandia, 108, 234, v. ii
+
+
+  Ship Money, 7, 69, v. i
+
+  Ships, Short, handy, 264, v. i
+
+  Shipwrights’ Company Established, 59, v. i
+
+  Short Service System, 253, v. ii
+
+  Shovell, Sir Cloudesley, 98, v. i
+
+  Sidon, 216, v. i
+
+  Simoon, 223, v. i
+
+  Sinope, Battle of, 224, v. i
+
+  Syracuse, Neutrality of, Disregarded by Nelson, 152, v. i
+
+  Sir Charles Napier, 213, v. i
+
+  “Sirius” and “Magicienne” Aground, 185, v. i
+
+  Sir W. White’s Views on the “Sovereigns,” 65, v. ii
+
+  “Slop Chest,” 195, v. i
+
+  Sluys, 24, v. i
+
+  Small Cruisers and First Cost, 75, v. ii
+
+  Small German Protected Cruisers, 197, v. ii
+
+  Smith, Sir Sidney, 180, v. i
+
+  “Smoak-Boat” of Meerlers, 90, v. i
+
+  Sole Bay, Battle of, 85, v. i
+
+  Solid Bulkhead, 204, v. ii
+
+  Suffren, 129, v. i
+
+  Southampton Sacked, 23, v. i
+
+  South Australia, 232, v. ii
+
+  Southsea Beach, 175, v. i
+
+  Sovereignty of the British Seas, 10, 16, v. i
+
+  Sovereignty of the Seas upheld by Cromwell, 75, v. i
+
+  Spain, First War with, 28, v. i
+
+  Spain, Operations against, 45, v. i
+
+  Spanish Instructors in English Navy, 43, v. i
+
+  Spanish Wars (Succession), 95, v. i
+
+  Spanish Treasure Ship Captured by Captain Anson, 111, v. i
+
+  Spanish Treasure Ships, 158, v. i
+
+  Specialisation in Elizabethan Times, 46, v. i
+
+  Speed in the “Drake” class, 103, v. ii
+
+  “Spit and Polish,” 242, v. ii
+
+  Spithead Mutiny, 146, 202, v. i
+
+  Spragge, 85, v. i
+
+  St. Andre, Jean Bon, 134, v. i
+
+  St. Bride’s Day Massacre, 8, v. i
+
+  St. Lucia Captured (1794), 137, v. i
+
+  St. Malo, 90, 119, v. i
+
+  St. Thomas Captured, 180, v. i
+
+  St. Vincent, 145, v. i
+
+  St. Vincent, Cape, Battle of, 145, v. i
+
+  Steam Ships Anticipated, 212, v. i
+
+  Steam Tugs added to Navy, 213, v. i
+
+  Steam Vessel, The First, 215, v. i
+
+  Steam Vessels, Auxiliary, 219, v. i
+
+  Steam Warships, 215, v. i
+
+  Steering Gear Unprotected, 257, v. i
+
+  Sterns made Circular, 211, v. i
+
+  Stewart Kings and the Navy, 87, v. i
+
+  Stones from Aloft, 27, v. i
+
+  Stores regularly Instituted, 132, v. i
+
+  Stour, Battle of, 2, v. i
+
+  Stoving, 107, v. i
+
+  Strachan, Rear Admiral Sir E., 177, 183, v. i
+
+  Sub-divisions, 271, v. i
+
+  Submarine, Americans refuse to officially sanction, 190, v. i
+
+  Submarine Battleship may appear, 215, v. ii
+
+  Submarine, First, 59, v. i
+
+  Submarine, First appearance of, 190, v. i
+
+  Submarine, First use of, in War, 125, v. i
+
+  Submarine, The, 228, v. i; 208, v. ii
+
+  Submarines, a Danger to Big Ships, 194, v. ii
+
+  Submarines and Harbour Defence, 208, v. ii
+
+  Succession, War of the Spanish, 95, v. i
+
+  Super-Dreadnoughts, 175, v. ii
+
+  Super-heated Steam, 201, v. ii
+
+  Superior Artillery, 231, v. i
+
+  Supply of Oak, 132, v. i
+
+  Surgeons, 207, v. i; 257, v. ii
+
+  Sveaborg, 235, v. i
+
+  Swain, King of Denmark, 8, v. i
+
+  Sweden becomes French Ally, 186, v. i
+
+  Sweden, War with (1715), 105, v. i
+
+  Sweden, Peace with, Declared (1812), 188, v. i
+
+  Swedish Fleet, 162, v. i
+
+  Sweeps superseded by Paddles, 213, v. i
+
+
+  Tactics, 60, v. i
+
+  Tactics at Trafalgar, 176, v. i
+
+  Tactics, Early, 28, v. i
+
+  Tactics, English, 230, v. i
+
+  Tactics, First appearance of, 21, v. i
+
+  Tagus Blockaded, 181, v. i
+
+  “Tailoring,” 260, v. ii
+
+  Tarpaulin Seamen, 115, v. i
+
+  Tegethoff at Lissa (analogy), 100, v. i
+
+  Tercera, Battle of, 48, v. i
+
+  Teignmouth Attacked, 89, v. i
+
+  Texel, 84, v. i
+
+  Thames Iron Works, Blackwall, 250, v. i
+
+  Thames, Project to Block, 84, v. i
+
+  The Australian Navy, 237, v. ii
+
+  The “Battle of the Boilers,” 93, v. ii
+
+  The Cape, 176, v. i
+
+  The Coming of the Torpedo, 51, v. ii
+
+  The “Dreadnought” Commenced, 149, v. ii
+
+  The Duties of Naval Airships, 227, v. ii
+
+  The Earliest Naval Manœuvres, 54, v. ii
+
+  The “Échelon” System Resurrected, 179, v. ii
+
+  The First British Ironclads, 249, v. i
+
+  Theft, Punishment for, 12, v. i
+
+  The Future of Submarines, 215, v. ii
+
+  “The Offensive,” 321, v. i
+
+  The Origin of “Dreadnoughts,” 137, v. ii
+
+  The Periscope, 208, v. ii
+
+  “The Torpedo Boat, the Answer to the Torpedo Boat,” 212, v. ii
+
+  “The Trafalgar of the Air,” 228, v. ii
+
+  Thermite Shell, 244, v. i
+
+  “Theseus,” Nelson’s Ship at Santa Croix, 150, v. i
+
+  “Thieving Pursers,” 201, v. i
+
+  Thompson, Messrs, of Clydebank, 304, v. i
+
+  Thornycroft, 201, v. ii
+
+  Three Days’ Battle, 76, v. i
+
+  Three-Masters, 11, v. i
+
+  Thurot, 121, v. i
+
+  Ticklers, 253, v. ii
+
+  Tiddy, Mr. David, 299, v. i
+
+  Tilset, Peace of, 180, v. i
+
+  Timber, Boiling, 107, v. i
+
+  Timber, Supply of, 132, v. i
+
+  Tiptoft, Sir Robert, 22, v. i
+
+  Torpedo (analogy), 41, v. i
+
+  Torpedo Boat, 120, v. i; 199, v. ii
+
+  Torpedoes anticipated by Reed, 268, v. i
+
+  Torpedo, First use of, from Big Ship in Action, 322, v. i
+
+  Torpedo Gun-Boats, 77, v. ii
+
+  Torpedo, The, 228, v. i
+
+  Torpedoes, 322, v. i
+
+  Torpedo Progress, 203, v. ii
+
+  Torrington, 88, v. i
+
+  Toulon, 163, 171, v. i
+
+  Toulon Abandoned, 133, v. i
+
+  Toulon, Attack on Defeated (1707), 103, v. i
+
+  Toulon, Royalists at, 133, v. i
+
+  Toulouse, Comte de, 98, v. i
+
+  Trafalgar, Battle of, 232, v. i
+
+  Trafalgar, First Battle deliberately fought under White Ensign, 210,
+        v. i
+
+  Trafalgar, Losses to the Allied Fleets at, 177, v. i
+
+  Trafalgar Made a Certainty, 166, v. i
+
+  Trafalgar, Tactics at, 175, v. i
+
+  Training, Lack of, 233, v. i
+
+  Training of Gunners, 241, v. i
+
+  Treadwell, Professor Daniel, 244, v. i
+
+  Treasure Ships Captured (Spanish), 158, v. i
+
+  “Trident,” First Iron Warship, 219, v. i
+
+  Trinidad, 214, v. i
+
+  Tripod Masts, 287, v. i; 175, 186, v. ii
+
+  Troubridge, 152, v. i
+
+  Trousers, Ample, 196, v. i
+
+  Tsushima, 244, v. i
+
+  Tudor Navy, 35, v. i
+
+  Tumble Home Sides, 41, v. i
+
+  Turbines Introduced for Big Ships, 155, v. ii
+
+  Turning Circles, 272, v. i
+
+  Turkish Monster Guns, 179, v. i
+
+  Turret Craze, 275, v. i
+
+  Turret on Rollers, 275, v. i
+
+  Turret Ships, Idea of, 275, v. i
+
+  Turret Ship, Sea-Going Masted, 276, v. i
+
+  Turret Ship Controversy, 292, v. i
+
+  Turret Ships, Panic About, 292, v. i
+
+  Twelve-Inch “A,” 175, v. ii
+
+  Two-Power Standard, 96, 131, v. i
+
+
+  Under-Water Protection, 204, v. ii
+
+  Uniform, Anson’s Use of, 113, v. i
+
+  Uniform, 25, v. ii
+
+  Uniform Badge of Pressed Men and Jail Birds, 195, v. i
+
+  Uniform, Description of First, 194, v. i
+
+  Uniform, First Use of, for Officers, 194, v. i
+
+  Union Flag Altered, 209, v. i
+
+  Union Jack, 209, v. i
+
+  United Provinces, 63, v. i
+
+  Unprotected Steering Gear, 257, v. i
+
+  Unscrupulous Contractors, 65, v. i
+
+  Ushant, 125, v. i
+
+  U.S. Monitors, 285, v. i
+
+
+  Vaisseaux Blindées, 248, v. i
+
+  Van Drebel, 59, v. i
+
+  “Vanguard,” The, Nelson in, 152, v. i
+
+  Van Tromp, 76, 84, v. i
+
+  Venetian Frigates Captured, 187, v. i
+
+  “Vengeur” Sunk (1795), 136, v. i
+
+  Ventilation, 115, v. i
+
+  Ventilation, Artificial, 225, v. i
+
+  Vernon, Admiral, 108, 109, v. i
+
+  Versailles, Treaty of, 130, v. i
+
+  Vickers, Lts., 192, v. ii
+
+  Villaret-Joyeuse, 134, 139, v. i
+
+  Villeneuve, 233, v. i
+
+  Villeneuve Appointed, 169, v. i
+
+  Villeneuve Gets Out of Toulon, 171, v. i
+
+  Villeneuve Returns to Toulon, 172, v. i
+
+  Victualling, 146, v. i
+
+
+  Walpole, 107, v. i
+
+  War, Contraband of, 161, v. i
+
+  “War Scare” with Germany in 1911, 185, v. ii
+
+  Wars of the Roses, 33, v. i
+
+  Warwick, Earl of, 33, v. i; 198, v. ii
+
+  Warry (Early Idea of Quick Firer), 242, v. i
+
+  Walcheren Expedition, 183, v. i
+
+  Watts, Isaac, Sir, 254, 258, v. i
+
+  Waterloo, Battle of, 193, v. i
+
+  Weather Gauge, 21, v. i
+
+  Western Australia, 232, v. ii
+
+  West Indies, 171, 177, v. i
+
+  Whitehead, 204, v. ii
+
+  White, of Cowes, 232, v. ii
+
+  Whitworth, Works of, 239, v. i
+
+  Who First Adopted Cuniberti Ideas?, 159, v. ii
+
+  Why France was Beaten, 233, v. i
+
+  Willaumez, Leaves Brest, 182, v. i
+
+  Willaumez, Rear Admiral, 177, v. i
+
+  Willaumez Blockaded in Basque Roads, 182, v. i
+
+  Will Dreadnoughts Die Out?, 195, v. ii
+
+  William of Orange, 88, v. i
+
+  William the Conqueror, 10, v. i
+
+  Wire Guns, Early, 247, v. i
+
+  Wolfe, 122, v. i
+
+  Wood-Copper Sheathing Re-introduced, 295, v. i
+
+  Woolwich, 183, v. i
+
+  World Circumnavigated by Drake, 45, v. i
+
+
+  Yarmouth Ships, 22, v. i
+
+  Yarrow Boilers, 97, 196, v. ii
+
+  York, New, 237, v. i
+
+
+  Zarate, Don Francisco de, 46, v. i
+
+  Zeppelin Type (Dirigible), 227, v. ii
+
+
+THE END.
+
+
+          NETHERWOOD, DALTON & CO., RASHCLIFFE, HUDDERSFIELD.
+
+
+
+
+Transcriber’s Notes
+
+
+Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
+predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they
+were not changed.
+
+Simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation
+marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left
+unbalanced.
+
+Armament and other sizes and quantities were printed in inconsistent
+ways.
+
+Illustrations in this eBook have been positioned between paragraphs
+and outside quotations. In versions of this eBook that support
+hyperlinks, the page references in the List of Illustrations lead to
+the corresponding illustrations.
+
+Footnotes, originally at the bottoms of the pages that referenced them,
+have been collected, sequentially renumbered, and placed near the end
+of the book, just before the index.
+
+The index for both volumes was printed at the end of the second volume.
+The Transcriber has copied that index to the first volume.
+
+Many alphebetization errors in the index were remedied, but some may
+remain. Page references in the index were checked automatically, but
+some may be incorrect.
+
+Page 28: The table contains an asterisk for which there is no matching
+footnote.
+
+
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75617 ***
diff --git a/75617-h/75617-h.htm b/75617-h/75617-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..79c9281
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/75617-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,13767 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html lang="en">
+<head>
+    <meta charset="UTF-8">
+    <title>
+      The British Battle Fleet, Volume II (of 2) | Project Gutenberg
+    </title>
+    <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover">
+    <style> /* <![CDATA[ */
+
+body {
+    margin-left: 2.5em;
+    margin-right: 2.5em;
+}
+.x-ebookmaker body {margin: 0;}
+.x-ebookmaker-drop {color: inherit;}
+
+h1, h2 {
+    text-align: center;
+    clear: both;
+    margin-top: 2.5em;
+    margin-bottom: 1em;
+    word-spacing: .2em;
+}
+
+h3 {
+    font-size: 1em;
+    font-weight: normal;
+    text-align: left;
+    margin-top: 1em;
+    margin-bottom: .25em;
+    word-spacing: .25em;
+    letter-spacing: .05em;
+}
+
+h1 {line-height: 1.5;}
+
+h2.chap {margin-bottom: 0;}
+h2+p {margin-top: 1.5em;}
+h2+h3 {margin-top: 1.5em;}
+h2 .subhead {display: block; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;}
+.x-ebookmaker h1, .x-ebookmaker .chapter, .x-ebookmaker .section {page-break-before: always;}
+.x-ebookmaker h1.nobreak, .x-ebookmaker h2.nobreak, .x-ebookmaker .nobreak {page-break-before: avoid; padding-top: 0;}
+
+.transnote h2 {
+    margin-top: .5em;
+    margin-bottom: 1em;
+}
+
+.subhead {
+    text-indent: 0;
+    text-align: center;
+    font-size: smaller;
+}
+
+p {
+    text-indent: 1.75em;
+    margin-top: .51em;
+    margin-bottom: .24em;
+    text-align: justify;
+}
+.x-ebookmaker p {
+    margin-top: .5em;
+    margin-bottom: .25em;
+}
+
+.caption p, .center p, p.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;}
+
+.p0 {margin-top: 0em;}
+.p1 {margin-top: 1em;}
+.p2 {margin-top: 2em;}
+.p4 {margin-top: 4em;}
+.b0 {margin-bottom: 0;}
+.b1 {margin-bottom: 1em;}
+.up1 {margin-top: -1.5em;}
+.x-ebookmaker .up1 {margin-top: .01em;}
+
+.in0 {text-indent: 0;}
+.in1 {padding-left: 1em;}
+.in2 {padding-left: 2em;}
+.in4 {padding-left: 4em;}
+
+.xsmall  {font-size: 60%;}
+.small   {font-size: 70%;}
+.smaller {font-size: 85%;}
+.larger  {font-size: 125%;}
+.xxlarge {font-size: 200%;}
+
+p.drop-cap {text-indent: 0;}
+p.drop-cap:first-letter {
+  float: left;
+  margin: .06em .4em 0 0;
+  font-size: 300%;
+  line-height:0.7em;
+  text-indent: 0;
+  clear: both;
+}
+p.drop-cap.a .smcap1 {margin-left: -.75em;}
+p.drop-cap .smcap1 {margin-left: -1.2em;}
+p .smcap1 {font-size: 100%;}
+.smcap1 {text-transform: uppercase;}
+
+.x-ebookmaker-2 p.drop-cap {text-indent: 1.75em; margin-bottom: .24em;}
+.x-ebookmaker-2 p.drop-cap:first-letter {
+  float: none;
+  font-size: 100%;
+  margin-left: 0;
+  margin-right: 0;
+  text-indent: 1.75em;
+}
+
+  .x-ebookmaker-2 p.drop-cap.a .smcap1,
+  .x-ebookmaker-2 p.drop-cap .smcap1,
+.x-ebookmaker-2 p.drop-cap {text-indent: 0;}
+.x-ebookmaker-2 p .smcap1 {font-size: 100%;}
+.x-ebookmaker-2 .smcap1 {font-variant: normal;}
+
+.center   {text-align: center;}
+
+.right   {text-align: right; margin-right: 2em;}
+
+.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
+.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;}
+
+.bold {font-weight: bold;}
+
+hr {
+    width: 33%;
+    margin: 4em auto 4em auto;
+    clear: both;
+}
+.x-ebookmaker hr {
+    margin-top: .1em;
+    margin-bottom: .1em;
+    visibility: hidden;
+    color: white;
+    width: .01em;
+    display: none;
+}
+
+.tb {
+    text-align: center;
+    padding-top: .76em;
+    padding-bottom: .24em;
+    letter-spacing: 1.5em;
+    margin-right: -1.5em;
+}
+
+.x-ebookmaker .tb {letter-spacing: 1.25em; margin-right: -1.25em;}
+
+table {
+    margin: 1.5em auto 1em auto;
+    max-width: 90%;
+    border-collapse: collapse;
+}
+.x-ebookmaker table {width: auto; max-width: 90%; margin: 1em auto 1em auto;}
+
+.tdl {
+    text-align: left;
+    vertical-align: top;
+    padding-right: 1em;
+    padding-left: 1.5em;
+    text-indent: -1.5em;
+}
+.x-ebookmaker .tdl {
+    padding-left: 1em;
+    text-indent: -1em;
+    padding-right: 0;
+}
+table.tbdr .tdl.in2 {padding-left: 2.5em;}
+table.tbdr .tdl.in4 {padding-left: 4em;}
+
+.tdc {text-align: center;}
+
+.tdc.chap {
+    font-size: larger;
+    font-weight: bold;
+    padding-top: 1.5em;
+    word-spacing: .2em;
+}
+
+.tdr {
+    text-align: right;
+    vertical-align: bottom;
+    padding-left: .3em;
+    white-space: nowrap;
+}
+.tdr.top {vertical-align: top; padding-left: 0; padding-right: .5em;}
+
+#toc td {padding-bottom: 1em;}
+#toc .xsmall td {padding-bottom: .3em;}
+#loi td {padding-bottom: .5em;}
+#loi .xsmall td {padding-bottom: 0;}
+#loi td.chap {padding-bottom: 1em;}
+
+/*table.tbdr td {border-left: thin solid black;}
+table.tbdr td:first-child {border-left: none;}*/
+table.tbdr tr td+td {border-left: thin solid black;}
+table.tbdr .tdl { padding-left: 1em; padding-right: .3em; text-indent: -.8em;}
+.thead td {
+    border-top: .3em double black;
+    border-bottom: thin solid black;
+    padding: .2em;
+    font-size: smaller;
+}
+.thead td.nobb {border-bottom: none;}
+.thead.nobb td {border-bottom: none;}
+table.tbdr .theadsub td {border-top: thin solid black; border-bottom: thin solid black; border-left: thin solid black; font-size: smaller;}
+table.tbdr .theadsub td.nobt {border-top: none;}
+table.tbdr .theadsub td:first-child {border-left: thin solid black;}
+table.tbdr .theadsub td.nobl {border-left: none;}
+.tlast td {border-bottom: .25em double black;}
+.fsp  {padding-left: .25em;}
+.fs1 {padding-left: .5em;}
+.fs1p {padding-left: .8em;}
+.fs2p {padding-left: 1.25em;}
+.fsrp {padding-right: .25em;}
+.fsr1 {padding-right: .5em;}
+.fsr1p {padding-right: .8em;}
+.fsr2p {padding-right: 1.25em;}
+
+table.date .tdr {vertical-align: top;}
+table.date.tbdr tr  td+td.tdr {border-left: none; padding-left: .1em;}
+#t156 .tdc {vertical-align: top;}
+#t156 .thead .tdc {vertical-align: middle;}
+#t193 .tdc.bot, #t193 .tdl.bot {vertical-align: bottom;}
+
+.pagenum {
+  position: absolute;
+  right: .25em;
+  text-indent: 0;
+  text-align: right;
+  font-size: 70%;
+  font-weight: normal;
+  font-variant: normal;
+  font-style: normal;
+  letter-spacing: normal;
+  line-height: normal;
+  color: #acacac;
+  border: .0625em solid #acacac;
+  background: #ffffff;
+  padding: .0625em .125em;
+}
+
+.figcenter   {
+    margin: 2em auto 2em auto;
+    text-align: center;
+    page-break-inside: avoid;
+}
+
+img {
+    padding: 1em 0 0 0;
+    max-width: 100%;
+    height: auto;
+}
+
+a.ref {text-decoration: none;}
+
+.caption  {text-align: center; margin-top: 0; font-size: 85%; word-spacing: .1em;}
+.caption p.right {text-align: right; font-size: 75%; margin-right: .5em;}
+.caption p.left {text-align: left; font-size: 75%; margin-left: .5em;}
+
+ul {margin-left: 3em; padding-left: 0;}
+li {list-style-type: none; padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2.5em; text-align: left;}
+.x-ebookmaker ul {margin-left: 1em; padding-left: 0;}
+.x-ebookmaker li {list-style-type: none; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1.5em;}
+
+.footnotes {
+    border: thin dashed black;
+    margin: 4em 5% 1em 5%;
+    padding: .5em 1em .5em 1.5em;
+}
+.x-ebookmaker .footnotes {margin: 2em 0 1em 0;}
+
+.footnote {font-size: .95em;}
+.footnote p {text-indent: 1em;}
+.footnote p.in0 {text-indent: 0;}
+.footnote p.fn1 {text-indent: -.7em;}
+.footnote p.fn2 {text-indent: -1.1em;}
+
+.fnanchor, .footnote .label {
+    vertical-align: 60%;
+    line-height: .7;
+    font-size: smaller;
+    text-decoration: none;
+}
+.fnanchor {font-weight: bold; font-size: .8em;}
+.footnote .label {font-size: .8em;}
+h2 .fnanchor {font-size: .5em; vertical-align: text-top;}
+
+.index {margin-left: 1em; text-align: center; display: flex; justify-content: center;}
+ul.index {padding-left: 0; display: block; max-width: 30em;}
+li {list-style-type: none; text-align: left;}
+li.indx, li.ifrst {list-style-type: none; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em; padding-top: .2em;}
+li.isub1 {padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -2em;}
+li.isub1.tpad {padding-top: 1em;}
+li.ifrst {padding-top: 1em;}
+
+.blockquot {
+    margin: 1.5em 5% 1.5em 5%;
+    font-size: 95%;
+}
+
+.blockquot.hang p {padding-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1.5em;}
+.x-ebookmaker .blockquot {margin: 1.5em 3% 1.5em 3%;}
+
+.blockquot.hang2 {margin: .5em 5% .5em 5%; font-size: 100%;}
+.hang2 p {text-align: justify; padding-left: 5em; text-indent: -3em;}
+
+.hang {
+    text-align: justify;
+    padding-left: 1.5em;
+    text-indent: -1.5em;
+}
+.x-ebookmaker .hang {margin: .5em 3% 2em 3%;}
+
+.transnote {
+    border: .3em double gray;
+    font-family: sans-serif, serif;
+    margin-left: 5%;
+    margin-right: 5%;
+    margin-top: 4em;
+    margin-bottom: 2em;
+    padding: 1em;
+}
+.x-ebookmaker .transnote {
+    page-break-before: always;
+    page-break-after: always;
+    margin-left: 2%;
+    margin-right: 2%;
+    margin-top: 1em;
+    margin-bottom: 1em;
+    padding: .5em;
+}
+
+.covernote {visibility: hidden; display: none;}
+.x-ebookmaker .covernote {visibility: visible; display: block; text-align: justify}
+
+.gesperrt1 {letter-spacing: .0175em; margin-right: -.0175em;}
+.wspace {word-spacing: .3em;}
+
+span.locked {white-space:nowrap;}
+.pagenum br {display: none; visibility: hidden;}
+.red {color: red;}
+.bb {border-bottom: thin solid black;}
+.v1 {border-bottom: .1em solid;}
+.v2 {border-bottom: none;}
+
+    /* ]]> */ </style>
+</head>
+
+<body>
+<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75617 ***</div>
+
+<div class="transnote section">
+<p class="center larger">Transcriber’s Notes</p>
+
+<p>This is Volume II of a two-volume set. Volume I is available at
+Project Gutenberg: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75616">
+https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75616</a>. Index references to pages
+within that volume are double-underlined here.</p>
+
+<p>Larger versions of most illustrations may be seen by right-clicking them
+and selecting an option to view them separately, or by double-tapping and/or
+stretching them.</p>
+
+<p class="covernote">New original cover art included with this eBook is granted
+to the public domain. It uses the original cover with title and author text
+added by the Transcriber.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Transcribers_Notes">Additional notes</a> will be found near the end of this ebook.</p>
+<div>                                                                                                                                                                                                                           </div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="section">
+<h1>THE BRITISH BATTLE FLEET</h1>
+<div>                                                                                                                                                                                                                           </div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="section">
+<figure id="i_1" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 39em;">
+  <img src="images/i_001.jpg" width="2441" height="1632" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">DREADNOUGHTS ANCHORING—1912.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+<div>                                                                                                                                                                                                                           </div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="chapter section center wspace">
+<p class="xxlarge red bold">
+THE<br>
+BRITISH BATTLE<br>
+FLEET</p>
+
+<p class="p1 larger"><span class="gesperrt1">ITS INCEPTION AND GROWTH</span><br>
+THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES<br>
+TO THE PRESENT DAY</p>
+
+<p class="p2"><span class="xsmall">BY</span><br>
+<span class="larger red">FRED T. JANE</span></p>
+
+<p class="xsmall">AUTHOR OF “FIGHTING SHIPS,” “ALL THE WORLD’S AIRCRAFT,”<br>
+“HERESIES OF SEA POWER,” ETC., ETC.</p>
+
+<p class="p4 small"><span class="smcap">With Illustrations in Colour<br>
+from original water-colour drawings by</span></p>
+
+<p class="larger red">W.&nbsp;L. WYLLIE, R.A.</p>
+
+<p class="p0"><span class="smcap small">And Numerous Plans and Photographs</span>.</p>
+
+<p class="p2"><span class="smcap">Vol. II.</span></p>
+
+<p class="p2"><span class="bold">London</span><br>
+<span class="larger bold red">The Library Press, Limited</span><br>
+<span class="bold">26 Portugal St., W.C.</span><br>
+<span class="smaller">1915</span>
+</p>
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+<div>                                                                                                                                                                                                                           </div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_v">v</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2>
+</div>
+
+<table id="toc">
+<tr class="xsmall">
+  <td class="tdr">CHAPTER</td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td class="tdr">PAGE</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr top">I.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">THE BARNABY ERA</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_1">1</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr top">II.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">THE WHITE ERA</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_54">54</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr top">III.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">THE WATTS ERA</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_117">117</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr top">IV.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">THE DREADNOUGHT ERA (WATTS)</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_133">133</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr top">V.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">SUBMARINES</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_208">208</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr top">VI.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">NAVAL AVIATION</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_218">218</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr top">VII.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">AUXILIARY NAVIES</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_231">231</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr top">VIII.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">GENERAL MATTERS IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_242">242</a></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_vii">vii</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="LIST_OF_ILLUSTRATIONS">LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS</h2>
+</div>
+
+<table id="loi">
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc chap" colspan="2"><span class="small">IN COLOUR</span><br><br>
+FROM PICTURES BY W.&nbsp;L. WYLLIE, R.A.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="xsmall">
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdr">PAGE</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="2">DREADNOUGHTS ANCHORING—1912
+  <i class="in4"><a href="#i_1">Frontispiece</a></i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">BOARDING A SLAVE DHOW</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_41">41</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">SECOND CLASS CRUISER OF THE NAVAL DEFENCE ACT ERA, NOW CONVERTED INTO A MINELAYER</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_73">73</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">WHITE ERA BATTLESHIPS OF THE MAJESTIC CLASS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_91">91</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">EARLY TYPE OF “27 KNOT” DESTROYERS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_111">111</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">THE “DREADNOUGHT,” 1906</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_147">147</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">“INDEFATIGABLE” AND “INVINCIBLE,” 1911</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_171">171</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">EARLY “30 KNOT” DESTROYERS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_189">189</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">SUBMARINES LEAVING PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_209">209</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">BATTLE CRUISER “NEW ZEALAND” ON THE STOCKS 1912</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_235">235</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_viii">viii</span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc chap" colspan="2">SHIP PHOTOGRAPHS</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">“INFLEXIBLE” AS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED 1881</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_3">3</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">“BENBOW” SHIP OF THE ADMIRAL CLASS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_29">29</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">SUBMARINE E2</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_213">213</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">BRITISH NAVY SEAPLANE</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_219">219</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">HOISTING A NAVAL SEAPLANE ON BOARD THE “HIBERNIA”</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_223">223</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc chap" colspan="2">PORTRAITS</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">SIR N. BARNABY</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_45">45</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">SIR WILLIAM WHITE</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_55">55</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">SIR PHILIP WATTS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_123">123</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">GENERAL CUNIBERTI</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_135">135</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">ADMIRAL FISHER</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_243">243</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">ADMIRAL SIR JOHN JELLICOE</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_249">249</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc chap" colspan="2">PLANS, DIAGRAMS, ETC.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">EARLY TURRET SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_7">7</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">FOREIGN SHIPS PURCHASED FOR THE NAVY IN 1877–78</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_11">11</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">BARNABY BARBETTE SHIPS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_17">17</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">SOME FAMOUS RAMS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_21">21</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">CHARACTERISTIC BARNABY SHIPS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_33">33</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">TURRET SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_37">37</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">BATTLESHIPS OF THE WHITE ERA</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_79">79</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_ix">ix</span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">SYSTEMS OF WATER-LINE PROTECTION</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_83">83</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">PRINCIPAL CRUISERS OF THE WHITE ERA</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_95">95</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">PRE-DREADNOUGHTS OF THE WATTS ERA</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_119">119</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE DREADNOUGHT</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_151">151</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">ORIGINAL DREADNOUGHT DESIGNS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_157">157</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">EARLY EXAMPLES OF WING TURRETS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_161">161</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">DREADNOUGHTS</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_167">167</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">CENTRE-LINE SHIPS OF VARIOUS DATES</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_177">177</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">DIAGRAM TO ILLUSTRATE WEAK POINT OF THE ÉCHELON SYSTEM</td>
+  <td class="tdr"><a href="#i_181">181</a></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">1</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="THE_BRITISH_BATTLE_FLEET"><span class="larger">THE BRITISH BATTLE FLEET.</span></h2>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="I"><span id="toclink_1"></span>I.<br>
+
+<span class="subhead">THE BARNABY ERA.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="drop-cap"><span class="smcap1">The</span> characteristic <i>motif</i> of the Barnaby designs has
+been described as a “maximum of offensive power
+and the minimum of defence.” This is not
+altogether correct; though as a generalization it is no
+very great exaggeration. In every Barnaby design
+proper, offence was the first thing sought for, but
+defence as then understood was by no means overlooked
+as to-day it appears to have been.</p>
+
+<p>The bed rock “Reed idea” was to produce a ship
+which could attack and destroy the enemy without
+much risk of being damaged in doing so. The “Barnaby
+idea” was that “the best defensive is a strong offensive”;
+and a strict subordination of defence to what might
+best serve the attack on the same displacement.</p>
+
+<p>The first big armoured ship to be laid down at all
+on Barnaby principles, the <i>Inflexible</i>, was built under
+somewhat peculiar circumstances. In the year 1871 a
+Committee was appointed. One of its findings was as
+<span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p>“As powerful armament, thick armour, speed, and light draught
+cannot be combined in one ship, although all are needed for the
+defence of the country; there is no alternative but to give the
+preponderance to each in its turn amongst different classes of ships
+which shall mutually supplement one another.”<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">1</a></p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">2</span></p>
+
+<p>Amongst the Committee’s suggestions had been the
+abolition of the complete belt, and its concentration
+amidships. This recommendation was mainly intended to
+refer to cruising ships rather than to ships definitely
+intended for the line of battle; but the idea soon spread.</p>
+
+<p>These suggestions had already been embodied in a
+modified form in the <i>Shannon</i>, of which particulars will
+be found later on. The <i>Shannon</i>, however, was frankly a
+“belted cruiser,” and no idea had then been entertained
+of adapting a similar system for heavy armoured ships.</p>
+
+<p>In the year 1874, however, it transpired that the
+Italians were evolving an entirely new type of battleship,
+the <i>Duilio</i> and <i>Dandolo</i>, and adopting a central box
+system. By this means they were able to protect the
+citadel with 22-inch armour and mount four 100-ton guns
+in two turrets <i>en échelon</i>, so that all four could bear ahead
+and astern as well as on either broadside. The seriousness
+of the situation was increased by the fact that in
+most of the tactical ideas of the day, end-on approach
+figured largely.<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">2</a></p>
+
+<p>Compared with these Italian designs, the most
+powerful British ironclad of those days, the <i>Dreadnought</i>,
+with a belt of only 14-inch to 11-inch armour, and bearing
+but two of her four 38-ton guns end-on, cut a sorry
+figure.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_3" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 39em;">
+  <img src="images/i_003.jpg" width="2449" height="1551" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p class="left"><i>Photo</i>]</p>
+    <p class="right up1">[<i>Ellis</i>.</p>
+    <p>THE <i>INFLEXIBLE</i>, AS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED, 1881.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>It was deemed essential to build a “reply.” The
+largest gun actually available at the time was, however,
+the 81-ton M.L.; so this was adopted for the new ship.
+The <i>Inflexible</i> being frankly an adoption of Italian ideas,
+she can hardly be described as the design of any one man;
+Sir N. Barnaby having been tied down to an extent with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">5</span>
+which (from his subsequent writings) he did not, it would
+appear, altogether agree. A smaller central citadel than
+that of the Italian ships was adopted, but the thickness
+was carried to 24-inch, the thickest armour ever introduced
+into an ironclad either before or since. The
+bulkheads were 20-in. The freeboard of the central
+redoubt was 10ft. Round about it, fore and aft, on an
+armoured raft-body were built a bow and stern, with
+superstructures curtailed to the centre line sufficiently to
+allow of unimpeded end-on fire from the big guns, which,
+like those of the Italians, were placed in échelonned
+turrets.</p>
+
+<p>With a view to satisfying the “masted turret-ship”
+ideal, an absurd brig rig was fitted to the <i>Inflexible</i>.
+With this it was possible for the ship to drift before the
+wind, haystack-fashion, but the rig was so much of the
+“placebo” order that it was designed to be taken down
+and thrown overboard in case of action! At a later
+date it was removed altogether and a military rig
+substituted.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Inflexible</i> was crammed with novelties. Like
+the <i>Devastation</i> she was the “<i>Dreadnought</i>” of her time.
+Chief among her innovations were the adoption of
+submerged torpedo tubes (of which she had two), the
+mounting of Nordenfeldts as a definite anti-torpedo-boat
+armament, and an ingenious anti-rolling arrangement,
+whereby water was admitted amidships to counteract the
+roll. This was very partially successful; but in 1910
+the idea re-appeared in a slightly altered form and is now
+used in certain big Atlantic liners.</p>
+
+<p>An ingenious feature of the <i>Inflexible</i> concerned the
+big guns. In the <i>Devastation</i> and <i>Dreadnought</i> types these
+could be run in and loaded inside the turret. With the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">6</span>
+much larger guns of the <i>Inflexible</i> this was impossible,
+without a very considerable increase of the size of the
+turrets. Outside loading without protection was recognised
+as unsuitable and practically impossible. A special
+glacis was, therefore, designed, which admitted of outside
+loading under cover, and at the same time
+ensured that, in the event of premature discharge, the
+projectile would emerge above the water-line and
+not below it.</p>
+
+<p>This device is of special interest as the “last word”
+of those muzzle-loading guns to which the British Navy
+adhered so long as it possibly could. Had it been
+thought of earlier, the British Navy might perhaps have
+adhered to muzzle-loaders even longer than it did. As
+things were, the <i>Inflexible</i> device came too late to stay the
+tide which had already begun to set strongly in the
+breechloader direction.</p>
+
+<p>Details of the <i>Inflexible</i> <span class="locked">were:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—11,880 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—320ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—75ft.</li>
+
+<li>Maximum Draught—26⅓ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armour—Belt amidships 24—16-inch, beyond that
+a protective deck only; 22—14-inch bulkhead, all
+iron; and 17-inch compound armour turrets.</li>
+
+<li>Armaments—Four 81-ton guns (to which eight
+4-inch breechloaders were added later on).
+Two submerged tubes and two above-water
+launching appliances for torpedoes.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—8,010 (I.H.P.).</li>
+
+<li>Speed—13.8 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—1,300 tons = nominal 10-knot radius of
+5,200 miles.</li>
+
+<li>Built at Portsmouth Dockyard. Engined by
+Elder. Completed 1881.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">9</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_7" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_007.jpg" width="1655" height="2659" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      DUILIO.<br>
+      DREADNOUGHT.<br>
+      INFLEXIBLE.
+    </p>
+    <p>EARLY TURRET-SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>On completion she was sent to the Mediterranean,
+with Captain Fisher (afterwards Admiral of the Fleet,
+Lord Fisher) in command of her. He was the chief
+gunnery officer of those days and the founder of the
+torpedo school. At the time it was put on record that,
+asked by a Press interviewer what he would do if the
+fortunes of war brought it about that he had to encounter
+a similar “last word” in naval construction, he replied
+that he would keep away from her till nightfall, and
+then send in the, then, novel second-class torpedo-boats
+which the <i>Inflexible</i> carried, to settle the foe. Over which
+statement the historian of fifty years hence may yet
+place Lord Fisher among the prophets. To-day, some
+thirty years later, similar ideas obtain, but have got no
+further. Fifty years hence——?</p>
+
+<p>In 1882 the <i>Inflexible</i> was the central figure at the
+bombardment of Alexandria. The damage she did was
+infinitesimal compared to the ideas which the public had
+formed of her. Far more actual mischief was done by
+Lord Charles Beresford in a trivial gunboat, the <i>Condor</i>,
+which steered into close range of the hostile guns and
+knocked them over. At the time this was regarded as
+an act of spectacular heroism; but the historian of the
+future is far more likely to discover in it (as in the Fisher
+torpedo-boats) something closely akin to the reasoning
+behind Nelson when he destroyed the French fleet at the
+Nile or charged into them at Trafalgar. The commonplace
+expression, “sizing up the other man,” and acting
+accordingly, is the secret. In peace time we are all too
+apt to assess hostile weapons at their theoretical
+potentiality. The victors in war are those who gauge<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">10</span>
+correctly the handling ability of the man behind the
+weapon and—act accordingly.</p>
+
+<p>About the years 1877–78, towards the close of the
+Turco-Russian War, an Anglo-Russian war seemed
+probable, and four foreign ships building in England
+were purchased for the British Navy.</p>
+
+<p>These were the Brazilian <i>Independencia</i>, an improved
+<i>Monarch</i>, designed by Sir E.&nbsp;J. Reed, which went into the
+British service as the <i>Neptune</i>. Save that she carried
+38-ton guns instead of 25-ton, she reproduced the
+<i>Monarch</i> idea almost exactly. After certain vicissitudes
+she entered the British service, and eventually was fitted
+with a couple of military masts. The points of special
+interest about her were that (1) owing to some error her
+funnels were put in sideways instead of as designed;
+and (2) in service in any bad weather the sea regularly
+washed out her wardroom; (3) she was the first ship of
+the British Navy to carry a bath-room. As an effective
+warship she never figured to any large extent.</p>
+
+<p>The other three purchased ships had been destined
+for the Turkish Navy; and all three turned out worse
+than the <i>Neptune</i>. The <i>Hamidieh</i>, re-christened <i>Superb</i>,
+more or less duplicated the <i>Hercules</i>. She took part in
+the bombardment of Alexandria a little later, and it was
+there discovered that her guns could not train at all well
+in comparison with contemporary British naval ships.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_11" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_011.jpg" width="1649" height="2623" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      SUPERB<br>
+      NEPTUNE<br>
+      BELLEISLE
+    </p>
+    <p class="b0">FIRE ZONES OF THE BELLEISLE (<span class="allsmcap">4 GUNS</span>)</p>
+    <p class="p0">FIRE ZONES OF THE DEVASTATION (<span class="allsmcap">4 GUNS</span>)</p>
+    <p class="p1">FOREIGN SHIPS PURCHASED FOR THE NAVY IN 1877–78.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>Of the fighting value of the other two ships, <i>Pakyi-Shereef</i>
+and <i>Boordyi-Zaffir</i>, which became the <i>Belleisle</i>
+and <i>Orion</i>, the least said the better. They turned out to
+be nothing but improvements on a type of “coast
+defender,” already obsolete, diminutives of the original
+Reed broadside idea applied to a <i>Hotspur</i> type hull. In
+place of the single 25-ton gun of the <i>Hotspur</i>, they carried<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">13</span>
+four similar guns—the old 12-inch 25-ton M.L. These
+guns were carried in a central raised battery, from which,
+as in the <i>Hotspur</i>, one gun could always bear, and from
+which two bearing on an exact and unlikely broadside
+might be looked for.</p>
+
+<p>No useful service was ever performed by these ships.
+The <i>Belleisle</i> ended her service as a target, the <i>Orion</i> as a
+hulk. They proved conclusively that the central battery
+idea was obsolete and so far probably did good service.
+In the past Sir E.&nbsp;J. Reed had argued, and for that
+matter proved, that for a given weight of armour and
+armament eight guns, four on either broadside, could be
+mounted with equal protection and economy of weight
+as against two pairs of guns in turrets.<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">3</a> The <i>Belleisle</i>
+gave the lie to this idea, however, when it came to be
+applied to half the number of guns. The step from that
+to the same thing with more guns was made easy, and
+the turret idea assured, out of the <i>Belleisle</i> type. To the
+<i>Belleisle</i> and <i>Orion</i> more than any other ships may be
+traced the first real appreciation of “angles in between”—the
+demonstration that “right ahead” or “right on
+the broadside” were ideal positions which no enemy
+would willingly assume.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Devastation</i> and her sisters had, of course,
+anticipated this idea; but to the <i>Belleisle</i>, at most
+fighting angles only able to bring a quarter of her battery
+into action, may be traced most modern developments
+in gun disposition.</p>
+
+<p>Contemporaneous with the special Barnaby ships,
+reference may be made to the entirely nondescript
+<i>Téméraire</i>. She may be described as an absolute hybrid—partly
+Reed, partly Barnaby, partly gun inventors of
+the era, and partly nothing in particular.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">14</span></p>
+
+<p>Details of this ship <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—8,540 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—285ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—62ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—27¼ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 25-ton 11-inch M.L. (two in
+barbettes), four 18-ton M.L.—two above water
+torpedo tubes.</li>
+
+<li>Armour (iron)—Complete 11—8in. belt. Bulkheads
+8—5in. Barbettes 10—8in. Battery 10—8in.
+Horse-power—7,520 = 14.5 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—620 tons = 2,680 miles at economical speed
+(nominal).</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The <i>Téméraire</i> was unique in the world’s navies in
+that two of her 25-ton guns were carried—one forward,
+one aft—on special Moncrieff mountings, an adaption
+for naval purposes of the “disappearing gun,” invented
+for forts of that era. The gun, loaded under cover,
+was raised to fire by hydraulic mechanism, and then
+recoiled to the loading position. The ship was otherwise
+essentially of the Reed box-battery type; the other two
+25-ton guns being in a central main-deck battery, and
+capable of a good deal of ahead fire. The other big guns
+(18 tons) were cut off from the 25-ton by an armoured
+bulkhead, and merely had the ordinary broadside
+training.</p>
+
+<p>Like the <i>Inflexible</i>, the <i>Téméraire</i> had a heavy brig
+rig. Towards the end of her active service career this
+was replaced by a military rig; but all her active work
+was done as a brig. She was built at Chatham Dockyard,
+engined by Humphrys, and completed for sea in 1877.</p>
+
+<p>In 1882 she was at the bombardment of Alexandria,
+and there did more execution than any other ship. Her<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">15</span>
+subsequent career was uneventful, and in her own way
+she was a “monstrosity” as much as the <i>Polyphemus</i>
+was. She is generally understood to have been a “naval
+officers’ ideal” ship, rather than the regular production
+of the Chief Constructor. Whether this be true is, at
+least, doubtful. Certainly she may equally well be
+regarded as the forlorn hope of those who looked to see
+the general principles of the central battery system
+adapted to suit the new ideas as to ironclads. French
+ideas<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">4</a> also had probably something to do with her
+peculiar design.</p>
+
+<p>The idea embodied in the <i>Inflexible</i> was so pleasing
+to the authorities of that period that she was duplicated
+in two smaller vessels of the same type, the <i>Ajax</i> and
+<i>Agamemnon</i>, though the precise purpose for which these
+vessels were built is difficult to fathom. They were in
+every way inferior to the <i>Inflexible</i>, and mainly of
+interest as indicating the definite abandonment of the
+idea of the masted battleship, and they were also the
+last ships to mount muzzle-loading <span class="locked">guns:—</span></p>
+
+<p>Particulars of these ships <span class="locked">were:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—8,660 tons.</li>
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—280ft.</li>
+<li>Beam—66ft.</li>
+<li>Draught (mean)—24ft.</li>
+<li>Guns—Four 38-ton M.L., two 6-inch 81-cwt. B.L.</li>
+<li>Horse-power—5,440.</li>
+<li>Speed—13.25 knots.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>These were followed by the <i>Colossus</i> and <i>Edinburgh</i>,
+which were laid down in 1879. In these ships the
+12-inch breechloader was adopted, and an attempt at
+what was then a very considerable speed was made.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">16</span>
+An auxiliary armament made its first really definite
+appearance, five 6-inch guns being mounted on the
+superstructure.</p>
+
+<p>Particulars of these ships <span class="locked">were:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—9,420 tons.</li>
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—325ft.</li>
+<li>Beam—68ft.</li>
+<li>Draught (mean)—26ft. 3ins.</li>
+<li>Guns—Four 45-ton B.L.R., five 6-inch, 89-cwt. do.</li>
+<li>Horse-power—7,500.</li>
+<li>Speed—15.50 knots.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>At and about the same time considerable interest
+was being taken in rams. This resulted in the laying
+down of the <i>Conqueror</i>, a species of improved <i>Rupert</i>, and
+a type of ship destined to be enlarged upon in the future.</p>
+
+<p>Particulars of the <i>Conqueror</i> <span class="locked">were:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—6,200 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—270ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—58ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—24ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Two 45-ton B.L.R., four 6-inch
+89-cwt. do., six 14-inch torpedo tubes (above
+water).</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—(maximum) 6,000.</li>
+
+<li>Speed—15.5 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—650 tons.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The <i>Conqueror</i> was launched in September, 1881.
+Some three years later a sister, the <i>Hero</i>, was laid down,
+and launched towards the end of 1885. She differed from
+the <i>Conqueror</i> only in that all four of her 6-inch guns were
+mounted on the superstructure, whereas the <i>Conqueror</i>
+carried two of them on the main deck inside the superstructure.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">17</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_17" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_017.jpg" width="1644" height="2668" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      TEMERAIRE<br>
+      IMPERIEUSE<br>
+      <br>
+      BRITISH SYSTEM IDEAL<br>
+      FRENCH SYSTEM IDEAL
+    </p>
+    <p>BARNABY BARBETTE SHIPS.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">19</span></p>
+
+<p>Although developed from the <i>Rupert</i>, the <i>Conqueror</i>
+differed a good deal in appearance, on account of the
+whole of the after part of the ship being one huge
+superstructure. In her, the superstructure, as a very
+definite feature instead of a mere accessory, may be
+said to have made its first appearance, to remain as a
+factor of growing importance for many years.</p>
+
+<p>Contemporaneously with these ships two entirely
+different types made their appearance. One of these was
+the “torpedo ram” <i>Polyphemus</i>, an absolutely unique
+vessel, the outcome (though not so designed) of the
+influence of the torpedo. The ship was never duplicated,
+and never performed much service, but it would be rash
+to assert that the future may not see something like her
+re-appear. She was first projected as a “ram” pure and
+simple, so long ago as 1873, and designed by Barnaby
+to suit the specifications of certain naval officers as
+embodying their ideals of the warship of the future. This
+is the generally accepted theory, though Sir N. Barnaby<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">5</a>
+has made public a somewhat different view of the matter,
+and according to him, Admiral Sir George Sartorius,
+the naval officer principally concerned, lost his interest
+in the <i>Polyphemus</i> when it was decided to give her an
+armament of torpedo tubes and some quick-firers against
+torpedo attack. So far as can be gauged, the torpedo
+tubes were likewise a naval innovation with which Sir N.
+Barnaby was also not much in sympathy. At any rate,
+he has put on record the view<a id="FNanchor_5a" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">5</a> <span class="locked">that:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p>“The introduction of torpedoes made the ship far more costly
+than she need have been, and it is possible that the type would
+have been continued and improved had the simplicity of the ram
+been adhered to.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The <i>Polyphemus</i> performed little useful service; her<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">20</span>
+life on the Navy List was short; and she is always spoken
+of as a “failure.” Officers who served in her were, however,
+invariably enthusiastic about her, and had war
+occurred during the time that she was in existence there
+is no telling what she might have accomplished or how
+profoundly she might have affected naval construction.</p>
+
+<p>In essence the <i>Polyphemus</i> was a semi-submerged
+craft, those parts of her which were above water being
+merely a light superstructure for the accommodation of
+her crew in peace time.</p>
+
+<p>She was of 2,640 tons displacement, length 240ft.
+between perpendiculars, beam 40ft., and a normal mean
+draught of 20ft. In form she was cigar-shaped, plated
+with 3-inch armour on the upper part of her curved sides.
+With 5,520 I.H.P. she had the then very high speed of
+17.8 knots. She carried 300 tons of coal, sufficient for
+a nominal radius of 3,400 miles at economical speed.</p>
+
+<p>Her principal feature, however, was the fitting of
+five submerged tubes, one in the bow the others on the
+broadside. For repelling a torpedo attack she carried
+six 6-pounders and a couple of machine guns.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_21" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_021.jpg" width="1646" height="2662" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      POLYPHEMUS.<br>
+      ALARM.<br>
+      KATAHDIN.
+    </p>
+    <p>SOME FAMOUS RAMS.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>It is here of interest to relate that some years later
+the U.S. Navy created a species of <i>Polyphemus</i> imitation
+in the “ram” <i>Katahdin</i>. To a certain extent they had
+anticipated her likewise in the <i>Alarm</i>, 720 tons, launched
+in 1873, which carried a 15-inch smooth-bore gun <i>under
+water</i> in her ram, and the <i>Intrepid</i> (launched 1873), of
+1,123 tons, of which no details ever transpired, and it
+may be said that she was “strangled at birth.” But the
+<i>Polyphemus’s</i> ancestry is undoubtedly American. The
+<i>Katahdin</i> (first produced as the “ram” <i>Ammen</i>) was not
+launched till 1893. She was of 2,050 tons and seventeen
+knots, and having no torpedo tubes, being a “ram”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">23</span>
+pure and simple, exactly reproduced the Sartorious-Barnaby
+idea. She soon disappeared from the U.S.
+Navy List, and she never did anything. She doubled
+the armour of the <i>Polyphemus</i>, whilst lacking her torpedo
+armament. Since then, the idea has found expression
+in three small U.S. “semi-submerged” boats, with
+the torpedo as their main armament; but these three
+boats never got beyond the “designed” stage. No
+other nation ever exhibited the least interest in the
+<i>Polyphemus</i> idea.</p>
+
+<p>Reference has already been made to the <i>Shannon</i>,
+which was the first armoured cruiser of the British Navy.
+She was launched towards the end of 1875 and completed
+two years later. In substance she was a development of
+the idea which first found expression in the <i>Inconstant</i>,
+heavy armament being preferred to the protection of
+the guns. A narrow belt of armour with a maximum
+thickness of 9-ins. protected three-quarters of the
+water-line. This belt commenced at the stern and
+ended in a bulkhead some 70ft. from the bow. Forward
+of this bulkhead was an under-water protective deck,
+and a certain amount of armour was concentrated on
+the ram under water. The bulkhead, which was from
+9in. to 8in. thick, rose to the upper deck, and afforded
+protection to a couple of 18-ton muzzle-loaders, capable
+of right-ahead fire. The remainder of her armament
+consisted of seven 12½ton guns, and was entirely
+unprotected.</p>
+
+<p>Other details of the ship are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—5,390 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—260ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—54ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—23ft. 4in.</li>
+
+<li><span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">24</span></li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—3,370.</li>
+
+<li>Speed—12.35 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal carried—580 tons = nominal economical radius of 2,260 miles.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The speed of the <i>Shannon</i> was so low, even in those
+days, that it is a little difficult to surmise for what
+purpose she was designed, especially as this design was
+more or less contemporary with the re-designing of the
+<i>Dreadnought</i>.<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">6</a> It found favour, however, since she was
+almost immediately followed by two larger replicas, the
+<i>Nelson</i> and the <i>Northampton</i>, details of which <span class="locked">were:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—7,630 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—280ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—60ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught (maximum)—26ft. 6in.</li>
+
+<li>Armour—Belt amidships, 9in. to 6in., compound:
+bulkhead ditto. Armour deck only, at ends.</li>
+
+<li>Main Armament—Four 18-ton M.L.R., eight 12-ton
+M.L.R., two above-water 14-inch torpedo tubes.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—6,640.</li>
+
+<li>Speed—14.41 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal carried—1,150 tons = nominal radius of 3,850
+miles.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>These ships differed from the <i>Shannon</i> in that the
+armour belt was confined to a water-line strip amidships,
+while the after guns were also protected by a bulkhead.
+The most curious, and to modern ideas, eccentric feature
+of these ships, was that they were fitted with triangular
+rams, which, “for the sake of safety,” could be removed
+in peace time and merely put on for war purposes! As
+a matter of fact, the ships always carried their rams
+without rendering themselves dangerous to anybody.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">25</span>
+On the other hand, shortly after construction, the
+<i>Northampton</i> was run into by a small trading schooner,
+which cut her down to the water’s edge. The ships,
+therefore, started with an unfavourable reputation,
+which the <i>Northampton</i> followed up by a total inability
+to make even her moderate designed speed. The <i>Nelson</i>,
+on the other hand, proved herself a comparatively good
+steamer, so much so that at a later date she was to a
+certain extent modernised. Both ships were originally
+heavily masted, the idea being to perform most of their
+peace service when convenient under sail. The <i>Nelson</i>
+sailed moderately well, but the <i>Northampton</i> very
+badly. It was possibly with some view to remedying
+this that some years later, when it was decided that the
+<i>Imperieuse</i>, originally built as a brig, should be given
+a military rig, her lofty iron fore and mainmast were
+taken out of her and substituted for the two equivalent
+masts in the <i>Northampton</i>. The change, however, was
+not satisfactory, as thereafter she sailed if anything
+worse than ever.</p>
+
+<p>At and about this year protected cruisers made
+their first appearance in the <i>Comus</i> class. Of these
+altogether eleven were built, the best known of these
+being the <i>Calliope</i>, which in the early nineties became
+famous through steaming out of Samoa Roads in the
+teeth of a hurricane, which utterly destroyed every
+foreign vessel anchored there at the same time. The
+<i>Comus</i> class consisted of the <i>Calliope</i>, <i>Calypso</i>, <i>Canada</i>,
+<i>Carysfort</i>, <i>Champion</i>, <i>Cleopatra</i>, <i>Comus</i>, <i>Conquest</i>,
+<i>Constance</i>, <i>Cordelia</i>, and <i>Curacoa</i>. They averaged 2,380
+tons displacement, though the first mentioned, which
+were the last to be built, were slightly larger. The
+original armament consisted of two 6-ton muzzle-loaders<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">26</span>
+and twelve 64-pounders. This was afterwards varied
+by the substitution of breechloaders. The ships
+generally had a speed of about thirteen knots, and were
+completed between the years 1877, for the earliest, and
+1884 for the latest. They had a 1½-inch protective deck
+for the engines amidships. These ships, which were
+generally officially known as the “C” class cruiser, were
+undoubtedly diminutives of the <i>Shannon</i>, or, at any rate,
+inspired by a similar idea.</p>
+
+<p>Besides growing downwards the idea also grew
+upwards, and resulted in the building of six ships of the
+“Admiral” class, of which the first was the <i>Collingwood</i>.
+These, which were the apotheosis of the Barnaby idea,
+represented an absolute revolution in naval construction,
+so far as big ships were concerned.</p>
+
+<p>The “Admirals” were not all identical, as they
+formed four different groups in the matter of displacement
+and three in armament. In all, however, the integral
+idea was the same. Amidships was a narrow belt, 150ft.
+long by 7½ft. wide, which sufficed to protect engines,
+boilers, and communication tubes of the barbettes. This
+belt varied in thickness from 18ins. to 8ins, of compound
+armour. The ends of the belt were closed up by 16-inch
+bulkheads. Forward and aft was merely a curved
+protective deck; there was also a flat protective deck
+on top of the armour belt. The ships were of low
+freeboard, forward and aft, but had a large superstructure
+built up amidships. At either end of the superstructure,
+with their bases unprotected by armour except for
+the communication tubes already referred to, were
+many-sided barbettes with plates set at an angle of
+about forty-five degrees. These barbettes were about
+11½ins. thick, and carried each a couple of the heaviest<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">28</span>
+guns then available. These were 12-inch breechloaders
+in the <i>Collingwood</i>, and 13.5-inch in the other ships,
+except the <i>Benbow</i>, which mounted one 16.5 inch 110-ton
+in each barbette instead. An auxiliary armament was
+mounted inside the superstructure. The speed of these
+ships was about seventeen knots, and was considerably
+in excess of the average for the period.</p>
+
+<table id="t028" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Collingwood.</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Rodney</i>, <i>Howe.</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Anson</i>, <i>Camperdown.</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Benbow.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2">Displacement, tons</td>
+  <td class="tdl">9,500</td>
+  <td class="tdl">10,300</td>
+  <td class="tdl">10,600</td>
+  <td class="tdl">10,600</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2">Length (<i>p.p.</i>) ft.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">325</td>
+  <td class="tdl">325</td>
+  <td class="tdl">330</td>
+  <td class="tdl">330</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Beam, ft.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">68</td>
+  <td class="tdl">68</td>
+  <td class="tdl">68½</td>
+  <td class="tdl">68½</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Draught (<i>mean</i>) ft.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">26¾</td>
+  <td class="tdl">27¼</td>
+  <td class="tdl">26¾</td>
+  <td class="tdl">27¼</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2">H.P.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">9,500</td>
+  <td class="tdl">11,500</td>
+  <td class="tdl">11,500</td>
+  <td class="tdl">11,500</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2">Nominal Speed, knots</td>
+  <td class="tdl">16.5</td>
+  <td class="tdl">16.7</td>
+  <td class="tdl">17.2</td>
+  <td class="tdl">17.5</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Armament</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—12in., 6—6in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—13.5, 6—6in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—13.5, 6—6 in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2—16.25, 10—6in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2">Built at</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Pembroke Yard</td>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Rodney</i>, Chatham Yd. <i>Howe</i>, Pembroke Yd. Chatham Yd.</td>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Anson</i>, Pembroke Yd. <i>Camperdown</i>, Por’th.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Thames, I.W.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2">Engines by</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Humphrys</td>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Rodney</i>, Humphrys <i>Howe</i>, Humphrys</td>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Anson</i>, Humphrys <i>Camperdown</i>, Maud’y</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Maudslay</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2">Armour belt</td>
+  <td class="tdl">18in.-8in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">18in.-8in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">18in.-8in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">18in.-8in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in4">barbettes</td>
+  <td class="tdl">14in.-12in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">11½in.-10in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">16in.-6in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">12in.-4in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in4">bulkheads</td>
+  <td class="tdl">16in.-6in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">16in.-6in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">14in.-12in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">18in.-6in.*</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl">Armament</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—12in., 6—6in., and smaller, 2 sub. and 4 above water tubes</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—13.5, 6—6in., and smaller, as <i>Collingwood</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—13.5, 6—6in., and smaller, as <i>Collingwood</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">2—16.25, 10—6in., and smaller, as <i>Collingwood</i></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>As compared with the <i>Colossus</i> and <i>Edinburgh</i> class
+of the same date and era of design, the “Admirals”
+were somewhat inferior in armour protection, but
+because of that secured a far better speed and a greatly
+superior big gun command.</p>
+
+<p>In all the “Admiral” class the armour weighed
+about 2,500 tons—say, 20 per cent. of the displacement.
+This proportion has never been very greatly varied from
+either before or since, and the popular idea that Barnaby
+designs sacrificed armour weight for other features is
+entirely incorrect. The real Barnaby ideal is better
+described (the conditions of his own time being kept in
+mind) as an attempt to put into practice “everything or
+nothing,” so far as protection was concerned. To-day,
+a compromise is in fashion, and Barnaby is very much out
+of date. It may well be but a phase in the cycle of naval
+design. Properly to appreciate the <i>Admiral</i> class
+ideal, we have to translate it into the ideal which obtains
+to-day. Thus put, the <i>Admirals</i> would be somewhat
+swifter than our existing battle-cruisers, their vitals
+would be invulnerable and their armaments superior to
+that of any potential enemy. They would not, in fact,
+very greatly differ from Admiral Bacon’s conception
+(published some five years before the present war) of the
+battleship of the future, in which he predicted the
+disappearance of much of the side armour of to-day.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">29</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_29" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 39em;">
+  <img src="images/i_029.jpg" width="2446" height="1511" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p class="left"><i>Photo</i>]</p>
+    <p class="right up1">[<i>Symonds &amp; Co.</i></p>
+    <p>THE <i>BENBOW</i>—A SHIP OF THE “ADMIRAL” CLASS.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">31</span></p>
+
+<p>The coming of the medium calibre quick-firer soon
+rendered the “Admirals” obsolete and even ridiculous.
+The medium calibre quick-firer profoundly modified
+design until the development of the big gun enabled it
+to act well beyond the effective range of the medium
+gun, and incidentally enabled it to fire nearly as fast as
+the elementary quick-firers were built to do. Thus we
+have come back to something very akin to the condition
+under which the Barnaby ships were designed.</p>
+
+<p>These ships could not, perhaps, be described as
+an absolutely original idea, save in so far as the British
+Navy was concerned, since the Italian <i>Italia</i> was launched
+in the same year that the <i>Collingwood</i>, the first of the
+“Admirals” was laid down. The <i>Italia</i>, equally abnormally
+fast (or faster) for the period, carried four 100-ton
+guns échelonned in one large heavily armoured barbette
+amidships, but had no water-line belt whatever, and
+relied entirely upon an armour-deck to protect the motive
+power. In the “Admirals” the motive power was
+thoroughly protected by the vertical belt amidships, while
+flotation otherwise depended upon internal sub-divisions.</p>
+
+<p>The “Admiral” class idea was re-developed into
+armoured cruisers in a somewhat curious fashion. At
+that time the French Navy was second in the world, and
+French ideas of construction commanded a great deal of
+respect. French notions at that era ran largely to single
+gun positions, four guns being separately disposed in four
+barbettes placed one ahead, one astern, and one on either
+side. The particular point of this arrangement was that
+while British designs accepted two or four big guns
+bearing, the French system allowed for a definite mean of
+three. More practically put, this may be translated into a
+conception that an enemy would use every effort to avoid<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">32</span>
+positions in which four big guns could be brought to bear
+on him, and seek those in which he was exposed to two
+only. A gun-arrangement which gave three big guns
+bearing in <i>any</i> position seemed therefore far more
+reasonable on paper.</p>
+
+<p>It stands to the credit of Sir N. Barnaby (or else
+to the credit of the Admiralty of the era) that he
+recognised the impossibility of any such manœuvres in
+fleet actions, but at the same time he also realised
+how heavily it might tell in cruiser duels. Out of which
+the <i>Imperieuse</i> and <i>Warspite</i> were born.</p>
+
+<p>Details of these <span class="locked">ships:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—8,400 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—315ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—62ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught (maximum)—27⅓ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 9.2 24-ton B.L., six 6-inch, 89cwt., six torpedo tubes.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—10,000=16.75 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—1,130 tons = nominal radius of ten knots of 7,000 miles.</li>
+
+<li>Armour—Belt amidships of 10in. compound, with
+9-inch bulkheads, 8-inch barbettes. No armour
+to lesser guns. 3-inch protective deck fore and
+aft, and on top of belt.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<figure id="i_33" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_033.jpg" width="1657" height="2662" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      SHANNON.<br>
+      NORTHAMPTON.<br>
+      ADMIRAL class.<br>
+      “C” class.<br>
+      ORLANDO class.
+    </p>
+    <p>CHARACTERISTIC BARNABY SHIPS.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The <i>Imperieuse</i> was built at Portsmouth Dockyard
+and engined by Maudslay. The <i>Warspite</i>, built at
+Chatham, was engined by Penn. Both were completed
+in 1886 at a total cost of about £630,000 each. They
+were copper sheathed, and (like the <i>Inflexible</i>) originally
+were to carry a heavy brig-rig. This was removed at
+an early stage, and a single military mast between the
+funnels substituted. The <i>Imperieuse’s</i> masts were subsequently<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">35</span><span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">34</span>
+put in the <i>Northampton</i> (which see). Both
+proved faster than anticipated; but the coming of the
+quick-firer placed them in the semi-obsolete category
+almost as soon as they were completed. The type was
+never repeated. Till recently the <i>Imperieuse</i> still
+existed as a depot ship for destroyers; the <i>Warspite</i> has
+long since gone to the scrap heap. Years after their
+conception a modernised version of them was to some
+extent reproduced in the <i>Black Prince</i> class. In their
+own day, however, they appeared and that was all.</p>
+
+<p>The “battleship of the future” ideal of those days
+had to some extent been foreshadowed in the <i>Benbow</i>,
+with her couple of 110-ton guns. The monster gun was
+“the vogue” and no way of carrying it on existing
+displacements allowed of more than two such pieces
+being mounted.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of the moment became the mounting of
+guns capable of delivering deadly blows, and (corollary
+therewith) protection to ensure that that deadly blow
+could be delivered with relative impunity. Since the
+secondary gun had now come in, auxiliary guns and a
+secondary battery were a <i>sine quâ non</i>; but the ideal
+ship was to be one incapable of vital injury from such
+weapons. On lines such as these the <i>Victoria</i> class was
+designed.</p>
+
+<p>The call was for an improved <i>Benbow</i>. The armament
+was to be no less and, if possible, more; while
+better protection was an essential feature.</p>
+
+<p>Details of the <i>Victoria</i> type, of which only two were
+built, are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—10,470 tons (approximately that of the
+<i>Benbow</i>).</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—340ft.</li>
+
+<li><span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">36</span></li>
+
+<li>Beam—70ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught (maximum)—27¼ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Two 110-ton guns (in a single turret), one
+9.2 (aft), twelve 6-inch; twenty-one anti-torpedo
+guns, and six torpedo tubes (14-inch).</li>
+
+<li>Armour (compound)—18-inch to 16-inch belt amidships,
+redoubt and bulkheads, 18-inch turret, 2-inch
+in battery. Armour deck, and heavily armoured
+conning tower.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—14,000 = 16.75 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—1,200 tons = 7,000 miles at 10 knots.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The <i>Victoria</i> was built at Elswick and engined by
+Humphrys; launched in 1887 and completed for sea in
+1889. The <i>Sanspareil</i>, engined by the same firm, but
+built at Blackwall (Thames Ironworks) was launched a
+year later, but completed about the same time.</p>
+
+<p>The design of these ships closely approximated to
+the <i>Conqueror</i>, of which they were merely enlarged
+editions with a heavily increased battery.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_37" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_037.jpg" width="1634" height="2619" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      RUPERT.<br>
+      CONQUEROR.<br>
+      VICTORIA.<br>
+      DREADNOUGHT.<br>
+      TRAFALGAR.
+    </p>
+    <p>TURRET SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The <i>Victoria</i> on completion became the flagship in
+the Mediterranean of Admiral Sir George Tryon. In the
+course of evolutions off the coast of Syria on June 22nd,
+1893, she was rammed and sunk by the <i>Camperdown</i>.
+The disaster, which cost the lives of the Admiral and
+321 officers and men, teaches no useful lesson, saving
+the danger of transverse bulkheads. Water-tight doors
+were shut too late. The sea entered. The ship gradually
+turned over, then suddenly “turned turtle” and
+capsized.</p>
+
+<p>The mystery of her loss has never been fully
+explained. Admiral Tryon gave an order for the fleet,
+then in two lines, to turn inboard sixteen points, while
+at six cables apart. This manœuvre, with turning<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">39</span>
+circles as they were, was bound to create a collision.
+This was pointed out to Admiral Tryon, who, however,
+took no notice of the representations. It has since been
+assumed that he went suddenly mad. A more reasonable
+explanation is that he intended the ships to “jockey
+with their screws” (a manœuvre which he never employed
+as a rule), and forgot to mention the fact, though details
+of evidence in the court-martial hardly bear this out.</p>
+
+<p>The exact signal as made <span class="locked">was:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p>“Second division alter course in succession sixteen points to
+starboard, preserving the order of the Fleet.”</p>
+
+<p>“First division alter course in succession sixteen points to
+port, preserving the order of the Fleet.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>This signal was capable of more than one interpretation.
+Along one of them each ship in the two squadrons
+might easily have rammed the other in succession,
+according to some interpretations. Using screws, both
+divisions might have closed in very closely but quite
+safely. Acting other than simultaneously they might
+anyway have effected the manœuvre without disaster.
+At eight cables (a distance which was suggested to the
+Admiral an hour before) it might have been done quite
+safely. There have been other explanations also.</p>
+
+<p>In the Fleet at the time everything was believed,
+except the “blunder” theory which has gone down to
+history. To this day that is accepted with reservation.
+But the rest is mystery.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Camperdown</i>, in turning, crashed into the
+<i>Victoria</i>, striking her forward, curiously enough directly
+on a bulkhead, just as the <i>Vanguard</i> was struck when
+she was rammed.</p>
+
+<p>It was not expected that the <i>Victoria</i> would be sunk.
+Had the water-tight doors been closed during the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">40</span>
+manœuvre, instead of at the last moment, she would
+probably have remained afloat. As things were, it
+was impossible to close many at the time the order
+was given, but her low-freeboard also played a part.
+The sea invaded the door on the starboard side of the
+superstructure and thence got everywhere on that side
+of the ship. It was that which threw her over and
+capsized her, but the chance circumstance of the blow
+on the lateral bulkhead should not be forgotten. The
+<i>Victoria</i> was struck just on one of the points where all
+the odds were against her being struck.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Sanspareil</i> had an uneventful career, and was
+eventually sold out of the Service somewhat suddenly
+under the “scrap-heap” policy of Admiral Fisher in
+1904.</p>
+
+<p>Following upon the <i>Imperieuse</i> type, an entirely
+new class of armoured cruisers, the <i>Orlandos</i>, were
+designed. Just as the <i>Victorias</i> were improved and
+enlarged <i>Conquerors</i>, so the <i>Orlandos</i> were “improved
+<i>Merseys</i>.” Particulars of these ships, of which seven
+were built altogether, are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—5,600 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—300ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—56ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught (maximum)—22½ft. (actually more).</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Two 9.2in. B.L.; ten 6in.; and six
+torpedo tubes.</li>
+
+<li>Armour (compound)—Belt amidships 10in., with 16in.
+Bulkheads. Protective deck at ends. All guns
+protected by shields only.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—8,500 = 18 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal (maximum)—900 tons = nominal radius of 8,000
+miles.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">41</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_41" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 39em;">
+  <img src="images/i_041.jpg" width="2447" height="1634" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">BOARDING A SLAVE DHOW
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">43</span></p>
+
+<p>They were built as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t042" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc"><span class="smcap">Name.</span></td>
+  <td class="tdc"> <span class="smcap">Builder.</span></td>
+  <td class="tdc"> <span class="smcap">Engined by</span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Orlando</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Palmer</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Palmer</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Australia</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Glasgow</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Napier</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Aurora</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Pembroke</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Thompson</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Galatea</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Glasgow</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Napier</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Immortalité</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Earle</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Narcissus</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Hull</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Earle</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Undaunted</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Palmer</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Palmer</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>They were laid down in 1885 and 1886. The
+<i>Orlando</i> was completed in 1888, all the others in 1889.
+They were launched in 1886 and 1887, and some of them,
+fitted with wooden guns (“Quakers”), served to swell
+the Fleet at the great Jubilee Review of 1887. All made
+over their designed speeds on trial, but they did their
+trials “light.” In service all proved fairly useful, and
+the <i>Undaunted</i>, with Lord Charles Beresford as her
+captain in the Mediterranean, “made history” to the
+extent of first creating an Anglo-American <i>entente</i>,
+beginning with the U.S.S. <i>Chicago</i>, captained then by the
+now universally known naval author, Admiral Mahan.
+Beresford first achieved fame in the <i>Condor</i> at Alexandra,
+in 1882; but it was in the <i>Undaunted</i> that he first
+“made history” by ending the previously existing
+hostility between the British and U.S. Navies; and
+establishing the naval brotherhood of those who speak
+the same language.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Orlandos</i> were the last of the essentially Barnaby
+ships. Barnaby was associated with the Navy thereafter;
+but the <i>Nile</i> and <i>Trafalgar</i>, though produced
+under his régime, were not “Barnaby ships,” and
+differences of opinion with the Admiralty about them
+eventuated in his resignation.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">44</span></p>
+
+<p>The tide of naval opinion was then setting back in
+the old <i>Dreadnought</i> direction. More complete protection
+was being demanded. The quick-firer was just
+coming in and its potentialities seemed enormous. The
+secondary battery had to be protected. Destruction of
+communications on board began to take on a fresh and
+more serious aspect. In a word, the Admiralty reverted to
+Reed ideas, and in reverting exaggerated them. In such
+circumstances the general idea of the <i>Trafalgars</i> was born.</p>
+
+<p>Sir N. Barnaby totally dissented from the Admiralty
+line of thought. In his view the size of a ship could not
+legitimately be increased unless her offensive powers
+increased in proportion; in the <i>Trafalgar</i> idea both speed
+and armament were reduced as compared to the <i>Admiral</i>
+class, and over a thousand odd tons added entirely to
+carry extra defensive armour. Over which dispute he
+resigned his position.</p>
+
+<p>Details of the <i>Nile</i> and <i>Trafalgar</i> as built <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—11,940 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—345ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—73ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught (mean)—27½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 13.5-inch, six 4.7 Q.F., also
+smaller guns, and four 14-inch torpedo tubes,
+of which two were submerged.</li>
+
+<li>Armour (compound)—Belt, 230ft. long (<i>i.e.</i>, 80ft.
+longer than in the <i>Admirals</i> and <i>Victorias</i>),
+20—16in., with 16—14 inch bulkheads, protective
+deck at ends and over main belt.</li>
+
+<li>Over this a redoubt 141ft. long, 18in. thick.
+Above the redoubt a battery, 4in. thick.
+Turrets, 18in.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—12,000 = 17 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 1,200 tons
+= 6,500 miles at 10 knots.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">45</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_45" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 22em;">
+  <img src="images/i_045.jpg" width="1358" height="1843" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p class="left"><i>Photo</i>]</p>
+    <p class="right up1">[<i>Russell &amp; Sons.</i></p>
+    <p>SIR N. BARNABY.</p>
+    <p>A recent photograph.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">47</span></p>
+
+<p>The <i>Nile</i> was built at Pembroke and engined by
+Maudslay. She was laid down in April, 1886, launched
+in March, 1888, and completed some two years later.
+The <i>Trafalgar</i> was laid down at Portsmouth in January,
+1886, and launched in September, 1887. Her machinery
+was supplied by Humphrys. The armour of these ships
+weighed no less than 4,230 tons, <i>i.e.</i>, some 35 per cent.
+of the displacement instead of the more usual 25 per
+cent. or so. The then first Lord of the Admiralty took
+the occasion of the launch to remark that the days of
+such armoured ships were over, and that probably these
+were the last ironclads that would ever be built—the
+future would lie with fast deck-protected vessels! As,
+for three years, no more armoured ships were laid down,
+he at least enunciated a definite policy when these
+heavily armoured successors of the <i>Admiral</i> class were put
+afloat. They differed from the <i>Admirals</i> in that turrets
+were reverted to instead of barbettes, and, as already
+mentioned, they were really nothing but modernised
+versions of the old low freeboard <i>Dreadnought</i>.</p>
+
+<p>At a later date 6-inch Q.F. were substituted for the
+4.7’s; but no other schemes of modernising the ships
+ever came to a head.</p>
+
+<h3><i>PROTECTED CRUISERS OF THE BARNABY ERA.</i></h3>
+
+<p>Four ships of the <i>Amphion</i> Class—<i>Amphion</i>,
+<i>Arethusa</i>, <i>Leander</i>, and <i>Phæton</i>, of which the first
+(<i>Arethusa</i>) was laid down in 1880—represented the first
+Barnaby idea of the protected cruiser. They were of
+4,300 tons displacement, and 16.5 knots nominal speed.
+They carried ten 6-inch guns, and a 1½-inch deck
+amidships. According to the ideas of those days they<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">48</span>
+were heavily over-gunned. They always steamed well;
+but it is doubtful whether Barnaby, left to himself,
+would ever have produced them. Incidentally, they
+were always bad sea-boats.</p>
+
+<p>In 1883, completed about the same time as the
+<i>Victoria</i>, the <i>Mersey</i> class—<i>Mersey</i>, <i>Thames</i>, <i>Severn</i>, and
+<i>Forth</i>—of 4,050 tons displacement, and carrying two
+8-inch and ten 6-inch, were commenced: practically
+early essays at the <i>Orlando</i> class idea which followed.
+The <i>Orlandos</i>, on only a thousand or so tons more
+displacement, carried 9.2’s instead of 8-inch, had
+armour-belts as well as protective decks, and were a
+good knot faster. Both the <i>Amphions</i> and <i>Merseys</i> may
+be described as representing strictly naval Admiralty
+ideas—the <i>Orlando</i>, Barnaby ones. Each type was
+quickly rendered obsolete by the coming of the quick-firer;
+but the Barnaby type of cruiser, for 20 per cent.
+extra displacement, certainly offered better chances than
+any rival proposition, if only we consider matters in the
+light of what existed in those days and what promised
+best at that time.</p>
+
+<p>So ends the Barnaby era. Barnaby’s constructional
+ideas were blown to mincemeat by the advent of the
+quick-firer. Even to-day his ideas seem somewhat
+obsolete. Yet a few years hence (if big ships survive)
+they stand every chance of being reverted to, because
+to-day the big gun has more or less come back to
+where it was in 1875–1885. Barnaby, though he worked
+into its era, never realised the preponderance or possible
+preponderance of the “secondary gun.” In his era it
+fired too slowly to count for very much; in our own,
+range neutralises whatever it may have accomplished
+in the rapidity of fire direction.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">49</span></p>
+
+<p>Likely enough, the reversion to Barnaby ideals,
+which is reasonably probable for the immediate future,
+will be merely a phase; and casual historians will ever
+put him down as the naval constructor who was least
+able to anticipate the years ahead of his creations. But
+a hundred years hence Barnaby may come into his own
+in a way little suspected to-day. A hundred years hence,
+when all the most modern ideas are ancient history,
+Barnaby may stand with Phineas Pett, and the Navy
+which he created stand for something infinitely more
+than the scrap heap to which a later age swiftly relegated
+it. Only the historian of the distant future can estimate
+him at his real value. His own generation never placed
+much faith in his ships; the generation that followed
+generally regarded them with scorn. It was probably
+wrong, but only the future can prove it to have been so.</p>
+
+<h3><i>GUNS IN THE ERA.</i></h3>
+
+<p>The guns which especially belong to the Barnaby
+era were as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t049" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Cal. ins.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Weight in tons.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Length in cals.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Weight projectile lbs.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Muzzle velocity f.s.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Muzzle energy ft.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Penetration<br>2000 yds.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="theadsub">
+  <td class="tdc">iron.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">comp.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">M.L.</td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="bb">
+  <td class="tdc fsr2p">16</td>
+  <td class="tdc">81</td>
+  <td class="tdc">18</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1684</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1590</td>
+  <td class="tdc">29,530</td>
+  <td class="tdc">22</td>
+  <td class="tdc">15</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">B.L.</td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">16.25</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">110</td>
+  <td class="tdc">30</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1800</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2148</td>
+  <td class="tdc">57,580</td>
+  <td class="tdc">29</td>
+  <td class="tdc">19</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">13.5</td>
+  <td class="tdc">67</td>
+  <td class="tdc">30</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1250</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2025</td>
+  <td class="tdc">35,560</td>
+  <td class="tdc">26</td>
+  <td class="tdc">17</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc fsr2p">12</td>
+  <td class="tdc">45</td>
+  <td class="tdc">25</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">714</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">18,060</td>
+  <td class="tdc">19</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">12½</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">9.2</td>
+  <td class="tdc">22</td>
+  <td class="tdc">25</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">380</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1809</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">8622</td>
+  <td class="tdc">15</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1p">8</td>
+  <td class="tdc">14</td>
+  <td class="tdc">30</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">210</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2200</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">7060</td>
+  <td class="tdc">14</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">9</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdc fsr1p">6</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">5</td>
+  <td class="tdc">26</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">100</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1960</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">2665</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">8</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">5</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>In the early part of the period, guns of the Reed
+era, down to the 10-inch 18-ton M.L., were also made
+use of; but generally speaking, the Barnaby designs
+coincide with early breechloading types. It is interesting<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">50</span>
+to note that the 81-ton gun figured in one ship only (the
+<i>Inflexible</i>), and that after this the 38-ton 12.5 M.L. was
+reverted to, to be replaced in later designs by the 45-ton
+12-inch B.L.</p>
+
+<p>The M.L. guns available for early Barnaby designs
+were considerably superior to earlier examples of their
+type; as after the fiasco of the <i>Glatton</i> trials,<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">7</a> copper gas
+checks were introduced. These were affixed to the base
+of the projectile and expanded on firing. They led to a
+certain increased power and accuracy; but, even so,
+only of a relative nature compared with the better
+results obtained from breechloaders. The <i>Thunderer</i> gun
+disaster, which after many experiments was found to
+have been caused by doubly loading the gun, added
+another argument to the anti-muzzle-loader cause.</p>
+
+<p>The 12-inch, which was the first large B.L. to be
+introduced, compared as follows with the 12-inch <span class="locked">M.L.:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t050" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Gun.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Length in cals.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Weight tons.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Muzzle energy ft.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Weight of + projectile lbs.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="3">Penetration of iron at</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="theadsub">
+  <td class="tdc">Muzzle. in.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1000 yds. in.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2000 yds. in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">12in. M.L.</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">13½</td>
+  <td class="tdc">35</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">9470</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">706</td>
+  <td class="tdc">16</td>
+  <td class="tdc">15</td>
+  <td class="tdc">13</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl">12in. B.L</td>
+  <td class="tdc">25</td>
+  <td class="tdc">45</td>
+  <td class="tdc">18,060</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1250</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">30½</td>
+  <td class="tdc">28</td>
+  <td class="tdc">26</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The enormous difference in efficiency was of course
+traceable to other causes than the adoption of the
+breechloader instead of the old M.L.; but this was,
+equally naturally, overlooked; which, perhaps, was just
+as well—otherwise the muzzle-loader might have persisted
+to quite recent times. Though the <i>Thunderer</i>
+disaster showed that a M.L. could be loaded twice over
+by accident, this was an obviously unlikely thing to
+occur again. The impression was made by the fact that
+the 12-inch B.L. was far more powerful than the old<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">51</span>
+16-inch M.L. It was possibly this which directly led to
+the “monster-gun craze” of the Barnaby era, the way
+to which had already been shewn by the 16-inch M.L.
+Incidentally it is interesting to note that the present
+monster gun era is the third in which, after a
+period of adhesion to a 12-inch gun, greatly increased
+calibres have suddenly and more or less generally been
+resorted to.</p>
+
+<h3><i>THE COMING OF THE TORPEDO.</i></h3>
+
+<p>Reference has been made in the past chapter to
+Sir E.&nbsp;J. Reed’s recognition of the possibilities of the
+torpedo; and floating mines were, of course, well known.
+It was not, however, till 1874 that either mine or torpedo
+came to be regarded at all seriously.</p>
+
+<p>The earliest Whitehead “fish torpedo” was produced
+in 1868; though it was then little more than a
+curiosity. It was a crude weapon, although it embodied,
+with two notable exceptions, most of the features that it
+possesses to-day. Its motive power was compressed air;
+it carried an explosive head with a sensitive pistol.</p>
+
+<p>The secret was bought by the British Government
+at an early stage. It was made strictly confidential;
+indeed, to the present day, the internal mechanism of a
+torpedo is more or less sacred. Most other nations
+purchased the secret also, and guarded it with like
+care!</p>
+
+<p>It is but fair to add that this ridiculous situation was
+brought about by the inventor, who particularly specified
+that the balance chamber must not be revealed even to
+admirals commanding fleets, but only to specially
+selected officers.</p>
+
+<p>A main difficulty with the torpedo was how to discharge
+it. For some while only two methods existed: the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">52</span>
+first, a mechanism of catapult type which hurled the torpedo
+into the water; the other, by a crude application of
+dropping gear, suitable, of course, for launches only.
+In either case, especially the former, there was a strong
+element of uncertainty as to the direction the torpedo
+would take; for one to describe a circle and return to
+the firer was not unknown.<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">8</a></p>
+
+<p>The charge was inconsiderable, and range and speed
+were both very small.</p>
+
+<p>An instrument called the Harvey torpedo was more
+or less contemporaneous with the Whitehead. It was a
+very primitive idea, consisting as it did merely in
+attempting to tow explosives across the course of an
+enemy. It was too obviously cumbersome to cause
+disquietude, and with the invention of torpedo tubes
+passed into oblivion.</p>
+
+<p>The advantages of the torpedo tube were quickly
+recognised; and though the range was still little over
+a hundred yards or so—at any rate, so far as any
+probability of hitting was concerned—the torpedo
+quickly became a part of the armament of all important
+ships. So much was this the case that the submerged
+tube was developed with sufficient celerity to be adopted
+into the equipment of the <i>Inflexible</i>, of 1874 design.</p>
+
+<p>None the less, however, the possible results of
+torpedo attack remained uninvestigated till 1874, and
+even then only came to be inquired into after the
+<i>Oberon</i> experiments, which were primarily if not entirely
+brought about by the advent of the observation mine as
+a practical thing.</p>
+
+<p>The mine’s arrival counted for little; the automobile
+torpedo being at the moment much in the public eye, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">53</span>
+point that the <i>Oberon</i> experiments were primarily
+designed to test the effect of mines got somewhat lost
+sight of. The essential fact is that by 1874 the fact of
+other enemies to the ship than the gun was established.
+For a long time it affected ship design no further than
+the gradual introduction of an anti-torpedo-boat armament;
+but this was mainly due to Sir E.&nbsp;J. Reed having
+in the <i>Bellerophon</i> design endeavoured to anticipate
+torpedo effect. In 1874, and onward therefrom for some
+time, the double bottom, combined with water-tight
+bulkheads, was considered a suitable “reply” to the
+“new arm,” and it was not for many years that torpedo
+nets were in any degree appreciated.</p>
+
+<p>In the later eighties some torpedo experiments were
+conducted against the old ironclad <i>Resistance</i>, in which
+the Bullivant net defence system proved altogether
+superior to the cumbersome old wooden booms which
+were in use: but, despite this, nothing was done for
+many a year, and the old pattern was adhered to.</p>
+
+<h3><i>ESTIMATES IN THE ERA.</i></h3>
+
+<table id="t053" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Financial Year.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Amount.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Personnel.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1869</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">9,996,641</td>
+  <td class="tdc">63,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1870</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">9,370,530</td>
+  <td class="tdc">61,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1871</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">9,789,956</td>
+  <td class="tdc">61,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1872</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">9,532,149</td>
+  <td class="tdc">61,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1873</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">9,899,725</td>
+  <td class="tdc">60,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1874</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10,440,105</td>
+  <td class="tdc">60,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1875</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10,825,194</td>
+  <td class="tdc">60,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1876</td>
+  <td class="tdc">11,288,872</td>
+  <td class="tdc">60,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1877</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10,971,829</td>
+  <td class="tdc">60,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1878</td>
+  <td class="tdc">12,129,901</td>
+  <td class="tdc">60,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1879</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10,586,894</td>
+  <td class="tdc">58,800</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1880</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10,566,935</td>
+  <td class="tdc">58,800</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1881</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10,945,919</td>
+  <td class="tdc">58,100</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1882</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10,483,901</td>
+  <td class="tdc">57,500</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1883</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10,899,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">57,250</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1884</td>
+  <td class="tdc">11,185,770</td>
+  <td class="tdc">56,950</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdc">1885</td>
+  <td class="tdc">12,694,900</td>
+  <td class="tdc">58,334</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">54</span></p>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="II"><span id="toclink_54"></span>II.<br>
+
+<span class="subhead">THE WHITE ERA.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="drop-cap"><span class="smcap1">The</span> appointment of Sir William White as Chief
+Constructor more or less synchronised with a
+considerable revolution in naval construction and
+ideas. The institution of naval manœuvres drew great
+attention to the sea-going quality of various types of ships.
+The manœuvres of 1887 mostly centred around the
+<i>Polyphemus</i>, and her charging a boom at Berehaven.
+Little was here proved except that boom defences were
+easily to be annihilated. In 1888, however, the
+manœuvres were of a much more extensive nature, and a
+Committee was appointed to consider and report upon
+them, especially with regard to the following <span class="locked">points:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p>“The feasibility or otherwise of maintaining an effective
+blockade in war of an enemy’s squadron or fast cruisers in strongly
+fortified ports, including the advantages and disadvantages <span class="locked">of—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot hang2">
+
+<p>(a) Keeping the main body of the blockading Fleets off the
+ports to be blockaded with an inshore squadron.</p>
+
+<p>(b) Keeping the main body of the blockading Fleets at a base,
+with a squadron of fast cruisers and scouts off the
+blockaded ports, having means of rapid communication
+with the Fleet.</p>
+
+<p>(c) In both cases the approximate relative number of battleships
+and cruisers that should be employed by the
+blockading Fleet, as compared with those of the blockaded
+Fleet.</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">57</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p>“The value of torpedo-gunboats and first-class torpedo boats
+both with the blockading and blockaded Fleets, and the most
+efficient manner of utilising them.</p>
+
+<p>“As to the arrangements made by B squadron for the attack
+of commerce in the Channel, and by A squadron for its protection.</p>
+
+<p>“As to the feasibility and expediency of cruisers making raids
+on an enemy’s coasts and unprotected towns for the purpose of
+levying contribution.</p>
+
+<p>“As to the claims and counterclaims made by the Admirals
+in command of both squadrons with regard to captures made during
+the operation.</p>
+
+<p>“As to any defects of importance which were developed in any
+of the vessels employed, and their cause.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>As Supplementary Instructions there <span class="locked">were:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot hang2">
+
+<p>(1) As to the behaviour and sea-going qualities of, or the
+defects in, the new and most recently commissioned
+vessels, as obtained from the reports of the Admirals in
+command of the respective squadrons.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The general conclusion to be drawn from the recent operations.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>A summary of the findings<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">9</a> is as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p>“That to maintain an effective blockade of a Fleet in a strongly
+fortified port a proportion of at least five to three would be essential
+and possibly an even larger proportion, unless a good anchorage
+could be found near the blockaded port which could be used as
+a base, in which case a proportion of four to three might suffice,
+supposing the blockading squadron to be very amply supplied with
+look-out ships and colliers.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Torpedo boats were condemned as being of little
+value to blockaders, though useful to the blockaded.
+For blockade purposes the torpedo-gunboats of the
+<i>Rattlesnake</i> class were highly commended.</p>
+
+<p>Attention was drawn to the large number of deck
+hands employed down below on account of the insufficient<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">58</span>
+engine-room complements, and the excess of untrained
+stokers. The case of the <i>Warspite</i> was specifically
+mentioned. In order to break the blockade at sixteen
+knots she sent thirty-six deck hands down below at a
+time when every available deck hand would have been
+required above had the operations been real war.</p>
+
+<p>A special supplementary report was called for as
+to the sea-going qualities of the ships. Considerable
+historical interest attaches to this particular report, and
+the following extracts are especially <span class="locked">interesting:—</span></p>
+
+<p><i>Admiral</i> class.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p>“So far as could be judged, these vessels are good sea-boats,
+and their speed is not affected when steaming against a moderate
+wind and sea; but we are of opinion that their low freeboard
+renders them unsuitable as sea-going armour-clads for general
+service with the Fleet, as their speed must be rapidly reduced when
+it is necessary to force them against a head sea or swell.</p>
+
+<p>“On the only occasion on which the <i>Collingwood</i> experienced
+any considerable beam swell she is reported to have rolled 20 degrees
+each way; this does not make it appear as if the <i>Admiral</i> class
+will be very steady gun-platforms in bad weather.</p>
+
+<p>“They are said to be ‘handy’ at 6 knots and over.</p>
+
+<p>“In the <i>Benbow</i> much difficulty was experienced in stowing
+the bower anchors. This is the case in all low freeboard vessels,
+more or less, but the evil appears to have been intensified in this
+instance by defective fittings, and by the fact of her being supplied
+with the old-fashioned iron-stocked anchors instead of improved
+Martins.</p>
+
+<p>“Serious complaints are made from these ships that the forecastles
+leak badly, and that the mess-deck is made uninhabitable
+whenever the sea breaks over the forecastle at all; it would seem
+that this defect might be remedied.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>This opinion was not shared by Admiral Sir Arthur
+Hood, who commented as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p>“I cannot concur in this opinion, my view being that the
+objects of primary importance to be fulfilled in a first-class battleship<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">59</span>
+are: (1) That, on a given displacement, the combined powers of
+offence and defence shall be as great as can be given; (2) that she
+shall be handy and possess good speed in ordinary weather, combined
+with sea-worthiness; (3) that she shall have large coal-carrying
+capacity. I certainly do not consider that the <i>Admiral</i> class,
+which, on account of their comparatively low freeboard forward,
+must have their speed reduced when steaming against a heavy head
+sea or swell to a greater extent than is the case with the long, high
+freeboard, older armour-clads, as the <i>Minotaur</i>, <i>Northumberland</i>,
+<i>Black Prince</i> are for this reason rendered unsuitable as sea-going
+armour-clads for general service with a Fleet. The power of being
+able to force a first-class battleship at full speed against a head sea
+is not, in my opinion, a point of the first importance, although in
+the case of a fast cruiser it certainly is. Admiral Tryon draws
+an unfavourable comparison between the speed of the new battleships
+and that of the long ships of the old type, when steaming against
+a head sea. I admit at once that vessels like the <i>Minotaur</i> class
+would maintain their speed and make better weather of it when
+being forced against a head sea than would the <i>Admirals</i>; but this
+advantage, under these exceptional conditions, cannot for a moment
+be compared with the enormous increase in the power of offence
+and defence possessed by the <i>Admirals</i>.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<figure id="i_55" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 23em;">
+  <img src="images/i_055.jpg" width="1446" height="1839" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p class="left"><i>Photo</i>]</p>
+    <p class="right up1">[<i>Russell &amp; Sons.</i></p>
+    <p>SIR WILLIAM WHITE.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The <i>Conqueror</i> and <i>Hero</i> were reported to roll a great
+deal. Being short they felt a head sea quickly, and on
+account of their low freeboard it was found impossible to
+drive them against a heavy sea at anything approaching
+full speed. Incidentally these ships were known as
+“half-boots.”</p>
+
+<p>Here, again, Admiral Sir Arthur Hood dissented.
+In connection with these points, Admiral Tryon submitted
+a report in which he emphasised, as he had
+done with the <i>Admirals</i>, that however fast these short
+ships might be in smooth water, their speeds fell off
+rapidly in a seaway.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Mersey</i> class were described as being handy,
+steady gun platforms and able to fight their guns longer<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">60</span>
+than most ships.<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">10</a> The captain of the <i>Severn</i>, however,
+reported a view that the 8-inch guns should be removed
+and lighter pieces substituted. Admiral Baird agreed
+with this. Sir Arthur Hood, in his comments, stated that
+he was “decidedly opposed” to any reduction of armament,
+both in this case and that of the other cruisers.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Arethusa</i> type were reported to roll so heavily
+when the sea was abeam or abaft that “accurate
+shooting would be impossible and machine guns in the
+tops would be useless.”</p>
+
+<p>The Committee concurred with Admiral Baird that
+the armament of these should be reduced.</p>
+
+<p>For the <i>Archer</i> class it was unanimously suggested
+that lighter guns should be fitted forward. Sir Arthur
+Hood agreed with this view, which, however, was never
+carried into effect.</p>
+
+<p>Particular interest attaches to the <i>Rattlesnake</i><a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">11</a>
+class of torpedo-gunboats—these vessels being really
+prototypes of the destroyers of the present day. They
+were reported as “safe, provided they were handled
+with care.” Their handiness was unfavourably reported
+on. It was strongly urged that the 4-inch gun mounted
+forward should be removed. This, however, was never
+done.</p>
+
+<p>With reference to any new vessels of this type,
+the Committee reported as deserving immediate <span class="locked">consideration:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p class="in1">(1) Generally strengthen the hull in this type of
+vessel.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">61</span></p>
+
+<p class="in1">(2) Raise the freeboard forward.</p>
+
+<p><i>or</i> (3) “Turtle-back” the forecastle.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>In the gunboats that followed the freeboard forward
+was considerably raised; but when destroyers came to be
+built several years later, it is interesting to observe that
+the turtle-back forecastle was adopted, and it was not
+till after over a hundred had been built that the high
+forecastle, recommended so long before, appeared in the
+<i>River</i> class.</p>
+
+<p>The report <span class="locked">concluded:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p>“The proportion of untrained (2nd class) stokers which were
+drafted to several of the ships appears to have been too large;
+in point of physique they are reported as unequal to their work,
+and in many instances the experience of these men in stokehold
+(or any other work on board ship) was nil.</p>
+
+<p>“As a means of affording opportunities for training newly-raised
+stokers we recommend that at least one year should be served
+by them as supernumerary in a sea-going ship before they are
+considered fit to be draughted as part complement to any vessel;
+we further are of opinion that a Committee should be appointed
+to inquire into the sufficiency or otherwise of the complements allowed
+in the steam department of each class of ship, the proportion of
+2nd class stokers which should be borne, and the amount of training
+which they should be required to undergo before they can usefully
+be borne as part complement in a fighting ship.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>An agitation as to the state of the Navy, which was
+commenced in the year 1887, mainly by the initiative of
+the <i>Pall Mall Gazette</i>,<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">12</a> finally resulted in the passing of
+the Naval Defence Act of 1889. This provided for the
+construction of a total of seventy vessels, consisting of
+ten armoured ships, nine first-class cruisers, twenty-nine
+second-class cruisers, four third-class and eighteen<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">62</span>
+torpedo gunboats, to be built as quickly as possible at
+the estimated cost of £21,500,000.</p>
+
+<p>The substantial part of the programme of 1886 had
+consisted of two big turret ships, the <i>Nile</i> and <i>Trafalgar</i>,
+and two armoured cruisers, <i>Immortalité</i> and <i>Aurora</i> of
+the <i>Orlando</i> class. In 1887 nothing larger than second-class
+cruisers was laid down; and in 1888 the most
+important vessels on the programme were only the
+protected cruisers, <i>Blake</i> and <i>Blenheim</i>. There was,
+therefore, ample material for panic.</p>
+
+<p>Details of the <i>Blake</i> <span class="locked">class:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Length (<i>p.p.</i>)—375 ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—65 ft.</li>
+
+<li>Guns—Two 9.2 in., 22-ton B.L.R., ten 6-in. Q.F.,
+eighteen 3-pdr.</li>
+
+<li>H.P.—20,000.</li>
+
+<li>Designed speed—22.0 kts.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—1500 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Builder of Ship—<i>Blake</i>, Chatham; <i>Blenheim</i>,
+Thames Ironworks.</li>
+
+<li>Builder of machinery—<i>Blake</i>, Maudsley; <i>Blenheim</i>,
+Thames Ironworks.</li>
+
+<li>Launched—<i>Blake</i>, 1889; <i>Blenheim</i>, 1890.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Special features of these ships were a combination of
+the armament of the <i>Orlando</i> class with greatly increased
+speed secured by the development of deck armour in
+place of the belts of the <i>Orlando</i> class. In so far as a
+special type of ship may be said to be the development
+of some predecessor, the <i>Blake</i> and <i>Blenheim</i> may be
+described as enlarged <i>Merseys</i>. They were, however,
+unique on account of their relatively great length and
+great increase of displacement as compared with preceding
+vessels. In them the armoured casemate, a leading<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">63</span>
+characteristic of nearly all Sir William White’s ships,
+made its first appearance. It was employed in the <i>Blake</i>
+and <i>Blenheim</i> for four main deck guns, the upper deck
+guns being behind the usual shields.</p>
+
+<p>The coming of the casemate, curiously enough,
+attracted little attention, compared to its importance.
+It may be said to have rendered possible the return to
+main deck guns in unarmoured ships. In the <i>Orlando</i>
+class, ten 6-inch guns were all bunched together on the
+upper deck amidships. Since these ships were designed
+the 6-inch quickfirer had made its first appearance, and
+the largest possible distribution of armament was
+therefore desirable. The adoption of the two-deck
+system of the <i>Blake</i> and <i>Blenheim</i> secured this much
+larger distribution, rendering it impossible for a single
+shell to put more than one of the five broadside 6-inch
+out of action, whereas in the <i>Orlando</i> class at least three
+guns were at the mercy of a single shell.</p>
+
+<p>Another novelty of the type was the introduction
+of a special armoured glacis around the engine hatches.
+This system had, of course, been used before in the
+Italian monster ships <i>Italia</i> and <i>Lepanto</i>, but it was first
+introduced in the British Navy in the <i>Blakes</i>.<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">13</a></p>
+
+<p>The ships were very successful steamers, for all
+that neither made her expected twenty-two knots on
+trial.</p>
+
+<p>Trial <span class="locked">results:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot hang">
+
+<p><i>Blake</i>: Eight hours’ natural draught, mean I.H.P.—14,525
+= 19.4 knots.</p>
+
+<p><i>Blenheim</i>: Eight hours’ natural draught, mean
+I.H.P.—14,925 = 20.4 knots.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">64</span></p>
+
+<p><i>Blake</i>: Four hours’ force draught, mean I.H.P.—19,579
+= 21.5 knots.</p>
+
+<p><i>Blenheim</i>: Four hours’ forced draught, mean
+I.H.P.—21,411 = 21.8 knots.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The principal item of the Naval Defence Act was
+eight first-class and two second-class battleships. All
+these ships were designed by Sir William White, and may
+be described as battleship editions of the <i>Blake</i> and
+<i>Blenheim</i>, so far as the disposition of their armament was
+concerned. For the rest they may be described as
+attempts to combine in one ship the best features of the
+Read and Barnaby ideals. In place of the low freeboard
+of the <i>Admiral</i> class, seven of the <i>Royal Sovereigns</i> were
+given high freeboard fore and aft, with the big guns about
+twenty-three feet above water. The eighth ship, the
+<i>Hood</i>, was modified to suit the ideals of Admiral Hood,
+and was to some extent an improved <i>Trafalgar</i>, her big
+guns being in turrets some seventeen feet above the
+water, in turrets instead of <i>en barbette</i>, with guns exposed
+as in the rest of the class.</p>
+
+<p>In them, among other special features, 18-inch
+torpedo tubes were first introduced instead of 14-inch,
+and a stern torpedo tube appeared.</p>
+
+<p>The original idea of end-on torpedo tubes was
+torpedo attack from the bow in place of the ram. The
+<i>Polyphemus</i> was the first ship in which an end-on tube
+appeared (submerged). In cruisers of a later date the
+bow tube was found to injure speed, and there was
+always the danger of a ship over-running her own torpedo.
+On this account the bow-tube never secured in the British
+Navy that vogue which it obtained, and still has, in
+Germany.</p>
+
+<p>The stern-tube appears to owe its origin to an idea<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">65</span>
+that a defeated or overpowered ship, running from
+an enemy, might save herself by it: dim ideas of
+“runaway tactics” had also begun to appear.</p>
+
+<p>Sir William White never claimed for himself that
+he had anticipated the future in any way in his torpedo
+armament, even when defending himself against criticisms,
+to the effect that he “gave too little for the
+displacement.” Yet his torpedo innovations, besides
+discounting the future, all helped to swell the total
+weight; as also did many internal strengthenings of the
+kind which do not show on paper. Possibly he did not
+realise his own greatness as the designer of a class of ship
+which was so much better than any contemporary vessel,
+that even in these days of “Super-Dreadnoughts” the
+<i>Royal Sovereigns</i> are still looked back upon with respect,
+and invariably regarded as marking the beginning of an
+entirely new phase in ship construction.</p>
+
+<p>In April, 1889, their designer read a paper about
+them at the Institution of Naval Architects, in which the
+principal points which he claimed were that much superior
+command of guns was given, and that the auxiliary
+armament was nearly three times the weight of that of
+the <i>Trafalgars</i>. The following points were also mentioned
+by <span class="locked">him:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+
+<p>“(<i>a</i>) ‘That (it was officially decided that) it was preferable to
+have two separate strongly protected stations for the four heavy
+guns, rather than to have a single citadel.’</p>
+
+<p>“(<i>b</i>) ‘That on the whole the 4-inch armour amidships, from the
+belt deck to the main deck, associated as it would be with the
+internal coal bunkers, sub-divided into numerous compartments,
+might be considered satisfactory; but that if armour weight became
+available, it could be profitably utilised in thickening the 4-inch
+steel above the middle portion of the belt.’</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">66</span></p>
+
+<p>“I would draw particular attention to the first of these conclusions,
+since it expresses a most important distinction between the
+two systems of protection.</p>
+
+<p>“With separate redoubts, placed far apart, the two stations are
+isolated, and there is practically no risk of simultaneous disablement
+by the explosion of shells, or perforation of projectiles from the
+heaviest guns. Each redoubt offers a small target to the fire of
+an enemy, and its weakest part—the thick steel protective plating
+on the top—is of so small extent that the chance of its being struck
+is extremely remote. Serious damage to the unarmoured turret
+bases therefore involves the perforation of the thick vertical armour
+on the redoubts.</p>
+
+<p>“With a single citadel, extending the full breadth of a ship, the
+case is widely different.</p>
+
+<p>“Over a comparatively large area of the protective deck-plating
+in the neighbourhood of each turret, perforation of the deck, or its
+disruption by shell explosions at any point, involves very serious
+risk of damage to the turret bases and the loading apparatus. In
+fact, such damage may be effected and the heavy guns put out of
+action while the thick vertical armour on the citadel is uninjured.
+Moreover, as the turrets stand at the ends of a single citadel, there
+is a possibility of their simultaneous disablement by the explosion
+of heavy shell within the citadel.</p>
+
+<p>“This last risk may be minimised (as in the <i>Nile</i> and <i>Trafalgar</i>)
+by constructing armoured ‘traverses’ within the citadel; but it
+cannot be wholly overcome, so long as both turrets stand in one
+armoured enclosure.</p>
+
+<p>“It may be thought that the risk of damage to a 3-inch steel
+deck situated 11 ft. above water is remote; but I think the facts
+are as stated, when actions at sea are taken into account.</p>
+
+<p>“For example, if a ship of 70 to 75 ft. beam is rolling only to 10
+degrees from the vertical, which is by no means a heavy roll, she
+presents a target having a vertical (projected) height of 13 to 14 ft.
+to an enemy’s fire, and even if she is a steady, slow-moving ship,
+she will do this four or five times in each minute.</p>
+
+<p>“Now, at this angle of inclination, assuming the flight of
+projectiles to be practically horizontal, even the thickest protective
+steel decks yet fitted in battleships are liable to serious damage from
+the fire of guns of moderate calibre, and this danger is increased by<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">67</span>
+the employment of high explosives. Of course, I do not mean to
+say that this damage is to follow from fire intentionally aimed at
+the protective deck; but with a great and sustained volume of fire,
+such as is possible with a powerful auxiliary armament, and especially
+with quick-firing guns, it is obvious that there is a very real danger
+of chance shots injuring seriously the wide expanse of the protective
+deck at the top of a long citadel.</p>
+
+<p>“Again, it must be noted that the chances of damage to a deck
+placed 10 or 11 ft. above water, and with large exposed surfaces in
+the neighbourhood of the turrets when a ship is inclined or rolling,
+are greater far than those of a deck 7 or 8 ft. lower, and with 5-inch
+armour on the sides protecting the deck from the direct impact of
+shells containing heavy bursters. It is for the naval gunner to
+estimate these chances of injury; but, unless I am greatly mistaken,
+their verdict will be that a far greater number of shots are likely to
+strike at a height of 8 to 10 ft. above water than at a height of 4 to 5 ft.</p>
+
+<p>“These considerations, I submit, amply justify the selection of
+the separate redoubt system, in association with the thin side armour
+above the belt, and the lowering of the protective deck to the top of
+the belt in the new designs.</p>
+
+<p>“It may be urged that, if the redoubt system be adopted, it
+should be associated with side armour and screen bulkheads of
+greater thickness than 5-inch steel, and more strongly backed. This
+is perfectly practicable, but necessarily costly, involving an additional
+load of armour, and a corresponding increase in the size of the ship.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The designs were vigorously criticised by Sir Edward
+Reed, whose chief objections centred on the fact that
+the lower-deck protection was thin armour only. Sir
+William White combatted this idea, and proved very
+conclusively that, according to the needs of the moment,
+his views were correct. It is, however, worthy of record
+that at a later date with the <i>Majestic</i> class (see a few
+pages further on), he effected modifications which brought
+his ships more into line with what Sir Edward Reed had
+advocated. It should, however, be mentioned that this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">68</span>
+was not done until improvements in armour construction
+rendered possible things that were certainly impossible
+in the days of the <i>Royal Sovereigns</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In connection with the later career of the <i>Royal
+Sovereign</i> class these items may be added. On completion
+they were found to be singularly simple in all
+their internal arrangements, and extraordinarily strong.
+When they went to the scrap-heap in 1911–12, they
+were, constructionally, practically as good as when built.
+They proved to be good sea boats, but at first rolled very
+badly, which resulted in their getting an unenviable
+notoriety in this respect. This was, however, completely
+cured by the fitting of bilge keels, after which the ships
+were everything that could be desired in the way of
+being steady gun platforms.</p>
+
+<p>The ever increasing vogue of the quickfirer tended
+to render them rather quickly obsolescent over things
+which to-day would count much less than they did in
+the past. The defects of the <i>Sovereigns</i>, as realised not
+very long after completion, <span class="locked">were:—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot hang2">
+
+<p>(1) That the big guns’ crews were practically
+unprotected, and easily to be annihilated by
+the newly-introduced high explosive shells
+of the secondary armament of an enemy.</p>
+
+<p>(2) Only four of the ten 6-inch were armour protected,
+which also was considered a fatal
+drawback.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>In the first case nothing was ever done; but in the
+second, about the year 1900, casemates were fitted
+for the upper-deck guns of all ships except the <i>Hood</i>,<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">14</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">69</span>
+which on survey was found unsuitable for such reconstruction.</p>
+
+<p>The only thing that remains to add is that although
+in the course of years the ships lost the speeds for which
+they were designed, up to the very end they proved
+capable of doing about thirteen knots indefinitely.</p>
+
+<p>In addition to the <i>Sovereigns</i> two “second-class
+battleships” were built, the <i>Centurion</i> and <i>Barfleur</i>,
+of which details <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—10,500 tons. Complement, 620.</li>
+
+<li>Length—(Waterline) 360ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—70ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(Maximum) 27ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 10-inch, ten 4.7-inch, eight 6-pounders,
+twelve 3-pounders, two Maxims, two 9-pounder boat
+guns. Torpedo tubes (18-inch)—two submerged and
+one above water in the stern.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The <i>Barfleur</i> was laid down at Chatham in November,
+1890, launched in August, 1892, and completed two
+years later. The <i>Centurion</i>, laid down at Portsmouth in
+March, 1891, was launched a year later, but completed
+before her sister.</p>
+
+<p>The ships were armoured generally on the <i>Royal
+Sovereign</i> plan, with 12-inch belts which, however, were
+only 200ft. long, instead of 250ft. The bulkheads were
+six inches only, and the upper belt (nickel steel) an inch
+less than in the big ships. The barbettes were reduced
+to nine inches only, but on the other hand were made
+circular instead of pear-shaped, and 6-inch shields were
+provided for the big guns—probably as the result of
+criticisms of the unprotected big guns of the <i>Sovereigns</i>.
+With a few early exceptions as to the shape of the base,
+and with certain variation in form, this kind of “turret”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">70</span>
+has been adhered to ever since in the British Navy and
+copied into every other.</p>
+
+<p>Both ships were engined by the Greenock Foundry
+Company, and designed for 13,000 H.P., with forced
+draught, giving a speed of 18.5 knots, which speed both
+exceeded on trial. This high speed and their coal
+endurance—they carried a maximum of 1,125 tons,
+sufficient for a nominal 9750 mile radius—makes them
+something more than the “second-class battleships”
+which they nominally were.</p>
+
+<p>Compared to the <i>Sovereigns</i> they <span class="locked">were:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t070" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead nobb">
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Minus Points</i>:</td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Barfleurs.</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Sovereigns.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Displacement (tons)</td>
+  <td class="tdl">10,500</td>
+  <td class="tdl">14,100</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Principal guns</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—10in., 10—4.7</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—13.5, 10—6in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="bb">
+  <td class="tdl">Armour belt</td>
+  <td class="tdl">12 inches.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">18 inches.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc smaller"><i>Plus Points</i>:</td>
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Horse Power</td>
+  <td class="tdl">13,000</td>
+  <td class="tdl">13,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Speed</td>
+  <td class="tdl">18.5</td>
+  <td class="tdl">17</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl">Nominal endurance (kts.)</td>
+  <td class="tdl">9,750</td>
+  <td class="tdl">7,900</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>From which the existence of an elementary conception
+of the “battle-cruiser” of to-day seems fairly
+apparent. To-day the battle-cruiser, instead of having
+guns of reduced calibre, carries a reduced number, but
+the general principle of “moderate sacrifices for increased
+speed” obtains.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Barfleur</i> and <i>Centurion</i> proved excellent steamers
+and good sea-boats. Their defect was their weak armament,
+and in 1903 it was decided to remedy this. In
+that year they were “reconstructed.” Their 4.7’s were
+taken out and 6-inch guns substituted, and the six on
+the upper deck were put into casemates. As a species
+of make-weight the foremast was taken out of both
+ships; but this made little difference. The “improvements”
+were a total failure; the ships were immersed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">71</span>
+far below what they had been designed for, and they
+never thereafter realised much more than about sixteen
+knots. Within seven years they were removed from the
+Navy List altogether, and such service as they performed
+after modernising was entirely of a subsidiary order.</p>
+
+<p>For the first-class cruisers of the Naval Defence
+Act reduced examples of the <i>Blenheim</i> were decided
+on. These vessels were the <i>Edgar</i>, <i>Endymion</i>, <i>Grafton</i>,
+<i>Hawke</i>, <i>St. George</i>, <i>Gibraltar</i>, <i>Crescent</i>, and <i>Royal Arthur</i>
+(formerly designated as the <i>Centaur</i>). They were
+launched between 1891 and 1892, averaging 7,350 tons
+(unsheathed) and 7,700 tons (sheathed and coppered, in
+the case of the last four mentioned). Except the two
+last, all had the <i>Blenheim</i> armament of two 9.2 and ten
+6-inch. The two latter had a couple of extra 6-inch on
+a raised forecastle substituted for the forward 9.2.</p>
+
+<p>No attempt was made to obtain the high speed
+of the <i>Blenheims</i>—19.5 knots being the utmost aimed
+at. Not only, however, did the <i>Edgar</i> class exceed
+expectations on trial, but they proved most remarkably
+good steamers in service. No engine-room defects of
+moment were ever encountered in any of them, and
+twenty years after launch most were still able to steam
+at little short of the designed speed. Like the battleships,
+they were given 18-inch torpedoes in place of the
+14-inch of the <i>Blenheims</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In the course of their service careers, the <i>St. George</i>
+(or rather her crew) earned distinction in the Benin
+Expedition. The <i>Crescent</i> was served in by King
+George V, and the <i>Hawke</i> achieved notoriety by ramming
+the <i>Olympic</i> in the Solent in 1911.</p>
+
+<p>The lesser cruisers of the Naval Defence Act
+numbered altogether 28. Of these twenty belonged to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">72</span>
+the <i>Apollo</i> class of 3,400 tons (unsheathed) and 3,600
+tons (sheathed). They were <i>Apollo</i>, <i>Andromache</i>,
+<i>Latona</i>, <i>Melampus</i>, <i>Naiad</i>, <i>Sappho</i>, <i>Scylla</i>, <i>Terpsichore</i>,
+<i>Thetis</i>, <i>Tribune</i> (unsheathed), and <i>Aeolus</i>, <i>Brilliant</i>,
+<i>Indefatigable</i> (named <i>Melpomene</i> in 1911), <i>Intrepid</i>,
+<i>Iphigenia</i>, <i>Pique</i>, <i>Rainbow</i>, <i>Retribution</i>, <i>Sirius</i>, and
+<i>Spartan</i> (sheathed).</p>
+
+<p>In all, the armament was two 6-inch and six 4.7,
+with lesser guns, and, above-water, 14-inch torpedo
+tubes. The speed was twenty knots in the unsheathed,
+and a quarter of a knot less in the sheathed ones.</p>
+
+<p>When built all proved able to steam very well, but
+after some years service certain of them fell off very
+badly in speed. Others, however, remained as fast as
+when they were built—the <i>Terpsichore</i>, in 1908, averaging
+20.1 knots, and the <i>Aeolus</i>, in 1909, nearly nineteen
+knots.</p>
+
+<p>During their service, the <i>Melampus</i> was commanded
+by King George as Prince George, while the <i>Scylla</i>,
+under Captain Percy Scott, gave birth to the “dotter,”
+and the “gunnery boom” which followed. In 1904
+and onwards seven of them, scrapped from regular
+service—the <i>Latona</i>, <i>Thetis</i>, <i>Apollo</i>, <i>Andromache</i>, Iphigenia,
+<i>Intrepid</i>, and <i>Thetis</i>—were totally or partially disarmed
+and converted into mine layers.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_73" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 38em;">
+  <img src="images/i_073.jpg" width="2432" height="1642" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">SECOND CLASS CRUISER OF THE NAVAL DEFENCE ACT ERA. NOW CONVERTED INTO A MINE-LAYER
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The remaining eight cruisers of the Act—<i>Astræa</i>,
+<i>Bonaventure</i>, <i>Cambrian</i>, <i>Charybdis</i>, <i>Flora</i>, <i>Forte</i>, <i>Fox</i>,
+and <i>Hermione</i>—were increased in size up to 4,360 tons,
+and given a couple of extra 4.7, and 18-inch in place of
+14-inch tubes. Instead of their 4.7’s being mounted in
+the well amidships, they were placed on the upper deck
+level, a much better position in a sea-way, but they
+never proved themselves quite such good ships for their<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">75</span>
+size as did the earlier type. They served to illustrate
+the general rule that slight improvements on a design are
+rarely satisfactory, and that while every staple design
+has its defects, it is extremely difficult to remove one
+drawback without creating another. Moreover, such
+improvements invariably cause increased cost, and an
+essential with the small cruiser is that she shall be cheap
+enough to be numerically strong. Four <i>Astræas</i> cost as
+much as five <i>Apollos</i>. They were rather more seaworthy,
+but no faster—if as fast. The total broadsides
+obtained were only <i>one</i> 4.7 more and <i>two</i> 6-inch <i>less</i>.<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">15</a>
+A considerably greater possible bunker capacity was
+obtained; but the normal supply (400 tons) was the
+same for both.</p>
+
+<p>In the British Navy, in 1908–11, a precisely similar
+thing obtained. It was probably inevitable. In the
+German Navy, between 1897 and 1907, displacement
+for small cruisers rose from 2,645 to 4,350 tons, with
+practically the same armament. But here the horse-power
+rose from about 8,500 or less to 20,000, and
+designed speeds in proportion, from a twenty-one knots
+(not made) to a 25.5, which, on trial, turned out to be
+27,000 I.H.P. and over twenty-seven knots.</p>
+
+<p>Here, however, there was a definite aim—increased
+speed, with only trivial improvements in any other
+direction. With similar British cruisers the defect has
+invariably been “general improvements” on what the
+original design <i>might have been</i> if plotted a year or two
+later than it actually was. There is no question—or
+very little—but that Germany in its ultra-conservative
+policy gauged the situation better than any British
+Admiralty ever did till just before the war.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">76</span></p>
+
+<p>Minor cruisers <i>must</i> be cheap to construct. Any
+improvement in them <i>must</i> have a definite intrinsic value.
+Lacking that, it is worth very little. The <i>Astræas</i>, as
+cited, indicated how a supposed advantage may even be
+a real deficit from another point of view.</p>
+
+<p>The value of increased speed cannot be put into
+£ s. d., but armament easily can be. Like reconstruction,
+minor “improvements” on a design rarely pay. With
+the original conception the naval architect is given
+certain data for which he arranges accordingly. Ordered
+to improve upon it in any direction he can only add
+displacement and upset the balance of everything.</p>
+
+<p>The Naval Defence Act also included a certain
+number of third-class cruisers—<i>Pallas</i>, <i>Pearl</i>, <i>Philomel</i>,
+and <i>Phœbe</i>—for the ordinary service, and five similar
+ships for the Australian station, originally named <i>Pandora</i>,
+<i>Pelorus</i>, <i>Persian</i>, <i>Phœnix</i>, and <i>Psyche</i>. These
+were later altered to Australian names, <i>Katoomba</i>,
+<i>Mildura</i>, <i>Wallaroo</i>, <i>Tauranga</i>, and <i>Ringarooma</i>. They
+were of 2,575 tons, with 2½ decks, armaments of eight
+4.7-inch and four above-water 14-inch tubes. The
+designed speed was 19 knots.</p>
+
+<p>Thirteen torpedo gunboats, improved <i>Rattlesnakes</i>,
+were laid down under the Act, corresponding to nine
+others of the normal Programme, of which two were
+for Australia. The Naval Defence boats were <i>Alarm</i>,
+<i>Antelope</i>, <i>Circe</i>, <i>Gleaner</i>, <i>Gossamer</i>, <i>Hebe</i>, <i>Renard</i>, <i>Speedy</i>—all
+laid down in 1889, as also were the <i>Whiting</i> (afterwards
+<i>Boomerang</i>) and <i>Wizard</i> (renamed <i>Karahatta</i>) for
+Australia. Those laid down normally in the previous
+year were the <i>Salamander</i>, <i>Seagull</i>, <i>Sheldrake</i>, <i>Skipjack</i>,
+<i>Spanker</i>, <i>Speedwell</i>, for the British Navy. Two others,
+<i>Assaye</i> and <i>Plassy</i>, were built for the Indian Marine at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">77</span>
+and about this time. All carried a couple of 4.7-inch
+guns, were of about 750–850 tons displacement, and were
+first known as “catchers.” They were all intended to
+steam at 19 knots or over with locomotive boilers; but
+in service none ever did. At a later date, reboilered with
+water-tubes, many reached or exceeded the designed
+speed, and the majority of them are still in service for
+auxiliary purposes—many being specially fitted as mine
+sweepers, and the rest used as tenders for various
+services.</p>
+
+<p>They are of considerable interest on account of the
+fact that the destroyers of 1909–12 were practically the
+same displacement and general shape, with a not very
+dissimilar armament—two 4-inch instead of two 4.7.
+The modern destroyers, however, were approximately ten
+knots faster—an interesting commentary on engineering
+improvements in the course of twenty years!</p>
+
+<p>More interesting still, however, is the fact that Sir
+William White should have evolved twenty years
+ago almost exactly what—except in the matter of
+modern speed possibilities—is to-day the recognised
+ideal for destroyers.</p>
+
+<p>In the British Navy the torpedo gunboats never
+get beyond the “catcher” stage—they never had the
+opportunity; but it is worthy of note that the first
+two ships to be torpedoed under anything like modern
+war conditions—the Chilian <i>Blanco Encalada</i> and the
+Brazilian <i>Aquidaban</i>—were both sunk by vessels of almost
+exactly the same type as the “catchers,” and not by
+torpedo boats.</p>
+
+<p>So far as the British Navy was concerned, the
+“catchers” tested in the “secret manœuvres” of 1891
+did uncommonly well. They hung about off the torpedo<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">78</span>
+bases, and though only about one to four, accounted for
+at least 90 per cent. of the hostile torpedo boats. To this
+very success, perhaps, was due the fact that in their own
+day they were not thought of as an offensive arm against
+big ships—destruction of the torpedo boat was then the
+principal aim in view. This they fulfilled. The South
+American Republics discovered their “other uses,” and
+so really led the way to the evolution of the destroyer
+of a later era.</p>
+
+<p>Perhaps the only nation which really read the lesson
+involved was Germany. So long ago as 1895 she had
+launched the 2,000-ton “small cruiser” <i>Hela</i>; in 1898
+the <i>Gazelle</i> of 2,645 tons was set afloat. For years
+Germany added to the <i>Gazelle</i> class, at a time when
+all the rest of the world had decreed that “third-class
+cruisers” were useless. Not for many a year did the
+British Admiralty discover that Germany had seen the
+matter of the <i>Lynch</i> and the <i>Sampaio</i><a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">16</a> better than any
+other Power.</p>
+
+<p>Neither of these ships in attacking got hit. They
+got home without. But they might have been hit.
+Germany evolved something that even if hit badly
+would still float long enough to get off her torpedoes.</p>
+
+<p>Till the Chilian “catchers” in 1891 proved their
+offensive abilities, no one had ever considered that side
+of the question. To this day Germany has never really
+received her meed of credit for perceiving that a small
+third-class cruiser has potentialities with torpedoes
+against a battleship at night.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">79</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_79" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_079.jpg" width="1640" height="2667" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      HOOD.<br>
+      ROYAL SOVEREIGN.<br>
+      BARFLEUR.<br>
+      RENOWN.<br>
+      MAJESTIC.<br>
+      LONDON.<br>
+      KING EDWARD.
+    </p>
+    <p>BATTLESHIPS OF THE WHITE ERA.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>So late as the present day much comment
+about German small cruisers being inadequately gunned,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">81</span>
+a clear indication that just as in the past there was a
+difficulty in conceiving of the torpedo-gunboat for other
+than her nominal use, so the possibilities of the small
+cruiser in the role of destroyer were still apt to be
+generally overlooked.</p>
+
+<p>In February, 1893, there was laid down the <i>Renown</i>,
+the only armoured ship of the 1892–93 Estimates; an
+improved <i>Centurion</i>, with thinner belt armour. Harvey
+armour—three inches of which had the resisting value
+of four inches of compound or six inches of iron—was
+adopted in this ship for the first time. Influences other
+than taking advantage of the reduced weight required
+for a given protective value were, however, at
+work, for in the <i>Renown</i> sacrifices were made at
+the water-line in order to secure better protection to
+the lower deck side.</p>
+
+<p>Details of the <span class="locked"><i>Renown</i>:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—12,350 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—380ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—72⅓ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(maximum) 27ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 10-inch, ten 6-inch 40 cal.,
+twelve 12-pounders, four submerged 18-inch
+tubes, and one above water-line in stern.</li>
+
+<li>Armour—8—6in. belt, 200ft. long amidships, 6in.
+side above. Bulkheads 10—6in., barbettes 10in.,
+casemates, main deck ones 6in., upper deck
+ones, 4in.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—12,000 = 18 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 800 tons; (maximum) 1,760 tons
+= nominal 7,200 miles at ten knots.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Built at Pembroke; engined by Maudslay; she
+was launched in May, 1895, and completed for sea in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">82</span>
+April, 1897, having taken no less than 4¼ years to build.
+Cost, £746,247.</p>
+
+<p>She proved one of the best steamers ever built
+for the Navy. On a four-hour trial she made 18.75
+knots, with 12,901 I.H.P. Her economical speed
+proved to be fifteen knots. She always steamed
+well, and after thirteen years’ service did 17.4 knots
+with ease.</p>
+
+<p>The special feature of this ship was that in her
+instead of the ordinary flat deck on top of the belt, a
+sloping deck behind the belt was first introduced. This
+system—rigidly adhered to in the British Navy ever
+since, and copied eventually into every other Navy—was
+based upon the idea of reinforcing the deck-protected
+cruiser with side armour. The principle involved was
+that at whatever angle the belt might be hit and
+penetrated, the incoming projectile would then meet
+a further obstruction at a 45° angle, calculated to
+present a maximum of deflecting resistance. Professor
+Hovgaard and others have since indicated that, weight
+for weight, three inches of inclined deck armour, having
+to be spread more, represent as much or more tons as six
+inches of vertical armour (the nominal equivalent), and
+protective decks behind armour are to-day much thinner
+than of yore and little better than “splinter decks.”
+The principle, however, remains, as originated by Sir
+William White, and is, perhaps, the most characteristic
+feature of his era: seeing how universally the idea was
+copied.</p>
+
+<p>The French were the last to adopt it. Instead,
+they used the flat deck below the belt in addition to the
+one on top of it. This was made use of so late as the
+<i>République</i> and <i>Liberté</i> class. While ideally better for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">85</span>
+resisting projectiles which might penetrate the belt, it
+was impossible of really practical application amidships
+on account of the difficulty of keeping the engines
+entirely below it.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_83" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 25em;">
+  <img src="images/i_083.jpg" width="1565" height="1576" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      PROTECTED CRUISER.<br>
+      ROYAL SOVEREIGN.<br>
+      RENOWN.<br>
+      SUFFREN (<span class="allsmcap">FRENCH</span>)
+    </p>
+    <p>SYSTEMS OF WATER-LINE PROTECTION.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The <i>Renown</i> was the first ship to carry all her
+secondary guns in casemates. She was fitted as a
+flagship, and first served on the North American
+Station. When Admiral Fisher went from there to the
+Mediterranean he took the <i>Renown</i> with him as flagship,
+presumably with the idea that speed was better than
+power in a flagship. The <i>Renown’s</i> fighting power was
+small even then, but she was well fitted for the social
+side of flagship work—so nicely, indeed, that the flash-plates
+of the big guns had been taken up so as not to
+interfere with ladies’ shoes in dances!</p>
+
+<p>After leaving the Mediterranean the <i>Renown</i>
+was still further converted into a “battleship yacht,”
+the six-inch guns being removed. She was painted
+white, and used to convey the then Prince of Wales
+to India. Thereafter she practically disappeared from
+the effective list and eventually became a training ship
+for stokers.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Renown</i> was followed by the ships of the
+Spencer programme, nine battleships of the <i>Majestic</i>
+class, which were spread over the 1893–94 Estimates,
+and those of the next year. The <i>Majestics</i> were in
+substance amplified <i>Renowns</i>, their special and particular
+feature being that in place of the two amidships belt of
+varying thickness a single belt of 16ft. wide of a uniform
+9in. thickness was substituted.</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Majestics</i>, the 13.5, which had been for so
+long the standard gun for first-class battleships,
+disappeared in favour of a new type of 12-inch,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">86</span>
+a Mark VIII. of 35 calibres. The two types compare
+as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t086" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Bore. Inch.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Length. Cals.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Weight. Tons.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Projectile. lbs.</td>
+  <td class="tdc nobb" colspan="2">Maximum Penetration against K.C. (capped projectiles).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="theadsub">
+  <td class="tdc nobt">at 5000 yds. in.</td>
+  <td class="tdc nobl nobt">at 3000 yds. in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">13.5</td>
+  <td class="tdc">30</td>
+  <td class="tdc">67</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1250</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">9</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1p">12</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdc">12</td>
+  <td class="tdc">35</td>
+  <td class="tdc">46</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">850</td>
+  <td class="tdc">11½</td>
+  <td class="tdc">14½</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The new gun was, therefore, superior in everything
+except weight of projectile, and that was not considered
+much in those days. To-day, of course, it has quite a
+special meaning.</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Majestics</i>, except in the first two, all-round
+loading positions for the big guns were introduced in
+place of the cumbersome old system whereby, after firing,
+the guns had to return to an end-on position, tilt up,
+and at a fixed angle take their charges at what was little
+but an adaption for breechloaders of the loading system
+evolved twenty years before for the old <i>Inflexible</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Details of these <span class="locked">ships:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—14,900 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—(between perpendiculars) 390ft., (over-all)
+413ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—75ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(mean), 27½ ft., (maximum) about 30ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 12-inch 35 cal., twelve 6-inch 40
+cal., sixteen 12-pounders, twelve 3-pounders.
+Torpedo tubes (18-inch), four submerged and
+one above water in stern.</li>
+
+<li>Armour (Harvey)—Belt, (220ft. by 16ft.) 9in.
+Bulkheads, 14in. Barbettes, 14in. with 10in.
+turrets. Casemates, 6in.</li>
+
+<li><span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">87</span></li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—12,000 = 17.5 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 1,200 tons; (maximum) 2,200 tons
+= nominal radius of 7,600 miles at 10 knots and
+4,000 at 15 knots.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The ships were built, etc., as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t087" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Builder.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engined by</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Magnificent</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Dec.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’93</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Penn</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Majestic</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’94</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hannibal</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">April,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’94</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Pembroke</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Harland &amp; Wolff</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Victorious</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">May,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’94</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn, Leslie</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Mars</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">June,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’94</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Laird</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Laird</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Prince George</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Sept.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’94</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Humphrys</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Jupiter</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Oct.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’94</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Cæsar</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">March,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’95</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Maudslay</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Illustrious</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">March,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’95</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Penn</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Mostly they were completed inside two years, the
+only ones which took appreciably longer being the
+<i>Hannibal</i> and the <i>Illustrious</i>. In these and the <i>Cæsar</i>
+an innovation introduced in the others—the placing of
+the chart house round the base of the foremast with the
+conning tower well clear ahead—was done away with,
+and the old system of the bridge over the conning
+tower reverted to. In the <i>Cæsar</i> and <i>Illustrious</i>, laid
+down later than the others, an improvement was effected
+by the introduction of circular instead of pear-shaped
+barbettes. The <i>Majestic</i>, <i>Magnificent</i>, and <i>Cæsar</i> were
+built in dry dock instead of on slips—the first instance of
+this since the days of early coast-defence monitors.</p>
+
+<p>The total cost was approximately a million per
+ship.</p>
+
+<p>On trials most of them exceeded the designed speed,
+but all were light on trials. They proved very handy
+ships, with circles of 450 yards at fifteen knots. Coal
+consumption was always high.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">88</span></p>
+
+<p>Compared to the <i>Sovereigns</i>, the following figures
+are of <span class="locked">interest:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t088" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Displacement (tons).</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Weight of Armour (tons).</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Weight of Armament &amp; Ammunition (tons).</td>
+  <td class="tdc">H.P.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Normal Coal (tons).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Majestics</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc">14,900</td>
+  <td class="tdc">4260</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">12,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1200</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Sovereigns</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc">14,100</td>
+  <td class="tdc">4600</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1410</td>
+  <td class="tdc">13,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">900</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The total dead weight carried in armament, armour,
+and coal thus works out at practically the same figure,
+despite the rise of 800 tons in displacement. On these
+grounds certain attacks were made upon the ships,
+mainly by those who argued against the unarmoured
+ends. The criticisms were, however, mainly of the
+captious order—the ships were certainly the finest
+specimens of naval architecture of their day.</p>
+
+<p>At a later date electric hoists were fitted to the
+6-inch guns, and 400 tons of oil fuel were added to the
+fuel capacity (the maximum coal capacity being reduced
+by 200 tons). The first ship to be so fitted was the <i>Mars</i>.
+Another innovation was shifting the torpedo nets, first in
+the <i>Mars</i>, then in all the others, from the upper deck to
+the main deck level; the idea being to keep the nets
+clear of the 6-inch guns.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Majestic</i> and <i>Magnificent</i> served for a long time
+as flagships in the Channel Fleet. Admiral Sir F.
+Stephenson and Sir A.&nbsp;K. Wilson flew their flags in the
+<i>Majestic</i>, of which ship Prince Louis of Battenberg was
+at one time captain.</p>
+
+<p>It was during the early service of the <i>Majestics</i> in
+the Channel Fleet that “invisible” colours for warships
+first came into consideration, all ships up to that date
+being painted with black hulls, white upper works, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">89</span>
+yellow masts and funnels. For these experiments the
+<i>Magnificent</i> was painted black all over, the <i>Majestic</i> and
+<i>Hannibal</i> were given grey and light green upper works
+respectively. The latter was really the more “invisible”
+of the two, but both ships were left with black hulls.
+Ultimately a grey, a little darker than that which the
+Germans had long used, was adopted as the regulation,
+though for some time it varied greatly between ship and
+ship, following the old system under which a good deal
+of latitude in painting was allowed.<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">17</a></p>
+
+<p>To this era, 1894–95, belong two groups of protected
+cruisers, the <i>Powerfuls</i> and the <i>Talbots</i>. The latter, nine
+in all, were merely enlarged (5,600 tons) editions of the
+later cruisers of the Naval Defence Act, and call for no
+comment. The former group were the <i>Powerful</i> and
+<i>Terrible</i>, “replies” to the Russian <i>Rurik</i> and <i>Rossiya</i>.
+They displaced nearly as much as the battleships—14,200
+tons—and ran to the then unheard of length of
+500ft. between perpendiculars. They carried no belt
+armour whatever, but were given stout protective decks,
+no less than 6in. on the slopes amidships. The two big
+guns (40 calibre, 9.2) were given 6in. Harvey barbettes,
+the twelve other guns<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">18</a> (6-inch) being in 6-inch casemates.
+Sixteen 12-pounders were disposed about the upper
+works. Designed horse-power 25,000 = 22 knots. Total
+bunker capacity of 3,000 tons, equal to a nominal 7,000
+miles at fourteen knots. Both ships were laid down in
+1894, the <i>Powerful</i> by Vickers and the <i>Terrible</i> at
+Clydebank. They were launched in the following year.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">90</span></p>
+
+<p>In service the <i>Powerfuls</i> proved capable of keeping
+up a speed of twenty knots almost indefinitely. For the
+rest, they were unhandy ships with large turning circles.
+At the time of the South African War, both of them were
+at the Cape, and did service with landed naval brigades.
+Of these, one from the <i>Powerful</i>, with some 4.7’s on
+special Percy Scott gun-carriages, materially assisted in
+the defence of Ladysmith.</p>
+
+<p>During the year 1911 the decision was come to that
+it was not worth while preserving either ship, on account
+of the large crews required and their comparatively small
+fighting value under modern conditions.</p>
+
+<p>Two considerable novelties were embodied in these
+ships. The first of these was the adoption of electrical
+gear for the big guns. The other and more far-reaching
+was the adoption of Belleville boilers.</p>
+
+<h3><i>THE BATTLE OF THE BOILERS.</i></h3>
+
+<p>Owing to favourable reports of their use in the French
+Navy, Belleville boilers were in 1895 experimentally
+fitted to the <i>Sharpshooter</i>, torpedo gunboat; but the
+decision to adopt them in large ships was taken from
+French rather than any British experience. Trouble
+and failure were freely predicted. With the result
+frequently attending lugubrious predictions, very little
+trouble has ever been experienced with any type and
+then only in the very early stage when the water-tube
+boiler was an almost unknown curiosity to the engine-room
+staff.</p>
+
+<p>The chief advantages claimed for Belleville boilers
+were the higher working pressures, economy in maintenance
+and fuel consumption, saving of weight, rapid steam
+raising, and great facility for repairs.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_91" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 39em;">
+  <img src="images/i_091.jpg" width="2463" height="1633" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">WHITE ERA BATTLESHIPS OF THE MAJESTIC CLASS
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The Belleville was the first water-tube boiler to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">93</span>
+come into prominence; other types, however, soon
+appeared. In the period 1895–98, torpedo gunboats
+were experimentally fitted as follows:—<i>Sharpshooter</i>,
+Belleville; <i>Sheldrake</i>, Babcock; <i>Seagull</i>, Niclausse;
+<i>Spanker</i>, Du Temple; <i>Salamander</i>, Mumford; <i>Speedy</i>,
+Thornycroft—these three last being of the small tube
+type. Other existing types were the Yarrow, White-Foster,
+Normand, Reed, Blechynden, all these being of
+the small tube type also, and regarded as suitable for
+small craft only.<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">19</a></p>
+
+<p>In the matter of big ships, so far as the British
+Navy was concerned, “water-tube boiler” for some
+years meant Bellevilles only, whence it came that in the
+insensate “Battle of the Boilers,” which presently
+broke out, Bellevilles were the main object of attack in
+Parliament and elsewhere. Actually, of course, the
+whole principle was in the melting pot. All the elements
+opposed to change in any form rallied to the attack, led
+on and influenced in some cases by those whose interests
+were bound up with the old style cylindrical boilers.
+It was all over again the old story of the fight for the
+retention of the paddle against the screw propeller, with
+an equal disregard for facts.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately the party of progress played somewhat
+into the hands of the reactionaries. In fitting the
+Belleville type only, they had not much alternative, other
+types being then in a less forward state. The error made
+was that in the wholesale adoption of a new type of
+steam generator, requiring twice the skill and intelligence
+necessary for the old type, it was practically impossible
+to train quickly enough a sufficiency of engineers and
+stokers. Hence troubles soon arose. An even greater<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">94</span>
+error was that the boilers were mostly built in England
+to the French specifications, without, in many cases,
+sufficient experienced supervision; and minor “improvements,”
+such as fusible plugs and restricting regulations,
+were introduced by more or less amateur Admiralty
+authorities—which also produced trouble.</p>
+
+<p>For example, French practice had taught that
+adding lime to the feed water was desirable; but in
+many British ships this rule was ignored. Again, one
+Belleville essential was to throw on coal in very small
+quantities at a time, in contradistinction to the old
+cylindrical practice in which shovelling on enormous
+quantities of coal was the recipe for increased speed.
+This feature was often disregarded.</p>
+
+<p>The Belleville, ever a complicated and delicate
+mechanism, if its full efficiency is to be secured, was a
+worse boiler for the experiments than many of the simpler
+types of to-day would have been. But no water-tube
+boiler of any type would have stood any chance of
+success against the opposition. There were some terrible
+times in the boiler rooms in those days. One or two
+ships whose chief engineers had been specially trained in
+France secured marvellous results, usually by ignoring
+Admiralty improvements and regulations.<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">20</a> But for one
+success there were many early failures.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_95" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_095.jpg" width="1651" height="2659" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      EDGAR.<br>
+      POWERFUL.<br>
+      DIADEM.<br>
+      CRESSY.<br>
+      DRAKE.<br>
+      COUNTY.<br>
+      DEVONSHIRE.
+    </p>
+    <p>PRINCIPAL CRUISERS OF THE WHITE ERA.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The agitation triumphed to the extent of a Committee
+of Inquiry being appointed. An interim report
+of this Committee made a scape-goat of the Belleville,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">97</span>
+to the extent of recommending that no more should be
+fitted. But the victory of the retrogrades ended there.
+A species of compromise with public opinion inflamed
+against the water-tube system was temporarily adopted,
+and absurd mixed installations of cylindrical and water-tube
+boilers were fitted to some ships. Four large tube
+types were selected as substitutes for Bellevilles, the
+Niclausse, Dürr (a German variant of the Niclausse),
+the Babcock and Wilcox, and the Yarrow large tube.</p>
+
+<p>It may approximately be said that every water-tube
+boiler is a species of compromise between facility for
+rapid repair on board ship and complication, and the
+need of great care in using and working. It is usual to
+put the Belleville at one end of this scale and the Yarrow
+(large tube) at the other, this last boiler now requiring
+little, if any, more care than the old type of cylindrical.</p>
+
+<p>In the course of comparatively short experiments,
+both the Niclausse and the Dürr were found to possess
+most of the alleged deficiencies of the Belleville without
+its advantages; and it was decided to fit all future types
+of large ships with the Babcock and Yarrow types only.
+The absurd mixture of cylindrical and water-tube boilers
+was wisely done away with. Curiously enough, the
+Belleville boiler, once the agitation had ceased, also
+ceased to be troublesome. This was no doubt due to
+the increased experience which had been gained in the
+interim.</p>
+
+<p>Both the Babcock and Yarrow boilers have been
+immensely improved since the days when they were first
+brought out. Something of the same sort is, of course,
+true of all the standard types, and there is to-day hardly
+any question as to which of them may be the best
+or worst. Each type has some special advantage of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">98</span>
+its own, and in no case, probably, is that advantage
+sufficiently pronounced to render any one type absolutely
+the best. When adopted by the Admiralty the
+Belleville was certainly the best water-tube boiler
+available. Had it been persisted in and not “improved”
+by amateurs it would probably have done quite as well
+as any type adopted to-day. The real issue was mainly
+not one of type, but of principle. That principle was the
+water-tube boiler as opposed to the old type cylindrical.</p>
+
+<p>The Estimates for 1896–97 provided for five battleships
+which were somewhat sarcastically alluded to as
+“improved” <i>Majestics</i>. These ships were the <i>Canopus</i>
+class, and they mark a species of early striving after the
+ideal of the battle-cruisers of to-day. That is to say,
+certain sacrifices were made in them with a view to
+securing increased speed.</p>
+
+<p>Particulars of these <span class="locked">ships:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—12,950 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—(over all) 418ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—74ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(maximum) 26½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 12in., 35 cal., twelve 6in. 40 cal.,
+ten 12-pounders, four submerged tubes (18in.)</li>
+
+<li>Armour—Harvey-Nickel. Belt amidships 6in.
+with 2in. extension to the bow and 1½in. skin
+aft on the water-line. Bulkheads and barbettes
+12in. Turrets 8in.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—31,500 = 18.25 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 2,300 tons
+= nominal radius of 8,000 miles at 10 knots.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The adoption of Harvey-Nickel armour, which was
+of superior resisting power to Harvey armour in the ratio
+of about 5 to 4, partly, but not entirely accounted for the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">99</span>
+thinning of the armour of this class. Theoretically, the
+9in. armour belt of the <i>Majestic</i> was equal to 18in. of
+iron, while the belt of the <i>Canopus</i> class was equal to
+about 15in. of iron. In place of the 4in. deck of the
+<i>Majestics</i>, the <i>Canopus</i> class had only a 2½in. deck. The
+thin bow (2in.) plating was introduced as a sop to a
+public agitation against soft-ended ships. Such a belt is,
+of course, perfectly useless against any heavy projectile,
+or, for that matter, against 6in., except at very long
+range indeed. Sir William White never made any secret
+of his cynical disbelief in these bow belts. They were and
+always have been what doctors call a “placebo.”</p>
+
+<p>In the following year the sixth ship of this class was
+built—the <i>Vengeance</i>. She differed from the others in
+the form of her turrets, which were flat sided for the first
+time. In her also a mounting was first introduced,
+whereby, in addition to being loaded in any position,
+big guns could also be loaded at any elevation.</p>
+
+<p>Some other details of the <i>Canopus</i> class <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t099" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built by</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engines by</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Completed.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Canopus</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Greenock</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’97</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1900</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Goliath</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Penn</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’97</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1900</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Albion</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Thames I.W.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Maudslay</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Dec.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’96</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1902</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Ocean</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn Leslie</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’97</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1900</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Glory</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Laird</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Laird</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Dec.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’96</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1901</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Vengeance</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Aug.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’97</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1901</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The cruisers of the following year were eight cruisers
+of the much discussed <i>Diadem</i> class, small editions of the
+<i>Powerful</i> (11,000 tons), and carrying a pair of 6-inch
+guns in place of the 9.2’s of the <i>Powerfuls</i>. For the first
+four (the <i>Diadem</i>, <i>Andromeda</i>, <i>Europa</i>, and <i>Niobe</i>) a
+speed of 20.5 knots only was provided, but in the late
+four (the <i>Argonaut</i>, <i>Ariadne</i>, <i>Amphitrite</i>, and <i>Spartiate</i>)<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">100</span>
+the horse-power was increased to 18,000, in order to
+provide twenty-one knots. At the present time (1912)
+these ships have for all practical purposes already
+passed from the effective list, all the weak points of the
+<i>Powerfuls</i> being exaggerated in them.</p>
+
+<p>In the Estimates for the years 1895 to 1898,
+provision was made also for eleven small third-class
+cruisers of the “P” class of 2135 tons and twenty knot
+speed. The armament consisted of eight 4-inch guns.
+On trials most of them did well, but in a very short
+time their speeds fell off, and at the present time, such
+of them as remain on the active list are slower than the
+far older cruisers of the <i>Apollo</i> class.</p>
+
+<p>In the Estimates for 1897–98, in addition to the
+<i>Vengeance</i>, already mentioned, three improved copies of
+the <i>Majestic</i> were provided. These ships <span class="locked">were:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t100" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engines by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Formidable</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">March,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’98</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Earle</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Irresistible</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">April,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’98</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Maudslay</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Implacable</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">July,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’98</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Laird</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The only difference between them and the <i>Majestics</i>
+lies in advantage being taken of improvements in gunnery
+and armour to increase the offensive and defensive items.
+The absurd 2-inch bow belt of the <i>Canopus</i> was repeated
+in them, but raised within 2½ft. of the main deck. A
+40-calibre 12-inch was mounted, also a 45-calibre 6-inch.</p>
+
+<p>These were the first ships of the British Navy in
+which Krupp cemented armour was used. This armour,
+generally known as “K.C.,” has approximately a resisting
+power three times that of iron armour. That is to
+say, the 9in. belts of the <i>Formidables</i> were approximately
+33 per cent. more effective than the similar belts of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">101</span>
+<i>Majestics</i>. These ships proved faster and more handy,
+easily exceeding their designed eighteen knots. The
+superior handiness was brought about by a superior
+form of hull—the deadwood aft being cut away for the
+first time in them.</p>
+
+<p>In this year’s Estimates armoured cruisers definitely
+re-appeared, six ships of the <i>Cressy</i> type being laid
+down.</p>
+
+<p>Particulars of <span class="locked">these:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—12,000 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—454ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—69½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(maximum) 28ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Two 9.2, 40 cal., twelve 6-inch, 45
+cal., twelve 12-pounders, two 18in. submerged
+tubes.</li>
+
+<li>Armour—6in. Krupp belt amidships, 250ft. long
+by 11½ft. wide, 2in. continuation to the bow.
+Barbettes 6in. Casemates 5in.</li>
+
+<li>Horse power—21,000 = 21 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 800 tons; (maximum) 1,600 tons.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<table id="t101" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engines by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Sutlej</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Aug.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’98</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Cressy</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Oct.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’98</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Aboukir</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Nov.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’98</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hogue</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">July,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’98</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Bacchante</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Dec.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Euryalus</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">July,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>In substance these ships were armoured editions of
+the <i>Powerful</i>. They steamed very well in their time, but
+have now fallen off considerably and are no longer of
+any importance. Total weight of armour 2,100 tons.
+An innovation introduced in these ships was the fitting of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">102</span>
+non-flammable wood, which at a later date was objected
+to on the grounds that it deteriorated the gold lace of the
+uniforms stored in drawers made of it. The <i>Cressy</i> was
+completed in 1901; the others, excepting the <i>Euryalus</i>,
+in 1902. This latter ship was greatly delayed from
+various causes, and not completed until 1903.</p>
+
+<p>The 1898–99 Estimates consisted of three battleships
+and four armoured cruisers. The battleships were
+practically sisters to the <i>Formidable</i>, but differed from her
+in that the main belt, instead of being a patch amidships,
+has a total length of 300ft. from the bow. At the bow it
+is 2in., quickly increasing to 4in., 5in., 6in., and finally to
+9in., and this provided a measure of protection that the
+2in. belts of preceding ships could never afford. The
+flat-sided turrets, first introduced in the <i>Vengeance</i>, were
+also fitted in these ships, the <i>Formidables</i> having the old
+pattern turrets.</p>
+
+<p>The advantages of flat-sided turrets lie in the fact
+that K.C. can be used for them instead of the relatively
+softer non-cemented. K.C. is not applicable to curved
+surfaces, for which reason barbettes, casemates, and
+batteries with curved portholes in them and rounded
+turrets cannot be constructed of it. Flat-sided turrets
+consist of a number of flat plates placed to meet each
+other at predetermined angles, thus forming one homogeneous
+whole.</p>
+
+<p>These battleships <span class="locked">were:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t102" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engines by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>London</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Dec.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’98</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Earle</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Bulwark</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">March,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Venerable</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Nov.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Maudslay</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>All were completed in 1902.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">103</span></p>
+
+<p>The cruisers of the same year, the <i>Drake</i> class, were
+“improved” <i>Cressies</i>, with increased displacement,
+power and speed. The increased displacement allowed
+of four extra 6-inch guns being mounted, these being
+placed in casemates on top of the amidships casemates.</p>
+
+<p>Particulars of the <i>Drake</i> <span class="locked">class:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—14,000 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—(over all) 529½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—71ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(maximum) 28ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Two 9.2, 45 cal. (instead of 40 cal., as
+in the <i>Cressies</i>), sixteen 6-inch, 45 cal., and fourteen
+12-pounders, two submerged tubes (18in.).</li>
+
+<li>Armour—2,700 tons, as in <i>Cressy</i>, except that
+the casemates are 6in. thick.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—30,000 = 23 knots. Boilers, 43
+Belleville.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 1,250 tons; (maximum) 2,500.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>These ships were altogether superior to the <i>Cressy</i>
+class. On trial they all easily made their contract speeds
+and subsequently greatly exceeded them. It was discovered
+that increased speed was to be obtained by
+additional weight aft, and this was so much brought to a
+fine art that weights were adjusted accordingly, and in
+one of them, seeking to make a speed record, the entire
+crew were once mustered aft in order to vary the trim!</p>
+
+<p>Building details are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t103" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Completed.</td>
+  <td class="tdc"> Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc"> Engines by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Good Hope</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Sept.</td>
+  <td class="tdr"> ’99</td>
+  <td class="tdc"> 1902</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Fairfield</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Fairfield</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Drake</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> April,</td>
+  <td class="tdr"> ’99</td>
+  <td class="tdc"> 1902</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Pembroke</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Humphrys &amp; T.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Leviathan</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Nov.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdc"> 1903</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Clydebank</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Clydebank</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>King Alfred</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Aug.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdc"> 1903</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl"> Vickers</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">104</span></p>
+
+<p>For some years these were the fastest ships in
+the world. In 1905, in a race by the Second Cruiser
+Squadron across the Atlantic, with ships of nominally
+equal speed, the <i>Drake</i> came in first. In December, 1906,
+at four-fifths power for thirty hours, she averaged 22.5
+knots. In 1907, the <i>King Alfred</i> averaged 25.1 knots
+for one hour, and made an eight hours’ mean of 24.8.
+They proved very economical steamers, being able to
+do nineteen knots at an expenditure of eleven tons of
+coal an hour, and though they are now getting old, as
+warships go, they have never yet been beaten on the
+results achieved by horse-power per ton of displacement.</p>
+
+<p>The Estimates of 1898–99 included a supplementary
+programme of four armoured ships which, like the
+<i>Canopus</i> class, again foreshadowed the battle cruisers of
+to-day. These were the famous <i>Duncan</i> class, and may
+be described as slightly smaller editions of the <i>London</i>,
+with armour thickness sacrificed for superior speed.
+The belt amidships was reduced from 9in. to 7in., but
+against this the belt at the extreme bow was made an
+inch thicker, and 25ft. away from the ram became 5in.
+thick. The displacement sank by 1,000 tons, the horse-power
+was increased by 3,000, and the speed by one knot.</p>
+
+<p>The total weight of armour is about 3,500 against
+4,300 tons in the <i>Londons</i>. The <i>Duncans</i> may be
+regarded as a species of recrudescence of Barnaby ideas,
+plus a later notion that a well-extended partial protection
+was better than a more concentrated protection
+of less area. Generally speaking, they were improved
+duplicates of the <i>Canopus</i> class, in the same way that
+the <i>Formidable</i> and the ships that followed her were
+duplicates of the <i>Majestic</i>. Two ideas were obviously
+at work. In other forms these two ideas have (with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">105</span>
+variations) existed to the present day. Then it was
+purely a question between ratios devoted to speed and
+protection. To-day (1912) matters have been so far
+modified that increased displacements are given to
+secure speed advantages, but protection remains proportionately
+as it was. Reduced armament has always
+been accepted.</p>
+
+<p>Construction details of the <i>Duncans</i>, of which two
+more figured in the estimates for <span class="locked">1899–1900:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t105" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engines by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Duncan</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">July,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Thames, I.W.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Thames, I.W.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Russell</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">March,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Palmer</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Palmer</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Cornwallis</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">July,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Thames, I.W.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Thames, I.W.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Exmouth</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Aug.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Laird</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Laird</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Albemarle</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’00</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Thames, I.W.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Montagu</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Nov.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Laird</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The <i>Montagu</i> was wrecked on Lundy Island in 1906.</p>
+
+<p>Contemporaneous with the <i>Drakes</i>, and extending
+over four ships in the Estimates of 1898–99 to two in the
+following and four in the year later, ten armoured
+cruisers were provided for, which in essence were little
+but an attempt to provide a normal second-class protected
+cruiser of the <i>Talbot</i> class, with armour protection.
+These ships—the <i>County</i> class—are of 9,800 tons displacement,
+and may also be regarded as diminutives
+of the <i>Drake</i> and <i>Cressy</i> classes, with a touch of the
+<i>Diadems</i> thrown in. In place of the fore and aft 9.2’s of
+the <i>Drake</i> and <i>Cressy</i>, they were supplied with a couple
+of pairs of 6-inch guns mounted in turrets fore and aft.
+The belt amidships was reduced to 4in. (a thickness in
+K.C. which has no virtues over armour of earlier type)
+with the usual extension of 2in. to the bow. The twin
+turrets, in which, like those of the <i>Powerful</i>, electrical<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">106</span>
+control was once more introduced, have never given
+satisfaction, being very cramped for working purposes,
+and probably no more efficient than single gun turrets
+would have been, certainly less than the single gun 7—5in.
+turrets, originally proposed as an alternative, would have
+been.</p>
+
+<p>Had the ships been regarded frankly as modern
+variants of the second-class protected cruisers, they
+probably would have been esteemed more than they
+were. Unfortunately they have always been regarded
+as “armoured ships” and discounted on account of
+their obvious inferiority to the <i>Drakes</i>. In the matter
+of steaming all of them have invariably done well (except
+in the case of the <i>Essex</i>, over which a mistake in design
+was made). The anticipated twenty-three knots was
+made quite easily, once certain early propeller difficulties
+were overcome. The Boiler Commission, already referred
+to, affected these ships, in so far that, instead of the
+hitherto inevitable Bellevilles, the <i>Berwick</i> and <i>Suffolk</i>
+were given Niclausse boilers and the <i>Cornwall</i> Babcocks.
+The total weight of armour is 1,800 tons.</p>
+
+<p>Details of the construction of this class <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t106" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engines by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Essex</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’00</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Pembroke</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Kent</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’00</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Bedford</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’00</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Monmouth</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Aug.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’99</td>
+  <td class="tdl">L. &amp; Glasgow</td>
+  <td class="tdl">L. &amp; Glasgow</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Lancaster</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Mar.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’01</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elswick</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn L.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Berwick</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">April,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’01</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Beardmore</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Humphrys</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Donegal</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’01</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Cornwall</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Mar.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’01</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Pembroke</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Cumberland</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’01</td>
+  <td class="tdl">L. &amp; Glasgow</td>
+  <td class="tdl">L. &amp; Glasgow</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Suffolk</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Mar.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’02</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Humphrys &amp; T.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>All were completed during 1903 and 1904.</p>
+
+<p>For the year 1900–01 only two battleships were<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">107</span>
+provided: the <i>Queen</i>, built at Devonport and engined
+by Harland and Wolff, and the <i>Prince of Wales</i>, built
+at Chatham and engined by the Greenock Foundry Co.
+These were laid down in 1901 and completed in 1904.
+They were copies of the <i>Londons</i> in every detail, saving
+that, instead of being enclosed, their upper deck batteries
+were left open as in the <i>Duncans</i>. The <i>Queen</i> was given
+Babcock boilers instead of Bellevilles.</p>
+
+<p>The 1901–02 Estimates provided three battleships
+and six armoured cruisers of the <i>County</i> class. These
+were the last ships designed by Sir William White. The
+battleships, of which eight were built altogether—three
+for 1901–02, two for the next year—were of a different
+type from any which had preceded them, and to some
+extent may be said to mark the birth of the <i>Dreadnought</i>
+era. That is to say, in them the old idea of the two
+calibres, 12in. and 6in., died out, and heavier auxiliary
+guns began to appear.</p>
+
+<p>Particulars of these ships, <i>the King Edward VII</i>
+class, are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—16,350 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—(over all) 453¾ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—78ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(maximum) 26¾ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 12-inch, 40 cal., four 9.2, 45 cal.,
+ten 6-inch, 45 cal., twelve 12-pounders, fourteen
+3-pounders, five 18-inch submerged tubes (of which
+one is in the stern).</li>
+
+<li>Armour—As in the <i>London</i> (but a 6in. battery instead
+of casemates).</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—18,000 = 18.9 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 950 tons; (maximum) 2,150 tons,
+also 400 tons of oil, except in the <i>New Zealand</i>.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">108</span></p>
+
+<table id="t108" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engines by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Commonwealth</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">June,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’01</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>King Edward</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Mar.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’02</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Harland &amp; W.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Dominion</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">May,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’02</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hindustan</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Oct.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’02</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>New Zealand</i>(now <i>Zelandia</i>)</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’03</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Humphrys &amp; T.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Africa</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’04</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Britannia</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’04</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Humphrys &amp; T.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hibernia</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’04</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Harland &amp; W.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Except the last three, all were completed in 1905.
+The others were completed very shortly afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>The boilers fitted to these ships varied considerably.
+The <i>King Edward</i>, <i>Hindustan</i>, and <i>Britannia</i> were
+given a mixed installation of Babcocks and cylindricals;
+the <i>New Zealand</i> Niclausse boilers; the other ships
+Babcock only. In the <i>Britannia</i>, super-heaters were also
+fitted to six of her boilers. The point differentiating
+these ships from their predecessors was the mounting
+of four 9.2 guns in single turrets at the angles of the
+superstructure. Equally novel was the placing of 6-inch
+guns in a battery behind the armour on the main deck.<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">21</a>
+Fighting tops, a feature of all previous ships, disappeared,
+and in place of them fire-control platforms were
+substituted.</p>
+
+<p>When produced, these ships were considered as
+something like the “last word”; but in service later
+on it was very soon found that the two calibres of big
+guns rendered fire-control extremely difficult, and they
+have been a somewhat costly lesson in that respect.
+They cost about £1,500,000 each, and were found to be
+all that could be desired tactically, their turning circles
+with engines being only about 340yds. at fifteen knots.
+All of them did not make their speeds on trials, and
+some have never quite come up to expectations in that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">109</span>
+respect, but they have all proved remarkably reliable
+steamers.</p>
+
+<p>Six armoured cruisers provided for in the 1901–02
+Estimates were the <i>Devonshires</i>. These were originally
+intended to have been enlarged <i>Counties</i>, carrying a
+single 7.5 fore and aft, in place of the twin 6-inch
+turrets of the prototype ships. The design was, however,
+modified to the extent of substituting a single 7.5 for
+each of the forward pairs of 6-inch casemates.</p>
+
+<p>Details of these ships <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—10,850 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—450ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—68½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(maximum) 25½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 7.5, six 6-inch, 45 cal.; two
+12-pounders, twenty-two 3-pounders, two 18in.
+torpedo tubes submerged.</li>
+
+<li>Armour Belt—(length 325ft. from the bow, width
+10½ft.), 6in. amidships, thinning to 2in. right
+forward. Barbettes 6in. Turrets 5in. Casemates
+6in.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—21,000==22.5 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 800; (maximum) 1,800 tons.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Other details <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t109" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engined by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Devonshire</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Mar.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’02</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Thames I.W.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Antrim</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Aug.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’02</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Argyll</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Sept.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’02</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Greenock Foundry</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Greenock F.C.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Carnarvon</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Oct.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’02</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Beardmore</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Beardmore</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hampshire</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Sept.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’02</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elswick</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elswick</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Roxburgh</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">June,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’02</td>
+  <td class="tdl">L. &amp; Glasgow</td>
+  <td class="tdl">L. &amp; Glasgow</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Like the <i>King Edwards</i>, various boilers were given
+to them. All of them have one-fifth cylindrical boilers.
+The <i>Devonshire</i> and <i>Carnarvon</i> were otherwise given<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">110</span>
+Niclausse; <i>Antrim</i> and <i>Hampshire</i>, Yarrow; <i>Argyll</i>,
+Babcock; and <i>Roxburgh</i>, Dürr. The designed speed
+was exceeded by all on trials, but none have proved
+successful steamers ever since. They were completed
+between 1904 and 1905.</p>
+
+<p>These were the last ships to be designed by Sir
+William White. He resigned his position from ill-health;
+but, like his predecessors, left under a cloud—at any rate,
+with his services not really appreciated. He had created
+a magnificent fleet; but its very magnificence made many
+of his designs look poor on paper against any foreign
+construction of less displacement, but—<i>on paper</i>—of
+equal or superior qualities. It is the fate of the naval
+architect in peace-time to be judged on paper with small
+regard to issues such as nautical qualities, constructional
+strength, and a score of other details which are not to be
+expressed by any statistical formulæ, but yet make all
+the difference between efficiency and the absence of it.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_111" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_111.jpg" width="1628" height="2408" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">EARLY TYPE OF “27 KNOT” DESTROYERS.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>Sir William White’s period of office was marked by
+an almost complete naval revolution. It began with the
+quick-firer and the disappearance of the low freeboard
+battleships. It ended with the coming of submarines,
+fire-control, and wireless. In between, it included the
+coming of the destroyer, the re-birth of the armoured
+cruiser; the arrival of the water-tube boiler, new forms
+of hull, unprecedented advances in both guns and
+armour—in fact, almost every conceivable change.
+Through these troubled waters with a steady hand and
+cool brain Sir William White guided the destiny of the
+Fleet and the millions of pounds expended in shipbuilding.
+Already his era is “the pre-<i>Dreadnought</i>” one, and to
+present-day ideas the term “pre-<i>Dreadnought</i>” is already<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">113</span>
+very nearly akin to “pre-historic.” His creations preserved
+the peace, for which very reason they failed to
+secure glory. Already some have gone to the scrap-heap,
+and others are well on their way thither to join the Reed
+and Barnaby ships in that oblivion to which modern
+<i>Dreadnoughts</i> will just as surely go in their season. More
+might be said: but <i>cui bono?</i> Such public epitaph as
+Sir William White received when he retired was of the
+“about time, too!” order. The creator of the finest
+fleet that the world has ever seen left office with less
+honour and no more public interest than did half-a-dozen
+mediocre admirals who had chanced to fly their flags in
+some of his creations. It is not given for the stage
+manager to stand in the lime-light reserved for the
+principal actors. But the historian of a hundred years
+hence, placing great Englishmen in perspective, will
+assuredly place Sir William White far ahead of many
+who loom greater in the public eye to-day.</p>
+
+<h3><i>GUNS IN THE ERA.</i></h3>
+
+<p>The guns which especially belong to the White era
+are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t113" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Designation.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Weight. Tons.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Projectile. lbs.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Velocity f.s.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Maximum Penetration with capped shot against K.C. at</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="theadsub">
+  <td class="tdc">5000 yds.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3000 yds.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">13.5, 30 cal.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">67</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">1250</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2016</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">9</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1p">12</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">12in., 35 cal.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">46</td>
+  <td class="tdc">850</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2367</td>
+  <td class="tdc">11½</td>
+  <td class="tdc">14½</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">12in., 40 cal.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">50</td>
+  <td class="tdc">850</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2750</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1p">16</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1p">20</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">10in., 32 cal.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">29</td>
+  <td class="tdc">500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2040</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">5½</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">7½</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">9.2, 30 cal.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">24</td>
+  <td class="tdc">380</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2065</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">4</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsrp">6</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">9.2, 40 cal.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">25</td>
+  <td class="tdc">380</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2347</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">6¾</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">9¼</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">9.2, 45 cal.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">27</td>
+  <td class="tdc">380</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2640</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">8¾</td>
+  <td class="tdc">11¼</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">7.5, 45 cal.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">14</td>
+  <td class="tdc">200</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2600</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">5¾</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">7½</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">6in., 40 cal.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">7½</td>
+  <td class="tdc">100</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2200</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl">6in., 45 cal.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">7</td>
+  <td class="tdc">100</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2535</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">4½</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">114</span></p>
+
+<h3><i>PURCHASED SHIPS.</i></h3>
+
+<p>In the year 1902 two ships, the <i>Constitucion</i> and
+<i>Libertad</i>, were laid down at Elswick and Vickers-Maxims’
+respectively for the Chilian Government. They were
+designed by Sir Edward Reed, and compare interestingly
+with the <i>King Edwards</i> in being much longer and
+narrower. It will be remembered that in the past Reed
+ideals had always centred round a “short handy ship.”
+They had also always embodied the maximum of
+protection, while these ships carried medium armour
+only. His ships had, further, always been characterised
+by extremely strong construction, while these verged
+on the flimsy, the scantlings being far lighter than in
+British naval practice.</p>
+
+<p>Out of all which it has been held that they represented
+the Reed ideal of armoured cruisers interlaced with whatever
+limitations the Chilian authorities may have specified.</p>
+
+<p>Particulars of these ships, which in 1903 were
+purchased for the British Navy and renamed <i>Swiftsure</i>
+(ex <i>Constitucion</i>) and <i>Triumph</i> (ex <span class="locked"><i>Libertad</i>):—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—11,800. Complement, 700.</li>
+
+<li>Length—(over all) 470ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—71ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(Maximum) 24ft. 8in.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 10-inch, 45 cal.; fourteen 7.5-inch,
+50 cal.; fourteen 14-pounders, four 6-pounders,
+four Maxims; two 18-inch submerged tubes.</li>
+
+<li>Armour—Practically complete belt 8ft. wide, 7-inch
+thick amidships, reduced to 3-inch at ends. 10-inch
+bulkheads at ends of thick portion of belt. Redoubt
+above (250ft. long), 7-inch on sides 6-inch bulkheads
+to it. Deck 1½-inch on slopes amidships, 3-inch on
+slopes at ends. Barbettes 10-inch, with 8 to 6-inch<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">115</span>
+turrets. Battery and upper deck casemates, 7-inch.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—14,000 = 20 knots. Yarrow boilers.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 800 tons; (maximum) 2,000 tons.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>These ships compare interestingly with the <i>King
+Edwards</i> and <i>Devonshires</i>, between which they struck a
+mean, as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t115" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>King Edward.</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Swiftsure.</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Devonshire.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Displacement</td>
+  <td class="tdl">16,350</td>
+  <td class="tdl">11,800</td>
+  <td class="tdl">10,850</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Principal Guns</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—12in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—10in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—7.5.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—9.2</td>
+  <td class="tdl">14—7.5</td>
+  <td class="tdl">6—6in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdl">16—6in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="bb">
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdl">5—18in. tubes</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2—18in. tubes</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2—18in. tubes</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Armour belt</td>
+  <td class="tdl">9—2in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">7—3in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">6—2in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Speed</td>
+  <td class="tdl">18.9 knots</td>
+  <td class="tdl">20 knots</td>
+  <td class="tdl">22.25 knots</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Coal (Normal)</td>
+  <td class="tdl">950</td>
+  <td class="tdl">800</td>
+  <td class="tdl">800</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl">Coal (Maximum)</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2,150—400 (oil)</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2,000</td>
+  <td class="tdl">1,800</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Other items of interest are that the armament of
+the <i>Swiftsures</i> (10-inch and 7.5’s) had somewhere about
+that time been laid down by Admiral Fisher as the ideal
+armament of the future, on the principle that the best
+possible was “the smallest effective big gun, and the
+largest possible secondary gun.”</p>
+
+<p>In service these ships never proved brilliantly
+successful. They rarely managed to make their speeds
+successfully, and there was a great deal of vibration with
+them. They were shored up internally in places with
+a view to strengthening them. On the other hand, it
+should be mentioned that some of these alleged defects
+have been put down to conservatism in nautical ideas,
+and that the shoring up was not really required. Their
+great drawback was that so far as the British Navy was
+concerned they were neither one thing nor the other,
+being too light in heavy guns to be satisfactory with the
+battleships, and too slow to act with the cruisers. Had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">116</span>
+there been six or so of them they would, possibly enough,
+have formed an ideal squadron. Being two ships only,
+they of necessity became round pegs in square holes.</p>
+
+<h3><i>NAVAL ESTIMATES IN THE ERA.</i></h3>
+
+<table id="t116" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Financial Year.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Amount.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Personnel.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="3">Ships.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="theadsub">
+  <td class="tdc">Battleships.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Armoured Cruisers.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Protected Cruisers.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1887–88</td>
+  <td class="tdc">12,476,800</td>
+  <td class="tdc">62,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">1888–89<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">22</a></td>
+  <td class="tdc">13,082,800</td>
+  <td class="tdc">62,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1889–90</td>
+  <td class="tdc">13,685,400</td>
+  <td class="tdc">62,400</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1890–91</td>
+  <td class="tdc">13,786,600</td>
+  <td class="tdc">65,400</td>
+  <td class="tdc">8</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">42</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1891–92</td>
+  <td class="tdc">14,557,856</td>
+  <td class="tdc">68,800</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1892–93</td>
+  <td class="tdc">14,240,200</td>
+  <td class="tdc">67,700</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1893–94</td>
+  <td class="tdc">14,340,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">70,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">6</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1894–95</td>
+  <td class="tdc">17,365,900</td>
+  <td class="tdc">83,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">9</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1895–96</td>
+  <td class="tdc">18,701,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">88,850</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">8</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1896–97</td>
+  <td class="tdc">21,823,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">93,750</td>
+  <td class="tdc">6</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1897–98</td>
+  <td class="tdc">21,838,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">100,050</td>
+  <td class="tdc">7</td>
+  <td class="tdc">6</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1898–99</td>
+  <td class="tdc">23,780,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">106,390</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+  <td class="tdc">4</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1899–00</td>
+  <td class="tdc">26,594,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">110,640</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1900–01</td>
+  <td class="tdc">28,791,900</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">114,880</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+  <td class="tdc">6</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1901–02</td>
+  <td class="tdc">30,875,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">118,625</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+  <td class="tdc">6</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdc">1902–03</td>
+  <td class="tdc">31,255,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">122,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+  <td class="tdc">—</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>In the following year 1903–04 three ships (the last
+of the <i>King Edwards</i>) were provided for. The total
+number of battleships designed for the British Navy by
+Sir William White was therefore 48. There were in
+addition 26 armoured cruisers—making a total of 74
+armoured ships, and about as many protected cruisers,
+including some for Colonial service.</p>
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">117</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="III"><span id="toclink_117"></span>III.<br>
+
+<span class="subhead">THE WATTS ERA.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="drop-cap"><span class="smcap1">Sir</span> William White was succeeded by Mr., afterwards
+Sir Philip Watts, who came to the Admiralty
+from Elswick, where he had been Chief Constructor.
+He came with the reputation of “putting in plenty of
+guns,” and his appointment was favourably received,
+both inside the Navy and outside.</p>
+
+<p>The armoured cruisers <i>Duke of Edinburgh</i> and <i>Black
+Prince</i> were the first ships for which he was personally
+responsible.</p>
+
+<p>Details of <span class="locked">these:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—13,550 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—480ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—73½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(maximum) 27½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Six 9.2, 45 cal., ten 6-inch, 50 cal.;
+twenty-two 3-pounders. Torpedo tubes:—Three
+submerged (18in.).</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—23,500 = 22.3 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 2,000;
+also 400 tons of oil.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The former ship was laid down at Pembroke and
+engined by Hawthorn; the latter was built and engined
+by the Thames Iron Works. In the matter of armament
+and its arrangement the ships were to some extent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">118</span>
+cruiser versions of the <i>King Edward</i>; but equally, in
+the adoption of a number of single gun-houses for big
+guns, and the jump from two to a larger number of big
+guns, the influence of the Chilian <i>O’Higgins</i>, built at
+Elswick, may be noticed. The big guns were placed one
+forward and one aft, two on either beam and two on
+either quarter. The 6-inch were placed in an armoured
+battery below. As originally designed, right ahead fire
+was given to the forward battery guns, but this was
+dispensed with at a later date. The ships were never
+good sea boats, and the 6-inch guns were soon found to
+be well-nigh useless in any sea.</p>
+
+<p>The armour was disposed in generous fashion—a
+complete belt reaching up to the main deck, 4in. forward,
+6in. for some 260ft. amidships, and 3in. aft of that. A
+6in. battery (K.N.C.) with bulkheads surmounts the belt-7in.
+barbettes with 6in. K.C. flat-sided gunhouses.</p>
+
+<p>Both were given a mixed installation of Babcock and
+cylindrical boilers. A novelty was the standardisation
+of all their machinery, a very valuable innovation, which
+has been followed ever since. Parts of any one ship’s
+machinery can be used for any other of her class, thus
+facilitating rapid repairs and requiring a considerably
+reduced stock of spares.</p>
+
+<p>On trials the <i>Duke of Edinburgh</i> did on her eight
+hours’ full power trial I.H.P. 23,685 = 22.84 knots, the
+<i>Black Prince</i> 23,939 = 23.6 knots. In service, however,
+the former has generally proved the better steamer.
+Another innovation in these ships was the re-appearance
+of the stern torpedo tube, first introduced in the
+<i>Centurions</i>. As re-introduced it was built submerged, a
+feature long desired, but which had previously presented
+innumerable difficulties in design.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">119</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_119" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_119.jpg" width="1661" height="2681" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      SWIFTSURE.<br>
+      <br>
+      WATTS ERA.<br>
+      LORD NELSON.<br>
+      BLACK PRINCE.<br>
+      WARRIOR.<br>
+      MINOTAUR.
+    </p>
+    <p>PRE-DREADNOUGHTS OF THE WATTS ERA.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">121</span></p>
+
+<p>For the Estimates of the following year (1903–04)
+four more ships of the same type were <span class="locked">provided—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t121" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Builders.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engines by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Achilles</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’04</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elswick</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Cochrane</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Mar.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’04</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Warrior</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’04</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Natal</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Nov.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’03</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Pembroke</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Wallsend Co.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>In these the defect of the low 6-in. battery of the
+<i>Black Princes</i> was anticipated, and instead of ten 6-inch
+guns, four 7.5 were mounted in gun-houses on the upper
+deck amidships. Yarrow and cylindrical boilers mixed
+were installed. Otherwise no change was made. On
+trial the <i>Achilles</i> reached a maximum of 23.27, the other
+three ships all made their contracts or over.</p>
+
+<p>These four, generally known as the <i>Warriors</i>, proved
+to be the finest cruisers as sea-boats ever built for
+the British Navy. They have always proved most
+remarkably steady gun platforms. Shooting from them
+is invariably good—they have always been near the top
+of the list in gunnery returns. For a single ship in a
+single commission good shooting is attributable to causes
+other than the ship; but with four ships and different
+crews at different times the effect of the design is obvious.
+Apparently the extra weight on their upper decks is
+responsible; for their dimensions are identical with
+those of the unsatisfactory <i>Black Princes</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In all these ships, as in the <i>Devonshires</i> which
+preceded them, raking masts and stumpy funnels were
+introduced. The latter proved most inconvenient for
+navigating purposes, and in 1911 all the <i>Warriors</i> had
+their funnels considerably heightened.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">122</span></p>
+
+<p>In these four latter the “dove-cot” platform fire-controls
+first appeared; they were fitted also to the
+three latest ships of the <i>King Edward</i> class.</p>
+
+<p>The main defect of all six is the trivial anti-torpedo
+armament. The 3-pounders are perfectly useless against
+destroyers. Incidentally it may be noticed that the class
+signalled the scientific placing of such guns for control
+purposes. In the <i>Warriors</i> some guns were mounted on
+turret tops also, this being with a view to their survival
+after an action. It was contended that an actual hit
+was extremely improbable on any anti-t.b. guns, but
+that shells bursting underneath might easily disable them.
+Hence the search for an armoured base. This idea seems
+to have originated in the German Navy, though the
+Germans never adopted the turret-top position.</p>
+
+<p>The Estimates (1904–05) provided for two battleships
+and three armoured cruisers. The latter of these,
+the <i>Minotaur</i> class, were “improved <i>Warriors</i>”; but,
+as a matter of fact, except for a larger armament,
+they proved somewhat inferior to their immediate
+<span class="locked">predecessors:—</span></p>
+
+<p>Details are:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—14,600 tons (as against 13,550).</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—490ft., (over
+all) 525ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—74½ft. (but a foot more in <i>Shannon</i>).</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(maximum) 28ft. (but a foot less in
+<i>Shannon</i>).</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 9.2, 50 cal., ten 7.5, fourteen
+12-pounders, five 18in. tubes (submerged).</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—27,000 = 23 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 1,000 tons (950 only in <i>Shannon</i>);
+(maximum) 2,000, also 400 tons oil.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">123</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_123" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 19em;">
+  <img src="images/i_123.jpg" width="1202" height="1487" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">SIR PHILIP WATTS.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">125</span></p>
+
+<p>The 9.2 were placed in double turrets fore and aft.
+For those of the <i>Minotaur</i> electric manœuvring was
+substituted for the usual hydraulic. The 7.5’s are
+disposed in ten single gun houses on the upper deck,
+<i>Warrior</i> fashion. The armour belt is of the same
+maximum thickness, but only 3in. for 50ft. from the
+bow. Thereafter it thickens gradually for the next 75ft.
+then reaches its maximum. Vertical armour above the
+main deck was given up in order to allow for the increased
+weight of armament and its protection—a total of 2,073
+tons. The <i>Minotaur</i> has Babcock, the other two Yarrow
+large-tube boilers. No cylindricals were fitted; the
+opponents of the water-tube system having lost their
+influence by 1905, when the ships were laid down.</p>
+
+<p>None of these ships came up to expectations on trial,
+though they developed considerably more than the
+contract horse-power. The <i>Minotaur</i> just made her
+speed, the <i>Defence</i> just failed to reach it, the <i>Shannon</i>
+failed by half-a-knot. This last ship had been varied
+from the others with an idea that a new form of hull,
+would produce better speed—an unfortunate surmise.
+Shortly after completion all had 15ft. added to their
+funnels. The increased draught added to their power
+somewhat, but did not materially better their speeds.</p>
+
+<p>Further details of these three ships <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t125" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engined by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Minotaur</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’05</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Harland &amp; Wolff</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Defence</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’05</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Pembroke</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Scott S. &amp; E. Co.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Shannon</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’05</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Chatham</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Humphrys</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>All were completed in 1908. Average cost,
+£1,400,000 per ship. In them solid bulkheads first
+appear, their engine-rooms having no water-tight doors.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">126</span></p>
+
+<p>The battleships of the same programme (1904–05)
+were the <i>Lord Nelson</i> and <i>Agamemnon</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Details <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—16,500 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (between perpendiculars)—410 ft., (over
+all) 445ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—79½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(mean) 27ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Four 12-inch, 45 cal., ten 9.2, 50 cal.
+fifteen 12-pounders, sixteen 3-pounders, five
+submerged tubes (18in.).</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—16,750 = 18.5 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,000 tons;
+also 400 tons oil.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The <i>Lord Nelson</i> was built and engined by Palmer,
+the <i>Agamemnon</i> by Beardmore and engined by Hawthorn.
+The former was given Babcock, the latter Yarrow boilers.
+Both on trial easily exceeded the contract speed, and
+proved abnormally handy ships. They cost £1,500,000
+or only a little more than the <i>Minotaurs</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Nelsons</i> are often counted as “Dreadnoughts”;
+but their only claim to the position is they do not happen
+to carry any 6-inch guns. Actually they are nothing but
+improved <i>King Edwards</i>, bearing to those ships very
+much the same relation as the <i>Warriors</i> to the <i>Black
+Princes</i>. Their comparatively slow speeds and their
+mixed armaments entirely differentiate them from the
+swifter “all-big-gun” ship which followed, and, for that
+matter, caught them up.<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">23</a></p>
+
+<p>The <i>Nelsons</i> were never really successful ships outside
+the points alluded to above. Eight of their ten 9.2’s<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">127</span>
+were placed in twin turrets, and in many circumstances
+two 9.2 so mounted proved very little superior in
+efficiency to a similar single gun in an isolated gun-house.<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">24</a></p>
+
+<p>In the matter of protection the <i>Nelsons</i> far exceeded
+the <i>King Edwards</i>. In place of a 9in. belt amidships
+they were given a 12in. one, while the 8in. and 6in.
+strakes above of the earlier ships became a uniform 8in.
+The bow belt forward was also augmented to 6in. on
+the water-line, surmounted by 4in., instead of a belt
+uniformly increasing from 2in. to 6in. further aft. But
+none of this made them “Dreadnoughts,” and the
+absence of “Dreadnought” features relegated them to
+the second line very soon after they were completed.</p>
+
+<p>In these ships the tripod mast, the idea of which
+dates back to the <i>Captain</i> era, re-appeared. The
+<i>Nelsons</i> were given as mainmasts the first of those
+modern tripods which have characterised nearly every
+British capital ship since built till the <i>Lion</i> was altered.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of the tripod mast is to avoid the many
+shrouds of an ordinary mast; and so give greater training
+to the guns. Whether the idea be of use is another matter.
+Generally speaking ideas abandoned by our forefathers
+have failed to live long if resuscitated.</p>
+
+<p>In the 1902–03 and 1903–04 Estimates provision was
+made for four vessels each year of a new type, known
+as “Scouts.” These were the <i>Adventure</i> and <i>Attentive</i>
+(Elswick), <i>Forward</i> and <i>Foresight</i> (Fairfield), <i>Pathfinder</i>
+and <i>Patrol</i> (Laird), <i>Sentinel</i> and <i>Skirmisher</i> (Vickers-Maxim).<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">128</span>
+One was awarded each year to each of the
+firms mentioned, but all were actually laid down between
+June, 1903, and January, 1904. The first four to be
+given out to contract were originally named <i>Eddystone</i>,
+<i>Nore</i>, <i>Fastnet</i>, and <i>Inchkeith</i>.</p>
+
+<p>These vessels came to be built owing to an appreciation
+of the fact that destroyers had altogether lost
+their original rôle and had become torpedo-boats, pure
+and simple. The “Scouts,” though from three to four
+times the size, were the old “catchers” re-introduced.</p>
+
+<p>They compared with these as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t128" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">Average Displacement.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Average Designed Speed.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Armament.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">“Scouts”</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2850</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1p">25</td>
+  <td class="tdl">12 to 14—12pdr., 2—14in. tubes<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">25</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl">Halcyons</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1070</td>
+  <td class="tdc">18.5</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2—4.7,4—6pdr., 5—18in. tubes</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>A 1½ deck on slopes amidships was provided for
+the “Scouts,” which incidentally were designed for ten
+12-pounders only. By the year 1912 it became
+abundantly clear that, like their predecessors the
+“catchers,” they were doomed to pass quickly into
+the “little use” category on account of their weak
+armaments and small sea-keeping capacity.</p>
+
+<h3><i>TORPEDO CRAFT.</i></h3>
+
+<p>It has already been mentioned that Sir William
+White’s period of office saw the coming of the destroyer.
+The origin of this craft is to be found in a public
+agitation, which arose out of the tremendous attention
+paid to torpedo boats by the French, who were then
+our most likely enemy, and who had an overwhelming
+superiority in torpedo craft.</p>
+
+<p>Some years before a type of craft, the torpedo
+gunboats already referred to, which were first known<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">129</span>
+as “torpedo boat catchers” and subsequently as
+“catchers” had been introduced. It soon, however,
+became very clear that they were little likely to achieve
+this end, and the doctrine that “the torpedo boat is the
+answer to the torpedo boat” was being steadily preached.
+At that time (1892) the then insignificant navy of
+Germany was in possession of eight very large torpedo
+boats, which were known as “division boats.” Austria
+also had one or two fast craft, capable of dealing with
+torpedo boats. Upon these existing lines a new type of
+craft was developed for the British Navy. The first two
+to be built were the <i>Havock</i> and <i>Hornet</i>, which were
+launched in 1893. In substance they were very large
+torpedo boats of about 250 tons displacement, designed
+by Messrs. Yarrow. Their speed of 27 knots was well
+in excess of that of any existing torpedo boat, and it
+was confidently expected that they would easily run
+down and destroy any such. In addition to what was
+then the very considerable armament of one 12-pounder
+and three 6-pounders, they were also fitted with torpedo
+tubes.<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">26</a> The original idea of this was that when hostile
+torpedo boats had been annihilated by them, the
+destroyers could be used as torpedo boats in case of need.</p>
+
+<p>In 1894 the <i>Havock</i> and <i>Hornet</i> were used in
+manœuvres and tested by being made to lie by for
+twenty-four hours in the Bay of Biscay. They underwent
+the test very well, and to this is probably attributed the
+realisation of the fact that in them a more or less really
+effective sea-going torpedo boat had been evolved. A
+large number of duplicates were ordered; at first of
+27 knots. Later this was increased to 30, and in a few
+boats to a little more.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">130</span></p>
+
+<p>The whole of these boats were nothing but enlarged
+editions of existing torpedo boats, and some of them
+proved rather weak for the service demanded of them.
+In the year 1902 and onwards, therefore, a type of better
+sea-going qualities was demanded, and the River class,
+which totalled about 35 boats, began to be built. A
+feature of the River class was that they were a blend of
+the early torpedo gunboats of the Rattlesnake type, with
+the later and heavier torpedo gunboats. There was a
+reduction of speed to 25½ knots, with a view to securing
+better sea-going qualities. On account of their slow
+speed the River class are verging on the obsolete to-day,
+but the high forecastle first embodied in them has
+never been departed from, and the very latest types of
+destroyers are nothing but swifter and larger editions of
+them.</p>
+
+<p>It is interesting to note that here again to some
+extent the Germans led the way. German destroyers
+had the North Sea to consider, whereas all early British
+destroyers were built with a view to being used only in
+the Channel. Consequently and naturally enough the
+Germans were the first to perceive the necessity for a
+high forecastle.</p>
+
+<p>The submarine also appeared in the pre-Dreadnought
+era, but the boats of that time were of such a primitive
+type that they need hardly be specially mentioned.
+They will be found alluded to in a later chapter.</p>
+
+<h3><i>END OF THE PRE-DREADNOUGHT ERA.</i></h3>
+
+<p>So ended the pre-Dreadnought era. It was characterised
+by a multiplicity of types which had <span class="locked">included:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>
+First class battleships.</li>
+<li>Second class battleships.</li>
+<li>Fast intermediate battleships.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">131</span></li>
+<li>First rate armoured cruisers.</li>
+<li>Second rate armoured cruisers.</li>
+<li>First class protected cruisers.</li>
+<li>Second class protected cruisers.</li>
+<li>Third class protected cruisers.</li>
+<li>Scouts.</li>
+<li>Torpedo gunboats.</li>
+<li>Sloops.</li>
+<li>Gunboats.</li>
+<li>Destroyers.</li>
+<li>Torpedo boats.</li>
+<li>Submarines.
+</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Although the whole of these types were not all
+building or provided for at any one and the same time,
+yet towards the end of the period there was a general
+feeling that too many types of ships were in use.
+Reductions in this direction were announced, at first
+indicating that in future programmes provision would
+be made only <span class="locked">for:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>
+“Armoured ships.”</li>
+<li>Destroyers.</li>
+<li>Submarines.
+</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Contemporaneously with this came Admiral Fisher’s
+famous “scrap-heap policy,” whereby some eighty
+vessels of one kind and another were struck off the
+effective list, and either sold or relegated to subsidiary
+service.</p>
+
+<p>The ships removed included all battleships and
+armoured cruisers of earlier date than the <i>Trafalgar</i>,
+several ships of the <i>Apollo</i> class, all earlier protected
+cruisers, some of the “P” class, and the bulk of the
+small fry in the way of sloops and gunboats.</p>
+
+<p>This action aroused a certain amount of criticism<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">132</span>
+on the grounds that the clearance was excessive. As
+some of the ships were subsequently restored to the
+active list, something is undoubtedly to be said for that
+point of view; especially as no steps were taken to
+replace the scrapped cruisers. On the other hand, most
+of the ships removed were of trivial fighting value;
+though here again the zeal of the reformer somewhat
+overlooked the fact that the police duties rendered by
+the small fry had been valuable.</p>
+
+<p>In connection with this policy some of the outlying
+naval bases were done away with, and there commenced
+a “reorganisation” of the Fleet which has continued
+intermittently from that day to this! Certain other
+considerable changes affecting the <i>personnel</i> will be
+found dealt with in a later chapter.</p>
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">133</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="IV"><span id="toclink_133"></span>IV.<br>
+
+<span class="subhead">THE DREADNOUGHT ERA—(WATTS).</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="drop-cap a"><span class="smcap1">A new</span> era in battleship design, not only for the
+British Navy, but for the navies of the entire
+world, was opened with the advent of the
+<i>Dreadnought</i>. As has been seen, it was in a way led up
+to by previous designs, notably the <i>Lord Nelson</i> class.
+The essential point of difference, however, lies in the fact
+that whereas the <i>Lord Nelson</i> carries heavy guns of two
+calibres, in the <i>Dreadnought</i> the main armament is
+confined to one calibre only. The advantages of this
+on paper are not particularly great, but for practical
+purposes, such as fire control and so forth, the superiority
+to be obtained by a uniformity of big gun armament is
+tremendous.</p>
+
+<p>As the historical portion of this book indicates, the
+“Dreadnought idea” has been a fairly regular feature
+of British Naval Policy, but in this particular case the
+inception would seem to have been due to accident and
+circumstance rather than to any settled policy.</p>
+
+<p>Immature and abortive attempts to realise something
+of the “Dreadnought ideal” had taken place in
+the past. The earliest ship claimed to represent the
+Dreadnought ideal was the U.S. <i>Roanoake</i>, built at the
+time of the Civil War. This was a high freeboard ship,
+fitted with three turrets in the centre line. A few years
+later something of the same sort found expression in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">134</span>
+four-turreted British <i>Royal Sovereign</i> and <i>Prince Albert</i>,
+though these were merely coast defence ships. Still
+later in the <i>Tchesma</i> class, Russian, and in the <i>Brandenburg</i>
+class of the German Navy, six big guns were installed
+as the primary armament. Both these two ideas were
+laughed out of existence; and it became a settled
+fashion to carry four big guns, two forward and two aft.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_135" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 21em;">
+  <img src="images/i_135.jpg" width="1331" height="1955" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">GENERAL CUNIBERTI.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>Matters were at this stage when the late “Colonel”
+Cuniberti, Constructor to the Italian Navy, conceived
+the idea of a ship carrying a considerable number
+of big guns, and embodying in herself the power
+of two or three normal battleships. This design was
+considered altogether too ambitious for the Italian
+Navy; but permission was given him to publish the
+general idea, subject to official revision. It first saw
+the light in “<i>Fighting Ships</i>,” in 1903, and is now so
+historically interesting that I here reproduce the article
+in full, the original being long since out of <span class="locked">print:—</span></p>
+
+<p>“Admiral Sir John Hopkins, late Controller of the
+British Navy, in his admirable article, ‘Intermediates
+for the British Fleet,’ published in the last edition
+(1902) of this Annual, asks what results it would be
+possible to obtain in the British Navy by extending the
+ideas of the two Italian Ministers of Marine, Admiral
+Morin and Admiral Bettolo, which were translated into
+fact in the <i>Vittorio Emanuele III</i> (12,625 tons), so as to
+arrive at the much greater tonnage of recent British
+battleships, in the same manner as the ideas that found
+concrete form in the projected vessels of the <i>Amalfi</i> class
+were amplified and realised in the Italian battleships
+alluded to and regarding which, even now, so many
+doubts are expressed as to such realisation being
+practicable.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">137</span></p>
+
+<p>“To proceed from 8,000 to 12,000, and from 12,000
+to 17,000 tons of displacement, constitutes not only a
+problem of naval architecture, but also involves high
+considerations of quite another nature, such as the
+special functions of the Fleet, so as to harmonise with
+the political objects of any given maritime Power, the
+geographical position of that Power, the state of its
+finances, etc., etc. So that not only does the answer to
+such a question entail a certain amount of difficulty from
+the constructive point of view, but before the answer
+can be seriously considered it is absolutely necessary to
+determine exactly what end this ideal British battleship
+is to serve; for it is not to be imagined that we are
+going merely to enlarge the <i>Vittorio Emanuele</i> until we
+arrive at a displacement equal to that of the <i>King
+Edward VII.</i> For example, putting an extra 4,000 tons
+on board will produce a vessel that will perhaps be a
+little steadier in heavy weather than the original ship.</p>
+
+<div class="tb">* * * * *</div>
+
+<p>“In Britain are to be found naval experts of the
+highest possible order, and they will have their own ideas
+as to what type of vessels best fulfil the needs and ideals
+of the British Fleet, so that it would almost appear a
+presumption on my part to offer suggestions for any Navy
+other than the Italian. But in deference to the courteous
+interrogation of Admiral Hopkins I may be permitted
+to point out that from the purely human point of view
+there are two leading methods by which one can strike
+to the ground one’s opponent, either by gradually
+developing the attack and disposing of him little by
+little, or, on the other hand, killing him at one blow
+without causing him prolonged suffering. In like manner<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">138</span>
+there are two distinct modes of sending an enemy’s ship
+to the bottom.</p>
+
+<p>“Let us take, for example, a human combat. The
+first—the most commonly used, and the most practical
+in the majority of cases—has as its basis the progressive
+dismemberment of the enemy.</p>
+
+<p>“Two mortal foes place themselves on guard at a
+distance; they begin with exceptional strokes, with
+feints, with opportune advances and retreats, never
+coming to close quarters for a deadly blow until the
+capabilities of the enemy, both offensive and defensive,
+are well tested, and until some fortunate stroke, even
+although not actually deadly, has considerably weakened
+the foe, has rendered his defence less able, and has
+somewhat demoralised him. Covered with blood, stunned,
+mutilated, and hardly capable of remaining on his feet,
+then comes the moment when his adversary closes in
+upon him and delivers the final and mortal blow. And
+we may almost imagine we hear the beaten one, with
+thick and choking voice, repeat the terrible words of
+Francesco Ferruccio at the battle of Gavinana: ‘Maramaldo,
+thou but killest a man already dead!’</p>
+
+<p>“Similarly, two opposing ships, with but slight
+differences in their powers, will commence their combat
+at a great distance, utilising their evolutionary abilities
+and their speed in prudent manœuvres, seeking to gain
+as much advantage as possible from their offensive
+powers, and attempting to place every obstacle in the way
+of the antagonist utilising powers in either direction.
+The discharge of projectiles will commence in earnest,
+greatly assisted by the rapid loading of which the guns
+of medium and small calibre are now capable. What
+results can reasonably be expected from the discharge of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">139</span>
+the smaller guns at such great distances is hard to say;
+nor can the slender expectation of, let us say, chancing
+to hit the captain of the opposing ship in the eye with a
+lucky shot, at all justify such a waste of ammunition.
+Gradually nearing one another, the ships manœuvring
+less freely, hits will become more dangerous; the boats
+that were not set adrift before the action began will be
+alight and burning fiercely; the cowls of the wind trunks,
+the funnels, and the masts will be in fragments.</p>
+
+<p>“The crew, wounded and reduced in numbers, will
+have lost their calm, and consequently the firing will have
+become wilder; finally, one of the two antagonists will
+get in a lucky shot that will disable the other. She will
+speedily become unmanageable, and her enemy will as
+speedily close into within the thousand metres which will
+permit of a torpedo being launched with every chance of
+success, or the battle may be concluded by a final rush
+and the point of the ram.</p>
+
+<p>“As the wounded hull sinks slowly beneath the waves,
+the flag which had put such heart into the crew, and the
+sight of which had spurred them to fight to the last, may
+well seem as it disappears to repeat to the enemy these
+sad words, ‘Thou but slayest one already dead.’</p>
+
+<p>“Four ships in place of two, eight in place of four, will
+repeat in a perhaps more complex action the same phases
+of attack, and the same foolish waste of ammunition,
+which in these days causes the greatest preoccupation of
+those who, having to design warships, must decide on
+the quantity of ammunition and projectiles provided for
+each different calibre of the armament.</p>
+
+<div class="tb">* * * * *</div>
+
+<p>“There is, however, another method of fighting and
+sending your enemy to the bottom; but it is one that is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">140</span>
+capable of adoption only by a Navy at the same time
+most potent and very rich.</p>
+
+<p>“Let us imagine a vessel whose armour is so well
+distributed and so impervious as to be able to resist all
+the attacks of an enemy’s artillery with the exception of
+the projectiles of the 12-inch guns. Such a ship could
+approach her enemy without firing a shot, without
+wasting a single round of ammunition, absolutely
+regardless of all the scratchings that her antagonist
+might inflict on the exterior of her armour plates.</p>
+
+<p>“And as to-day the belts of fighting ships are
+generally of such thickness that, when we leave the
+results of the proving ground and come to the conditions
+of actual combat, we find that it would be more than
+difficult to penetrate them with 6-inch guns, we see at
+once that it would be useless to equip our contemplated
+ship with such artillery.</p>
+
+<p>“Further, if this ideal vessel which we have imagined
+to be so potently armoured is also very swift, and of a
+speed greater than that of a possible antagonist, she
+could not only prevent this latter from getting away,
+but also avail herself of her superiority in this respect
+for choosing the most convenient position for striking the
+belt of the enemy in the most advantageous manner.</p>
+
+<p>“For this swift vessel a numerous and uniform
+armament of 8-inch guns, such as was contemplated for
+the <i>Amalfi</i> class,<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">27</a> would appear to be sufficient, if we had
+only to consider the penetration at right angles of modern
+belts, especially if capped projectiles are adopted.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">141</span></p>
+
+<p>“If, however, the hit is an oblique one, and the
+distance is considerable, it appears necessary that we
+should adopt the calibre of 12-inch if we want to be
+absolutely certain of sinking the adversary, striking him
+<i>only</i> on the belt. But the loading of such guns is as yet
+very slow, although it has been greatly improved of late.
+Besides, the number of hits that one can get in on to the
+belt itself is small. From this it appears that in our
+ideal and intensely powerful ship we must increase the
+number of pieces of 12-inch so as to be able to get in at
+least one fatal shot on the enemy’s belt at the water-line
+before she has a chance of getting a similar fortunate
+stroke at us from one of the four large pieces now usually
+carried as the main armament.</p>
+
+<p>“We thus have outlined for us the main features of
+our absolutely supreme vessel—with medium calibres
+abolished—so effectually protected as to be able to
+disregard entirely all the subsidiary armament of an
+enemy, and armed only with twelve pieces of 12-inch.
+Such a ship could fight in the second method we have
+delineated, without throwing away a single shot, without
+wasting ammunition. Secure in her exuberant protection
+with her twelve guns ready, she would swiftly descend on
+her adversary and pour in a terrible converging fire at the
+belt.</p>
+
+<p>“Having disposed of her first antagonist, she would
+at once proceed to attack another, and almost untouched,
+to despatch yet another, not throwing away a single
+round of her ammunition, but utilising all for sure and
+deadly shots. A large and abundant supply of 12-inch
+projectiles and ammunition can be provided, in addition
+to the belt and guns contemplated, out of the 4,500 tons
+of increase of displacement that will be disposable in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">142</span>
+enlargement of the <i>Vittorio Emanuele III</i> to become the
+national British type of vessel in place of the <i>King
+Edward VII</i>.</p>
+
+<p>“It will be necessary to defend our ‘<i>Invincible</i>’
+with a thick complete belt of twelve inches, and a
+battery also protected with the 12-inch armour (for the
+redoubt must be thus defended as well as the water-line,
+so as to eliminate the perils of the first system of attack
+sketched out, of progressive damages being adopted
+against her); and at the same time she must be armed
+with twelve pieces of 12-inch, arranged as in the <i>Amalfi</i>
+class or in the <i>Vittorio Emanuele III</i>, so as to be able
+herself to attack in the second method that has been
+outlined, that is to say, the system of the stronger, of
+the better defended, and most certainly that of the
+richer. But when a certain number of such colossi of
+17,000 tons—six, for example—had been constructed, it
+is more than probable that the adversary would do his
+utmost to prevent their getting near him, and, fearful
+of the fatal result of so unequal a combat, would seek to
+betake himself elsewhere immediately on the appearance
+of the famous <i>Invincible</i> division.</p>
+
+<p>“In that case the command of the seas, or a deluded
+belief that they have such command, will remain with
+these <i>Invincible</i> ships, even although they may be of slow
+speed; but to stop at this point would be too little and
+unworthy of the Navy of the richest and most potent
+Power in the world.</p>
+
+<p>“For this squadron or division, however ‘invincible,’
+will not be really and truly <i>supreme</i> if it cannot also
+catch hold of the enemy’s tail. The bull in the vast ring
+of the amphitheatre deludes himself with the idea that
+because he is more powerful than the agile toreador he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">143</span>
+therefore has absolute command of the scene of the
+combat; but he is too slow in following up his adversaries
+and these almost always succeed in eluding his terrible
+horns.</p>
+
+<p>“We must, therefore, come to the conclusion that the
+type of vessel will not be absolutely <i>supreme</i> and worthy
+of such a nation unless we furnish it with such speed
+that it can overtake any of the enemy’s battleships and
+oblige them to fight. It is, then, possible to give to a
+vessel of 17,000 tons <span class="locked">displacement—</span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot hang">
+
+<p>Protective armour of 12ins.</p>
+
+<p>Twelve guns of 12-inch calibre.</p>
+
+<p>An abundant supply of ammunition, and</p>
+
+<p>A very high speed, superior to that of all and existing
+battleships afloat.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“It has been said and written—indeed, repeatedly
+written—that the <i>Vittorio Emanuele III</i> was a practical
+impossibility. But before long she will be actually in
+the water, and facts already show how vain were the
+suppositions and criticisms of such croakers.<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">28</a></p>
+
+<p>“But it has also been asserted that in the case of this
+vessel surpassing the contemplated speed of 21½ knots on
+trial and attaining that hoped for of 22 knots, such would
+only prove that that particular tonnage of displacement
+especially lends itself to obtaining a form of hull with
+which we can realise a very high speed, and more so than
+with larger ships. This, however, is not quite exact.
+The law which governs the speed and displacement,
+other things being equal, is well known to all naval
+constructors, who have by heart the rule that whilst the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">144</span>
+displacement increases as the cube of the dimensions, the
+resistance, on the other hand, at a given speed does not
+increase in the same proportion as the displacement.
+The pith of the kernel lies in utilising the most opportune
+dimensions, or, rather, let us say, in adopting the special
+form of hull most adapted to those dimensions, more
+than in the actual amount of the displacement itself.</p>
+
+<p>“The amount of the displacement, however, is
+intimately bound up with the question of the defensive
+and offensive powers that it is wished to give to a ship;
+so that once the particular objectives of the Italian
+Navy had been laid down, and thereby the defensive
+and offensive power sought for decided on, the question
+resolved itself into harmonising them with a form of
+hull of the greatest possible efficiency, and this worked
+out at 12,600 tons. Nor does it appear that the problem
+could have been satisfactorily solved with a vessel of
+less displacement, as in that case it would have been
+impossible to realise the required power, while with a
+greater displacement the ship would have been incapable
+of obtaining the desired speed.</p>
+
+<p>“In the same manner the defensive and offensive
+power of the projected ships of the <i>Amalfi</i> class was
+harmonised with a form of hull of such high efficiency
+that it would have been possible to obtain a speed of
+23 knots and probably more; but the statement that the
+problem could not have been solved with a displacement
+of much less or much greater tonnage than that projected,
+is not to be taken as insisting that the solution must be
+interpreted in a too absolute manner, asserting that the
+speed of 23 knots could not be efficiently obtained save
+with a displacement of from 8,000 to 9,000 tons, for this
+would be inexact.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">145</span></p>
+
+<p>“If now the question be put—Is it possible for some
+naval architect to design a special form of hull having
+a displacement of 17,000 tons, and with which we can
+realise a very high speed—twenty-four knots, for
+example?</p>
+
+<p>“‘Without doubt,’ will answer all practical naval
+constructors.</p>
+
+<p>“If we go further, and ask—Is it possible for him at
+the same time to arm such a vessel with twelve pieces of
+12-inch?</p>
+
+<p>“‘Without doubt,’ will answer but a certain number
+of such experienced men.</p>
+
+<p>“But if we go still further, and demand, finally—Is
+it also possible for him to protect such a ship with 12-inch
+armour?</p>
+
+<p>“‘Without doubt,’ will answer only one here and
+there who may have already made researches in that
+direction.</p>
+
+<p>“And as the solving of such a problem necessitates
+many and many a calculation, and no amount of
+discussion or argument on the matter could in any way
+be conclusive unless based on definite plans and figures,
+these lines might well conclude here.</p>
+
+<p>“But, in deference to the courteous inquiry of Admiral
+Hopkins, this brief article must not be allowed to close
+in a manner so indefinite.</p>
+
+<p>“I would, therefore, say frankly at once that the
+designs for such a vessel have already been worked out,
+and that its construction seems quite feasible and attainable.
+Following up the progressive scale of displacement
+from 8,000 to 12,000 tons, and then on to 17,000 tons, a
+new <i>King Edward VII</i> has been designed, 521½ft. (159
+metres) in length, with a beam of eighty-two feet (twenty-five<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">146</span>
+metres), and mean draught of 27ft. (8.5 metres);
+with the water-line protected with 12-inch plates, and
+the battery similarly armoured; having two turrets at
+the ends, each armed with a pair of 12-inch guns, and
+two central side turrets high up (similar to the two with
+8-inch guns in the <i>Vittorio Emanuele III</i>), also each
+armed with two pieces of 12-inch, and four turrets at
+the four angles of the upper part of the battery, having
+each one 12-inch gun.</p>
+
+<p>“This vessel has no ports whatever in her armour;
+she carries no secondary armament at all, but only the
+usual pieces of small calibre for defence against torpedo
+attack.</p>
+
+<p>“The speed to be realised, as proved by the tank
+trials, is twenty-four knots.”</p>
+
+<p>The idea was at first received with derision and
+scepticism, which lasted until, in the Russian-Japanese
+War, it was announced that the Japanese had laid down
+two battleships, the <i>Aki</i> and <i>Satsuma</i>, which “were to be
+more or less on the lines of the ship projected by Colonel
+Cuniberti.” Contemporaneous with this the United
+States authorised the building of the <i>South Carolina</i> and
+<i>Michigan</i>, which carry eight 12-inch guns, so disposed as
+to be available on either broadside.</p>
+
+<p>Both these ideas were public property before the
+British <i>Dreadnought</i> was laid down. She was, however,
+built with such rapidity that she was completed long
+before any other vessel of the type.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_147" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 39em;">
+  <img src="images/i_147.jpg" width="2454" height="1634" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">THE “DREADNOUGHT”—1906.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>In the design for a new type of British capital ship,
+a great many ideas were considered and rejected.
+Eventually, however, it was decided to equip the
+<i>Dreadnought</i> with five turrets so disposed that eight guns
+were available on either broadside and six guns available<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">149</span>
+ahead or astern. The designed speed of the ship was
+twenty-one knots.</p>
+
+<p>Together with this type of ship, another type,
+somewhat more resembling the Cuniberti ideal, was laid
+down. Three ships of this class, the <i>Invincible</i> class,
+were designed for a speed of twenty-five knots, and
+given big guns so disposed that eight guns were available
+on either broadside and six big guns ahead or astern.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Dreadnought</i> was officially laid down in December,
+1905, and completed ten months later. Actually,
+however, materials for her were collected months beforehand,
+and the rate at which she was built,<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">29</a> like the
+secrecy with which her building was surrounded, consisted
+in great measure of a theatrical display, very impressive
+to the general public at the time, but to-day generally
+regarded as “unfortunate” on account of the foreign
+attention thus attracted. But, while the previous
+chapter is clear proof of the futility of any real secrecy
+about the “Dreadnought idea,” so far as the British
+Navy was concerned, it likewise serves to refute a charge
+which has been made to the effect that the “secrecy
+policy” induced foreign nations to build Dreadnoughts
+also. The most that can be said is that had the
+<i>Dreadnought</i> been built without so much attention being
+attracted to her, foreign nations might have been less in
+a hurry to copy her. But it is absolutely clear that the
+all-big-gun ship era had arrived, just as in the past the
+ironclad era came, or, in earlier days still, the gun and
+steam eras did. The actual place of the <i>Dreadnought</i> in
+history is that she marks a wise and rapid recognition of
+new conditions.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">150</span></p>
+
+<p>Details of the <i>Dreadnought</i> are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—17,900 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—526ft. (over all).</li>
+
+<li>Beam—82ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—Maximum, 29ft. (normal).</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Ten 12-inch, 45 cal.; twenty-seven
+12 pounders; five submerged tubes (18 inch).</li>
+
+<li>Armour Belt—11-in. to 6-in. forward; and 4-in.
+aft. On turrets 11-inch (K.C.)</li>
+
+<li>Machinery—Parsons Turbine; four screws.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—23,000 = 21 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Boilers—Babcock.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,000 tons;
+oil fuel also.</li>
+
+<li>Built at Portsmouth; Engined by Vickers.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The <i>Dreadnought</i> was unique in every particular.
+The exact disposition of her big gun armament was only
+arrived at after a long and careful consultation, and the
+consideration of a number of alternatives. It admits of
+eight big guns bearing in nearly every position, and
+allows a minimum fire of six in any case. It is understood
+that, in addition to the plan actually adopted, in the
+earliest plan of all (which was merely an adaption of the
+<i>Lord Nelson</i> class), consideration was given to a scheme
+of five turrets, all in the centre line, and also to an
+arrangement whereby the two amidship turrets would be
+placed <i>en échelon</i>.</p>
+
+<p>One of the particular arguments in favour of the
+plan ultimately adopted was that next to four, eight big
+guns form the best workable unit for fire control purposes.
+It was also considered that eight guns would probably
+be the maximum that could safely be fired together
+continuously, with full charges in battle conditions.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">151</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_151" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_151.jpg" width="1644" height="2460" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE DREADNOUGHT.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">153</span></p>
+
+<p>In these days when all big gun armaments are the
+rule, there is a tendency to overlook the fact that the
+<i>Dreadnought’s</i> main armament was double that of
+previous ships, with only a comparatively small increase
+of displacement, and that no intermediate experience
+existed as to what might be expected.</p>
+
+<p>With a view to standing the shock of discharge, the
+<i>Dreadnought</i> was built with very heavy scantlings and
+generally given an immensely strong hull. The armouring
+followed orthodox lines, except that a certain amount
+was applied internally under-water as a protection
+against torpedoes. In addition she was given solid bulkheads,<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">30</a>
+though this was no novelty except with the
+British Navy, as they had been introduced some years
+before in the battleship <i>Tsarevitch</i> and the armoured
+cruiser <i>Bayan</i>, built for the Russians at La Seyne.
+Another novelty in the <i>Dreadnought</i> was the adoption of
+a high forecastle, she being the first British battleship in
+which this appears. Another innovation was the placing
+of the officers’ quarters forward and putting the men aft,
+a system which, however, has since been abandoned in
+the most recent vessels.</p>
+
+<p>The greatest novelty of the <i>Dreadnought</i>, however,
+was the adoption of turbine machinery, and the form of
+her hull, with a 30ft. overhang aft, in order to adapt the
+ship to the new means of propulsion. The fitting of
+turbines to the new <i>Dreadnought</i> was perhaps an even
+greater novelty than her armament, she being the first
+warship, other than small cruisers, to be so equipped.</p>
+
+<p>The introduction of turbines was regarded with a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">154</span>
+good deal of apprehension in certain quarters, especially
+when it became known that the three other big ships
+belonging to the same programme were also to be turbine
+propelled. The type selected for all was the Parsons with
+four shafts. The wing shafts of the <i>Dreadnought</i> have
+each one high pressure ahead and one high pressure
+astern turbine. The amidship ones are fitted with three
+turbines each—one low pressure one ahead, and one low
+pressure astern, and one turbine for going astern. Each
+turbine has 39,600 blades.</p>
+
+<p>On her first trials the <i>Dreadnought</i> exceeded her
+designed speed for short spurts by three-quarters of a
+knot, but on the eight hours’ run barely succeeded in
+making a mean of twenty-one knots. Shortly afterwards
+she fell a little below this, but at a later date picked up
+again, and on more than one occasion since she has easily
+made twenty-two knots or over. Such early difficulties
+as occurred were due to the fact that her engine-room
+complement were at first necessarily unfamiliar with
+working so large an installation. The total cost of the
+<i>Dreadnought</i>, which belongs to the 1905–06 programme,
+was £1,797,497, and save that her draught somewhat
+exceeded anticipations, the ship was a success in every
+way, proving a remarkably steady gun-platform.</p>
+
+<p>The Committee which sat on the <i>Dreadnought</i> design
+was by no means entirely unanimous as to what sacrifice
+should be made for speed. The <i>Dreadnought</i> herself,
+despite a considerable increase of speed as compared with
+the battleships that preceded her, did not obtain that
+speed by the sacrifice of any battleship qualities, but
+almost entirely on account of the substitution of turbines
+for reciprocating engines. To that extent, therefore,
+though nearly as fast as the armoured cruisers of a few<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">155</span>
+years before, she may be said to have developed entirely
+along normal lines, rather than on those laid down by
+Cuniberti.</p>
+
+<p>The table on the next page and diagrams indicate how
+the original Cuniberti idea compares with the first results
+obtained. It will be noticed that, except in the case of
+the <i>Invincible</i> type, and there only at a sacrifice of armour
+and armament, was, however, anything like the Cuniberti
+speed attempted. It should be stated that in the
+Cuniberti ship the peculiar “girder construction” of his
+<i>Vittorio Emanuele</i> was obviously contemplated. This
+construction, which admits of far lighter scantlings than
+usually employed, has not been attempted in any other
+Navies, and a corresponding extra dead-weight results.</p>
+
+<p>Coming to details, there is uncertainty as to the
+exact original design of the <i>Satsuma</i>; but a uniform
+armament of big guns was certainly the first to be
+projected. It is not clear whether it was abandoned from
+a preference for a numerically larger but mixed battery;
+or with a view to utilising such guns as were most likely
+to be available for early delivery. Japan was then at
+war, and there was the natural anticipation that the
+ships might be wanted before the war was over. It
+should, on the other hand, be borne in mind that the
+<i>Kashima</i> and <i>Katori</i>, of 16,400 tons, carrying four 12-inch,
+four 10-inch, twelve 6-inch, and twelve 14-pounders, with
+9-inch belts and 18.5 knot speeds were at that time held
+up in England on account of the war. Hence it has with
+some considerable show of reason been argued that the
+<i>Satsuma</i> and <i>Aki</i> are nothing but normal developments
+of the <i>Kashima</i> design, bearing just the same relation to
+it as the British <i>Lord Nelsons</i> bear to the <i>King Edwards</i>.
+It was also practically admitted by the Japanese at a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">156</span>
+later date that for diplomatic reasons, in accounts of the
+contemporary armoured cruisers of the <i>Tsukuba</i> class, the
+armaments<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">31</a> were exaggerated.</p>
+
+<p class="p1 center">ORIGINAL DREADNOUGHT DESIGNS.</p>
+
+<table id="t156" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">Normal Displacement. Tons.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Armament.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Belt. in.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Des’d. Speed. Knots.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Laid Down.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2"><i>Cuniberti</i> (as built)</td>
+  <td class="tdc">17,000</td>
+  <td class="tdl">12—12in., 18—12 pdr.</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">12</td>
+  <td class="tdc">24</td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>pro.</i> 1903</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="bb">
+  <td class="tdl in2"><i>Satsuma</i> Design</td>
+  <td class="tdc">19,250</td>
+  <td class="tdl">12 <i>or</i> 10—12in., 12—4.7</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsp">9</td>
+  <td class="tdc">20</td>
+  <td class="tdc">——</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2"><i>Satsuma</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc">19,250</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4—12in., 12—10in., 12—6</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsp">9</td>
+  <td class="tdc">20</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1905</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2"><i>S. Carolina, pro.</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc">16–17,000</td>
+  <td class="tdl">8—12in., (<i>or</i> 4—12in., 8—10in.), 30—14 pdr.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10</td>
+  <td class="tdc">18–20</td>
+  <td class="tdc">——</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2"><i>S. Carolina</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc">16,000</td>
+  <td class="tdl">8—12in., 22—14 pdr.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">12</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">18½</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1906</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2"><i>Dreadnought</i>, 1st Design</td>
+  <td class="tdc">?</td>
+  <td class="tdl">10—12in.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">..</td>
+  <td class="tdc">..</td>
+  <td class="tdc">——</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2"><i>Dreadnought</i> (as built)</td>
+  <td class="tdc">17,900</td>
+  <td class="tdl">10—12in., 27—12 pdr.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">11</td>
+  <td class="tdc">21</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1905</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl in2"><i>Invincible</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc">17,250</td>
+  <td class="tdl">8—12in., 16—4in.</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsp">7</td>
+  <td class="tdc">25</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1906</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Nassau</i> (as “S”)</td>
+  <td class="tdc">?</td>
+  <td class="tdl">8—11in., 12—6in., 10—24 pdr.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">?</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">19½</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1906</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Nassau</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc">18,500</td>
+  <td class="tdl">12—11in., 12—6in., 10—24 pdr.</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">9¾</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">19½</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1907</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="p0 b1 center"><i>Note.</i>—The <i>Nassau</i> was delayed a year owing to alterations in design.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">159</span></p>
+
+<p>Be all these things as they may, however, Japan
+is obviously entitled to some considerable share in
+originating the “Dreadnought movement.”</p>
+
+<p>The claims of the United States Navy rest on a
+stronger basis. The <i>South Carolina</i> type, all big guns
+in the centre line, all bearing on either broadside, was
+a distinct advance and novelty. The actual chronological
+date of laying down goes for nothing; the ships
+were designed and authorised long before they were
+commenced. No secrecy whatever was observed about
+them, and a strong body of opinion will always credit
+the United States with being the first Navy that
+definitely adopted the “all-big-gun idea.” It is interesting
+to note (see <a href="#t156">table</a>) that at one stage a mixed 12-inch
+and 10-inch armament was regarded as a possible
+alternative.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_157" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_157.jpg" width="1657" height="2662" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      CUIBERI.<br>
+      SATSUMA.<br>
+      S CAROLINA. <span class="allsmcap">FIRST DESIGN</span><br>
+      S CAROLINA.<br>
+      <span class="allsmcap">FIRST BRITISH</span> DREADNOUGHT <span class="allsmcap">DESIGN</span><br>
+      DREADNOUGHT.<br>
+      INVINCIBLE.<br>
+      NASSAU <span class="allsmcap">FIRST DESIGN</span><br>
+      NASSAU <span class="allsmcap">AS BUILT</span>
+    </p>
+    <p>ORIGINAL DREADNOUGHT DESIGNS.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>It has been claimed, either by those responsible for
+the <i>Dreadnought</i> herself, or by others professing to speak
+for them, that the <i>Dreadnought</i> was evolved entirely
+independently of Cuniberti’s ideal. It is practically
+impossible to say definitely how far there can be any
+truth in this. In all Admiralties, ships are, as a rule,
+designed as “projects” long before they see the light
+(some never see it at all, as witness the sea-going masted
+turret-ship of his design referred to by Sir Edward Reed
+in some remarks quoted on an earlier page!). The first
+British all-big-gun ship design (see <a href="#i_157">diagram</a>) is a lineal
+enough descendant of the <i>King Edward</i> and <i>Lord Nelson</i>,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">160</span>
+just as Cuniberti’s is a descendant of the <i>Vittorio
+Emanuele</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The Cuniberti design appears, however, to have been
+submitted as early as 1901. In any case, to Cuniberti
+belongs the first clear exposition of the idea, while the
+ridicule with which it was at first received indicates the
+general novelty.</p>
+
+<p>Germany is also a claimant to having evolved
+Dreadnoughts with the “<i>S</i>” type, intended to have been
+laid down in 1906, to follow the <i>Deutschlands</i>. These
+ships can hardly have been designed much later than
+1904. When first heard of they were reported to carry
+four big gun turrets, of which two were placed on either
+side amidships. Six big guns was the first reputed
+armament, later each turret was to carry two guns.</p>
+
+<p>The absurd secrecy with which subsequent German
+designs have been shrouded was not then in evidence;
+and all the indications are that the <i>Nassau</i>, as originally
+contemplated, was to have been a four-turret ship—the
+two extra 11-inch being Germany’s equivalent for the
+four 12-inch, four 9.2, of our <i>King Edwards</i>. This would
+perhaps accord Germany a priority in actually adopting
+the principle of an increased number of heavy guns.</p>
+
+<p>All of which suffices to indicate that the adoption
+of more than four big guns had little or nothing to do
+with the somewhat theatrical building of the original
+<i>Dreadnought</i>.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand (with the possible and doubtful
+exception of the <i>South Carolinas</i><a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">32</a>) it appears clear that
+the <i>Dreadnought</i> was the first ship in which the all-big-gun
+principle was adopted as a technical asset in gun-laying
+over and above guns <i>qua</i> guns. After four, eight was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">163</span>
+the “tactical unit” of guns, promising results altogether
+out of proportion to anything that six, or for that
+matter, ten (in proportion) could achieve.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_161" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_161.jpg" width="1652" height="2668" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <table id="t163">
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">1879.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">French</td>
+      <td class="tdl">AMIRAL DUPERRÉ.</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">1886.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">French</td>
+      <td class="tdl">HOCHE.</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">1886.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">Austria</td>
+      <td class="tdl">K.E.RUDOLPH.</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">1886.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">Russian</td>
+      <td class="tdl">TCHESMA.</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">1889.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">German</td>
+      <td class="tdl">SIEGFRIED.</td>
+    </tr>
+    </table>
+    <p>EARLY EXAMPLES OF WING TURRETS.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>It may not be too much to say that what Cuniberti
+“saw as through a glass darkly,” the <i>Dreadnought</i>
+translated into fact, and that she was the first battleship
+avowedly so designed.</p>
+
+<p>“Fire control” was a new thing in 1905. No navy,
+save the British, had considered it to any appreciable
+degree. The <i>King Edwards</i> had taught that control
+of two calibres from one position was a practical
+impossibility. Mixed calibres were damned accordingly,
+and there was no outlet but the <i>Dreadnought</i>.</p>
+
+<p>But for Cuniberti she might, and possibly would,
+have remained a theoretical desirability for several
+more years. The measure of his genius may be the
+demonstration that such an ideal ship could be built.
+It is to be argued that he did nothing more than put
+into practicable shape what already existed as a
+hypothesis. Even so, however, to him belongs the
+honour of indicating that the step from theory to
+practice was possible; and on that account alone he
+deserves to go down to posterity as the actual creator
+of Dreadnoughts.</p>
+
+<p>In the other three ships of the 1905–06 programme,
+however, a high speed was accepted as the governing
+factor. The ships as built were designated “armoured
+cruisers,” and in so far as the Japanese were known to be
+building armoured cruisers carrying battleship guns,
+that designation was legitimate. For that matter, there
+also existed a paper by Professor Hovgaard, of the
+Massachusetts School of Naval Architecture, in which it
+was tentatively laid down that the ideal armoured<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">164</span>
+cruiser of the future would be a battleship in armament
+and armour, increased in size, to obtain greater speed.</p>
+
+<p>The three companion ships to the <i>Dreadnought</i>—the
+<i>Invincible</i>, <i>Inflexible</i>, and <i>Indomitable</i>—adhered no more
+closely to the Hovgaard ideal than to the Cuniberti one.
+In principle they varied from the <i>Dreadnought</i> design
+only in that they sacrificed a certain amount of armour in
+order to obtain a greater speed. By the adoption of the
+échelon system, the same broadside-fire was secured for
+them (on paper, at any rate) as for the <i>Dreadnought</i>,
+though with a turret less. In practice it has been found
+that there are very few positions in which they can bring
+more than six big guns to bear, but this must be considered
+as an error of construction rather than of principle.
+They have turned out to be wonderful steamers, but
+considerably inferior sea-boats to the <i>Dreadnought</i>, and
+in the British Navy are generally likely in the future to
+become regarded as obsolete long before the former.
+For all that, they probably approximate more nearly to
+the warship of the future than the <i>Dreadnought</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Admiral Bacon, in his views as to the warship of the
+future, generally inclined to the idea of very large and
+very swift ships, relying on armament, speed, and
+super-scientific internal sub-division rather than on
+armour protection. These ships would act more or less
+independently, each, as it were, representing a divided
+squadron group of to-day.</p>
+
+<p>It is interesting to note that Italy, which in the
+seventies evolved in the <i>Duilio</i> and <i>Dandolo</i> the “Dreadnought”
+of that period, eventually developed a very
+similar idea in the <i>Italia</i> and <i>Lepanto</i>, which had no side
+armour whatever. In later designs a thin belt was
+reverted to, and finally the old cycle was resumed.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">165</span></p>
+
+<p>This result was brought about by the quickfirer,
+which appeared as a rival to the hitherto predominant
+monster gun. To-day the torpedo is becoming paramount
+and a danger to a fleet in close order at almost any range—hence
+the Bacon ideal. It remains to be seen whether
+the future will produce any analogy to the cycle of the
+quickfirer of the eighties.</p>
+
+<p>Details of the <i>Invincible</i> type <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—17,250 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (over all)—562ft. (<i>p.p.</i>, 530ft.).</li>
+
+<li>Beam—78½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—29ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Eight 12-inch, XI, 45 calibre, sixteen
+4-inch (model 1907); three submerged tubes.</li>
+
+<li>Armour Belt—7-inch, reduced to 4-inch at the
+ends.</li>
+
+<li>Machinery—Parsons Turbine.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—41,000 = 25 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Boilers—(<i>Invincible</i> and <i>Inflexible</i>) Yarrow,
+(<i>Indomitable</i>) Babcock.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 3,000
+tons; oil fuel also.</li>
+
+<li>Builders—(<i>Invincible</i>) Elswick, (<i>Inflexible</i>) Clydebank,
+(<i>Indomitable</i>) Fairfield.</li>
+
+<li>Engined—(<i>Invincible</i>) Humphrys, (<i>Inflexible</i>)
+Clydebank, (<i>Indomitable</i>) Fairfield.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>As originally designed, the anti-torpedo guns of these
+ships would have been the same as the <i>Dreadnought’s</i>,
+but, having been completed nearly two years later and
+a new pattern 4-inch quickfirer having been invented
+in the interim, they were fitted with these guns. The
+trial results were as follows:—<i>Invincible</i>, 26.6 knots;
+<i>Inflexible</i>, 26.5 knots; and <i>Indomitable</i>, 26.1 knots;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">166</span>
+the designed horse power being considerably exceeded
+in every case. After they were commissioned and had
+shaken down, these trial speeds were considerably
+exceeded, and at one time and another they all did
+well over 28 knots; the <i>Indomitable</i> having made a
+record of 28.7.</p>
+
+<p>The fuel consumption of these ships is naturally
+enormous. The <i>Indomitable</i>, in crossing the Atlantic at
+full speed, burned about 500 tons of coal a day, as well
+as about 120 tons of oil. As steamers they are to be
+considered remarkably successful. The average cost of
+construction was about £1,752,000, which works out at
+a little under £102 per ton.</p>
+
+<p>Towards the close of the year 1911 the official
+designation of “armoured cruiser” for them and similar
+ships was abandoned, and the term “battle cruiser”
+substituted. No further secret was made of the fairly
+obvious fact that they were designed as “fast battleships,”
+intended to engage and hold a retreating enemy till such
+time as the main squadron could come up.</p>
+
+<p>Curiously enough, for some while, though every
+nation started building <i>Dreadnoughts</i>, Germany alone
+proceeded to build <i>Invincibles</i> also. In 1911 Japan
+ordered a ship of fast battleship type; but, generally
+speaking, foreign nations have abstained from embodying
+this portion of the Cuniberti ideal in their designs.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_167" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_167.jpg" width="1664" height="2454" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p>
+      DREADNOUGHT.<br>
+      INDOMITABLE.<br>
+      NEPTUNE.<br>
+      INDEFATIGABLE.
+    </p>
+    <p>DREADNOUGHTS.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The programme for the years 1906–07 had been
+originally intended to include the building of four
+armoured ships, presumably one <i>Dreadnought</i> and three
+<i>Invincibles</i>; but the Liberal party, which had just come
+into power, modified this to three battleships of an
+improved <i>Dreadnought</i> type. This action led to a
+popular agitation which ultimately eventuated in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">169</span>
+provision of no less than eight armoured ships in the
+estimates of three years later.</p>
+
+<p>The three ships which followed, the <i>Dreadnought</i>,
+the <i>Bellerophon</i>, <i>Téméraire</i>, and <i>Superb</i>, are some seven
+hundred tons heavier, but otherwise differ only in minor
+details. For the one heavy tripod of the <i>Dreadnought</i>,
+two were substituted, and the 4-inch anti-torpedo gun
+was also mounted. In the next year the <i>St. Vincent</i>
+class, a group of similar type, but increased by 650 tons,
+were provided. The anti-torpedo armament is carried
+to 20 guns in the <i>St. Vincent</i> class, which are 10ft. longer
+than their predecessors, and carry fifty-calibre big guns
+in place of the forty-five calibre pieces of the earlier ships.
+The constructive particulars of these ships are as
+<span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t169" class="tbdr date">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Machinery by.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Laid down.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Completed.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Trials.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Bellerophon</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Dec.,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’06</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’07</td>
+  <td class="tdc">21.9</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Téméraire</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn, Leslie</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’07</td>
+  <td class="tdl">May,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’09</td>
+  <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="bb">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Superb</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elswick</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Wallsend Co.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’07</td>
+  <td class="tdl">June,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’09</td>
+  <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>St. Vincent</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Scott Eng. &amp; S. Co.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Dec.,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’07</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’10</td>
+  <td class="tdc">21.9</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Collingwood</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn, L.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’08</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jan.,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’10</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1p">22</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Vanguard</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl">April,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’08</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Feb.,</td>
+  <td class="tdr">’10</td>
+  <td class="tdc">22.1</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>In the Estimates for 1908–09, the armoured ships
+provided were reduced to two, the <i>Neptune</i> and the
+<i>Indefatigable</i>. Provision in the United States, Argentine,
+and Brazilian Navies for ships bearing ten big guns on
+the broadside and the prospect of ships with equal broadsides
+being constructed elsewhere is presumably the
+reason why in the <i>Neptune</i> the original <i>Dreadnought</i>
+design was varied, and a new arrangement of turrets
+introduced. The <i>Neptune</i>, which is of 20,200 tons, is a
+species of compromise between the <i>Dreadnought</i> and
+<i>Invincible</i> designs, the amidship guns being <i>en échelon</i>,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">170</span>
+and so mounted that they give a very full arc of fire
+on either broadside. The increased space occupied by
+this arrangement necessitated a certain cramping aft,
+for which reason the forward of the two after turrets
+was superposed to train over the aftermost, American
+fashion.</p>
+
+<p>Particulars of the <i>Neptune</i> are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—20,200 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length (over all)—546ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—85ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—29ft.</li>
+
+<li>Guns—Ten 12-inch, fifty calibre, twenty 4-inch.</li>
+
+<li>Armour—Belt 12-in. amidships, 6-in. forward, 4-in.
+aft. Lower deckside, 9¾-in. Turrets, 12—8-in.</li>
+
+<li>Machinery—Parsons Turbine.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—25,000 = 21 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Boilers—Yarrow.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,700 tons;
+oil fuel also.</li>
+
+<li>Built at Portsmouth Dockyard.</li>
+
+<li>Engined by Harland and Wolff.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>On trial she developed at three-quarter power I.H.P.
+18,575, with a speed of nineteen knots, and at full power
+27,721, with 21.78 knots. Her best maximum spurt
+speed was 22.7—that is to say, about one and three-quarter
+knots over contract.</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Neptune</i> the original <i>Dreadnought</i> practice of
+mounting the anti-torpedo armament on top of the
+turrets was entirely abandoned, and these guns were
+placed inside or on top of the superstructure in three
+main groups.</p>
+
+<p>The number of torpedo tubes was reduced to three,
+the reason for this being partly to save space and also
+to take advantage of improved methods for securing
+rapidity of fire. In the <i>Neptune</i> the possibility of aero
+craft first received consideration, the upper deck being
+built sufficiently thick to be proof against bombs dropped
+from aloft.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">171</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_171" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 39em;">
+  <img src="images/i_171.jpg" width="2442" height="1633" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">“INDEFATIGABLE” AND “INVINCIBLE” 1911.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The <i>Neptune</i> was one of the cheapest ships ever<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">173</span>
+built for the British Navy, her cost working out at a
+little under £87 per ton.</p>
+
+<p>The other ship of the same programme was the
+<i>Indefatigable</i>, an improved <i>Invincible</i>. She represents
+an increase of nearly 2,000 tons over the type ship, with
+an increase in length of 18ft. and a foot more beam.
+Save for the addition of four more anti-torpedo guns the
+armament remains the same, but an extra inch is added
+to the belt. The principal improvement achieved in her
+is that the two amidship turrets are much less crowded
+up than in the type ship, thus securing a considerably
+better range of fire.</p>
+
+<p>Although the horse power is proportionately less
+than that of the <i>Invincibles</i>, the better lines of the ship
+have made her even more speedy. She easily exceeded
+her designed speed on trial, and has reached as high as
+29.13 knots.</p>
+
+<p>The cost of construction was £1,547,426, which
+works out at about £82 10s. per ton, as against the
+average £120 per ton that the <i>Invincibles</i> cost to build.
+She was the cheapest ship ever built for the British
+Navy,<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">33</a> to her date.</p>
+
+<p>Details of the <i>Indefatigable</i> <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—19,200 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—578ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—79½ft.</li>
+
+<li><span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">174</span></li>
+
+<li>Draught—27¾ft.</li>
+
+<li>Guns—Eight 12-inch, fifty calibre, twenty 4-inch.</li>
+
+<li>Armour Belt—8-in. amidships, diminished to 4-in.
+at the ends.</li>
+
+<li>Machinery—Parsons Turbine.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—43,000 = 25 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Boilers—Babcock.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 2,500
+tons; oil fuel also.</li>
+
+<li>Built at Devonport Dockyard.</li>
+
+<li>Engined by J. Brown &amp; Co., of Clydebank.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Two other battle-cruisers almost identical to the
+<i>Indefatigable</i>, the <i>Australia</i> at Clydebank, for the
+Australian Navy, and the <i>New Zealand</i> at Fairfield,
+a gift from New Zealand to the British Navy, were
+launched in 1911.</p>
+
+<p>The programme for 1908–09, consisting as it did of
+only two armoured ships, and the fact that the corresponding
+German programme was increased by one capital ship,
+bringing the total to four, brought the naval agitation
+to a head. Meetings demanding eight “Dreadnoughts”
+were held all over the country, with the result that the
+British programme for 1909–10 rose to four armoured
+ships with four other “conditional” ships. The ships
+of the former programme were the <i>Colossus</i>, <i>Hercules</i>,
+<i>Orion</i>, and <i>Lion</i>, and the first two of these were laid down
+some months before the usual date, the <i>Colossus</i> being
+commenced in July instead of at the end of the year.</p>
+
+<p>The “conditional” ships were all eventually laid
+down in April of the following year. They were the
+<i>Monarch</i>, <i>Conqueror</i>, <i>Thunderer</i>, and <i>Princess Royal</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Under this programme there were no less than three
+distinct types of ships. The first two, the <i>Colossus</i> and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">175</span>
+<i>Hercules</i>, are practically sisters of the <i>Neptune</i>, but of 400
+tons greater displacement. They differ in appearance in
+having but one tripod mast instead of two. This, like
+the <i>Dreadnought’s</i>, is placed abaft the foremost funnel.
+The <i>Colossus</i> was built and engined by the Scott Shipbuilding
+and Engineering Co., commenced in July, 1909,
+and completed two years later. The <i>Hercules</i>, built by
+Palmer’s, followed a month later in both cases. The
+first is fitted with Babcock, and the second with Yarrow
+boilers. A point of minor interest about these two ships
+is that whereas the anti-torpedo armament of the
+<i>Neptune</i> is in three groups, that of the <i>Colossus</i> and
+<i>Hercules</i> is in two groups only, the mounting of small
+guns between the échelon turrets being done away with.</p>
+
+<p>The other two types of the 1909–10 Estimates
+are the ships generally known as “super-Dreadnoughts.”</p>
+
+<h3><i>SUPER-DREADNOUGHTS.</i></h3>
+
+<p>The most obvious feature of the so-called “super-Dreadnoughts”
+is the introduction of the 13.5-inch
+gun, particulars of which will be found at the end of
+this chapter. This gun was experimented with with a
+certain amount of secrecy, and was for a long time
+officially designated as the 12-inch “A,” although
+practically everybody knew that it was really a 13.5.
+It was only rendered possible by recent improvements in
+gun-mountings and gun-construction. It is not very
+appreciably heavier than the latest type of 12-inch, as
+mounted in the <i>Colossus</i>, and its adoption was not so
+much a matter of obtaining an increased range and
+penetration, as of securing the tremendously increased
+smashing power of the heavier projectile.</p>
+
+<p>Somewhat less obvious to the general public, but
+really of a great deal more far-reaching importance, is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">176</span>
+the “Americanising” of British naval design exhibited
+in all the “super-Dreadnoughts.” Though differing in
+detail, the arrangement of the armament in all the
+“super-Dreadnoughts” followed the American centre-line
+system, an interesting indication of the progress of
+the United States Navy from the days, not so very long
+ago, when American warship design was more or less
+a <i>pour faire rire</i>! It is none the less interesting from
+the fact that in the earliest designs, in all ships carrying
+more than two turrets, the centre line was the only
+arrangement ever built or even considered. Yet when
+an increased number of turrets came into being, the
+American Navy was the only one which followed the
+original practice. In all other Navies ideas of the
+period 1870–1880, when strong end-on fire was considered
+an all-important essential, influenced design. America
+alone appreciated the prophecy long ago made by
+Admiral Colomb to the effect that whatever else might
+temporarily obtain, broadside to broadside would always
+be reverted to for battle, on the grounds that thus, and
+thus only, could the maximum number of guns be
+utilised.</p>
+
+<p>It is proper here to remark that though the Americans
+adopted the centre line from the outset for practical
+reasons, this disposition became more or less a necessity
+when 13.5’s came in, owing to the infinitely greater
+strain on the structure. This has been occasionally used
+as an argument against American influence having made
+itself felt, but the balance of evidence shows that even
+had the 13.5-inch not appeared, the centre line system
+would have figured in the Navy. The original centre-line
+idea disappeared because the échelon system looked so
+superior. The échelon system of the 1875–85 era,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">179</span>
+however, died out in its turn on account of certain
+practical disadvantages. It was resurrected when these
+had been forgotten in the lapse of years; but the
+disadvantages entailed in firing across a deck soon
+made themselves felt again once the system was
+reverted to.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_177" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_177.jpg" width="1647" height="2658" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <table id="t179">
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">U.S.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">ROANOKE.</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">British.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">ROYAL SOVEREIGN.</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">Russian.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">ADMIRAL LAZAREFF.</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">French.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">AMIRAL BAUDIN.</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">German.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">BRANDENBURG.</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td class="tdl">U.S.</td>
+      <td class="tdl">S. CAROLINA.</td>
+    </tr>
+    </table>
+    <p>CENTRE-LINE SHIPS OF VARIOUS DATES.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>One of the earliest advocates, if not the first of
+modern advocates, of the centre-line in England was
+Admiral Hopkins. Discussing the original Cuniberti
+ideal, Admiral Hopkins pointed out that although for
+an absolute right-ahead or astern fire wing-turrets gave
+an advantage, a very slight yaw entirely altered the
+proportion, and that circumstance in which the enemy
+was dead right-ahead necessitating such a yaw were
+likely to occur very rarely indeed in war. He leaned,
+therefore, to the opinion that a fewer number of guns
+all in the centre line would be equally as efficacious,
+practically, as a larger number disposed partly in wing
+turrets.</p>
+
+<p>The échelon system, of course, renders practically
+no assistance here, the arc of the guns firing across the
+deck being necessarily restricted, even with the best
+échelon arrangement. While, therefore, the échelon
+system is good for absolute end-on, or for more or less
+absolute broadside firing, any intermediate and more
+probable position renders it less efficient than a centre-line
+arrangement.</p>
+
+<p>Another defect of the échelon system is that with it,
+except exactly end-on, one side of the ship is necessarily
+more efficient than the other, and that this is reversed
+according to whether the enemy is ahead or astern,
+twenty-five per cent. of the big-gun armament being
+affected thereby in a four turreted ship.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">180</span></p>
+
+<p>Though attention never seems to have been drawn
+to the matter, it is a fact worthy of some attention that
+the <i>Von der Tann</i>, which is to be regarded as Germany’s
+“answer” to the <i>Invincibles</i>, has (like all German<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">34</a> ships
+on the same system) her échelonned turrets exactly in
+reverse order to British ones. All British ships have the
+port turret foremost; all German ones the starboard.
+The net result of this is that (as the diagram indicates)
+there are two worst and two best positions for either
+design. An <i>Invincible</i> getting and keeping a <i>Von der
+Tann</i> upon her starboard bow or port quarter would
+have a twenty-five per cent. superiority over her, while,
+supposing the German type to maintain a position on
+her starboard quarter or port bow she would be to the
+same extent over-matched, and to a certain extent “in
+chancery.”</p>
+
+<p>With the centre line system, the imposition of
+fighting one side rather than the other is not imposed, and
+overhauling or being overhauled causes no disadvantage.
+Nothing is lost, save in the almost hypothetical case of
+two ships engaging exactly end-on—a condition which in
+no case would endure for more than a very short space
+of time, to say nothing of the fact that practically
+all gunnery errors being of “elevation” and not of
+“direction,” a ship adopting the end-on position offers
+the equivalent of a vertical target of some 60ft. to 70ft.
+instead of the equivalent of 30ft. or so that she would
+present broadside on.</p>
+
+<p>The centre-line system may, therefore, be expected
+to endure against all other dispositions pending the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">183</span>
+appearance of some fresh condition of affairs which
+would cause the old end-on idea to be reverted to.<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">35</a></p>
+
+<figure id="i_181" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_181.jpg" width="1648" height="2672" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">DIAGRAM TO ILLUSTRATE WEAK POINT OF THE ÉCHELON SYSTEM.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The <i>Orion</i> was the only one of her class which
+belonged to the normal Estimates, 1909–10, the other
+three—<i>Conqueror</i>, <i>Thunderer</i>, <i>Monarch</i>—being “contingent
+ships.” Details of the class are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—23,500 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—(between perpendiculars) 554½ft; (over all)
+584ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—88½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(mean) 27¾ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Ten 13.5-inch, forty-five calibre; sixteen
+4-inch; three 21-inch torpedo tubes.</li>
+
+<li>Armour Belt—12—4-inch. Turrets, 12-inch.</li>
+
+<li>Machinery—Parsons turbine.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—27,000 = 21 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Boilers—Babcock.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(nominal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,700 tons;
+oil, 1,000 tons.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<table id="t183" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Engines by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Orion</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Wallsend Co.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Conqueror</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Beardmore</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Beardmore</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Thunderer</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Thames I.W.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Thames I.W.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Monarch</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elswick</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The <i>Orion</i> was laid down in November, 1909, the
+others in April, 1910.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Orion</i> was the first of these ships to be commissioned,
+and her gunnery trials were watched with
+great interest. Few details of them transpired, save
+that part of the secondary battery was injured by blast.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">184</span>
+After commissioning, the <i>Orion</i> was sent for a voyage
+across the Bay of Biscay, and attracted much attention
+by rolling very heavily, this being attributed to the fact
+that her bilge keels were not large enough—not to any
+general structural defect.</p>
+
+<p>An interesting feature of the <i>Orion</i> type is that in
+it provision first appears for the protection of boats in
+action.</p>
+
+<p>Belonging to the same programme (1909–10), the
+first belonging to the normal Estimates and the second
+to the “contingent,” are the battle cruisers <i>Lion</i>
+and <i>Princess Royal</i>. A great deal of secrecy was
+observed about these ships, but their main details are
+approximately as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Displacement—25,000 tons. Full load, 26,350 tons.</li>
+
+<li>Length—(water-line), 675ft.; (over all) 690ft.</li>
+
+<li>Beam—86½ft.</li>
+
+<li>Draught—(maximum) 30ft.</li>
+
+<li>Armament—Eight 13.5 inch 45 calibre, twenty 4-inch,
+three 21-inch torpedo tubes.</li>
+
+<li>Armour—Belt, 9—4-inch.</li>
+
+<li>Machinery—Parsons Turbine.</li>
+
+<li>Horse-power—(as designed) = 28 knots.</li>
+
+<li>Boilers—Yarrow.</li>
+
+<li>Coal—(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 3,500 tons;
+oil also.</li>
+
+<li><i>Lion</i>—Built at Devonport; engined by Vickers.</li>
+
+<li><i>Princess Royal</i>—Built at Vickers; engined by Vickers.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The <i>Lion</i> was laid down in November, 1909,
+and launched in the following year. The <i>Princess
+Royal</i> was laid down in April, 1910, and launched
+a year later. Both were arranged to be completed
+during 1912.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">185</span></p>
+
+<p>The <i>Lion</i> was somewhat delayed owing to slight
+repairs being required to her turbines. In addition, the
+authorities very wisely did not “hurry” her—hurrying
+ships to fit an exact official date having done more
+mischief than anything else in the past.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Lion</i> did her trials early in 1912, and reached a
+maximum of 31.7 knots by patent log, with a mean of
+29 knots at full power and 24.5 or so at three-quarter
+power. For her trials the <i>Lion</i> burned coal only, and
+this at the seemingly enormous rate of 950 tons a day,
+which worked out at approximately about a ton and a
+quarter per mile. This consumption, heavy though it
+seems, really pans out at about the usual “ton a mile,”
+as the ship developed horse-power far in excess of the
+contract. At the same time it necessarily draws attention
+to the enormous increase in coal stores required for
+supplying modern warships. It is unfortunately by no
+means clear that the question of the very great increase
+in coal required for modern warships has been thoroughly
+realised by the authorities. The amount provided may
+be said to be what ships needed in the pre-Dreadnought
+era. It is now an open secret that at the time of the
+“war scare” with Germany in 1911, the British Home
+Fleet was unable to proceed to sea owing to a shortage of
+coal supply, many ships being a thousand tons short and
+no proper arrangements for rapid remedy existing.
+This state of affairs, at one time alleged to be merely a
+newspaper <i>canard</i>, is not likely to occur again; but it is
+an indication of how difficult it is adequately to realise
+the problem of coal supply to ships of ever-increasing
+horse-power.</p>
+
+<p>During the <i>Lion’s</i> trials it was found that the heat
+from the fore funnel was so great that the fire-control<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">186</span>
+station (then carried on a tripod mast placed immediately
+over the forward funnel) was so intense as to render that
+position practically impossible. On the navigating bridge
+also, instruments were badly affected by the heat. The
+ship was consequently further delayed in order to effect
+essential modifications. These included the abolition of
+the tripod mast, shifting the fore funnel back a long way,
+and enormously increasing the height of all funnels.</p>
+
+<p>The principal item of the Estimates of 1910–11 was
+five armoured ships. Of these, four, the <i>King George V</i>
+class, are slightly improved replicas of the <i>Orion</i>, while
+the remaining vessel, the <i>Queen Mary</i>, is a battle-cruiser
+of the <i>Lion</i> type.</p>
+
+<p>Ships of the <i>George V</i> class are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t186" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Machinery by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>King George V</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth Y.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Centurion</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport Y.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Ajax Scotts</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Scotts</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Scotts</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Audacious</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Cammell-Laird</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Cammell-Laird</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The over-all length is increased to 596ft., and the
+horse-power to 31,000. All were laid down during 1911,
+with a view to launching during 1912 and completion in
+1913. The displacement of these ships is 23,000 tons
+odd.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Queen Mary</i>, laid down at Palmers’ early in
+1911, and engined by Clydebank, is virtually a sister to
+the <i>Lion</i>, differing from her merely in a slight variation
+of the lines, and some increase in length. Save for these
+items, and a small difference in the arrangement of the
+anti-torpedo armament, the ship belongs to the same
+class and type.</p>
+
+<p>The 1911–12 Estimates provided for five further
+large armoured ships, which represent an increase in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">187</span>
+dimensions over their predecessors. Of these the first
+four are battleships varying from their predecessors in
+the inevitable increase in size to allow of somewhat
+superior protection and an improved secondary battery—twelve
+6-inch being substituted for the sixteen 4-inch of
+the <i>King George</i> class.</p>
+
+<p>The selection of the 6-inch gun as the anti-torpedo
+craft weapon was due partly to the way in which Germany
+had persisted in her rigid adherence to that calibre for
+her minor armament, and partly to the rapidly increasing
+size of destroyers. It was held as questionable, even by
+the most ardent believers in the ability of the big ship
+to defend herself against destroyer attack, whether the
+4-inch was sufficient to disable large destroyers. Hence
+the adoption of the 6-inch—the largest gun that can be
+man-handled.</p>
+
+<p>The nominal displacement of these battleships, the
+<i>Iron Duke</i> class, rises to 25,000 tons as against 23,000 of
+the previous class. The length is increased to 620ft.
+and the beam to 89½ (instead of 89ft.). Owing to
+improved lines, the horse-power is reduced to 30,000
+without any very material loss of speed. In all these
+super-Dreadnoughts, as in the Dreadnoughts themselves,
+21 knots has always been the selected speed, though in
+units there have been slight variations.</p>
+
+<p>Ships of the <i>Iron Duke</i> class are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t187" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Machinery by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Iron Duke</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth Y.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Cammell-Laird</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Benbow Beardmore</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Beardmore</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Beardmore</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Emperor of India</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Marlborough</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport Y.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The <i>Emperor of India</i> was originally named <i>Delhi</i>.
+The first two were given Babcock, and the second two<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">188</span>
+Yarrow boilers. All were completed in 1914, but only
+the <i>Iron Duke</i> was available for service on the eve of the
+outbreak of the war with Germany and Austria. The
+other three were, however, rapidly completed and put
+into commission.</p>
+
+<p>The fifth ship of the 1911–12 Estimates was the
+battle cruiser <i>Tiger</i>, nominally belonging to the <i>Lion</i>
+group, but actually differing very considerably in various
+important details.</p>
+
+<p>She was laid down at Clydebank in June, 1912, a
+great deal of official reticence being maintained concerning
+her. She was not complete on the outbreak of war;
+but as she was available for service not long afterwards
+she is included in this survey.</p>
+
+<p>The marked and most characteristic difference
+between her and the <i>Lions</i> is that the third turret instead
+of being cramped amidships as in the <i>Lion</i> design, is
+moved further aft, thus giving a greatly improved arc
+of fire. Twelve 6-inch were substituted for the sixteen
+4-inch of the <i>Lions</i> for reasons already given.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Tiger</i> is approximately 720ft. long, with a
+nominal horse-power of 75,000. Babcock type boilers
+are fitted. Her nominal speed is 27 knots, but this has
+more than once been very considerably exceeded.</p>
+
+<p>For 1912–13 the Estimates provided for four capital
+ships, the usual twenty destroyers, and a new type of
+warship designated as “lightly armoured cruisers.”</p>
+
+<p>This programme is of abounding interest, not only
+on account of the fact that—so far as the larger types
+of ships are concerned—it probably embodies the last new
+construction available for the British Fleet in the war
+(unless the war endure beyond all anticipations) but
+also because of its more or less revolutionary nature.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">189</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_189" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 39em;">
+  <img src="images/i_189.jpg" width="2439" height="1638" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">EARLY “30 KNOT” DESTROYERS.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">191</span></p>
+
+<p>The big ships of the programme were as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t191" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Machinery by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Queen Elizabeth</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth Yard</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Wallsend</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Warspite</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport Yard</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hawthorn</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Valiant</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Clydebank</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Barham</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fairfield</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Malaya</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elswick</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Wallsend</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The fifth ship in this list, the <i>Malaya</i>, is an extra
+vessel paid for and presented to the British Navy by the
+Federated Malay States.</p>
+
+<p>In general appearance these ships of the <i>Queen
+Elizabeth</i> class do not greatly differ from their predecessors;
+but there all resemblance ends. In every other
+way they embody a “new idea”—an attempt so to
+blend the battleship proper with the battle-cruiser so as
+to secure the best points of both.</p>
+
+<p>Roughly, the battleship proper sacrifices speed for
+extra gun power and protection; while the battle-cruiser
+sacrifices these two latter for speed. The speed of the
+<i>Queen Elizabeths</i> was fixed at 25 knots—something
+rather less than that of battle-cruisers, but still sufficiently
+high to take them out of the ordinary battleship
+category as hitherto understood. Certainly they differ
+from the normal quite as much as the original <i>Dreadnought</i>
+differed from her immediate predecessors.</p>
+
+<p>It was only possible to secure this high speed, plus
+other qualities, by the bold adoption of oil fuel only—in
+itself of the nature of a gigantic experiment, which,
+however, results have more than justified. The designed
+horse-power to secure 25 knots is 58,000.</p>
+
+<p>If, however, the motive power embodied novelty,
+still more so did the armament. For the ten 13.5’s of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">192</span>
+preceding ships, eight 15-inch guns were substituted.
+So far as power is concerned the 13.5 is ample for all
+contingencies, but the 15-inch embodies a marked
+superiority in range and the additional accuracy which
+a heavier projectile naturally affords. Furthermore—a
+very important point—the “life” of the 15-inch gun is
+much longer, owing to there being no necessity to utilise
+the full power of which it is capable.</p>
+
+<p>The general arrangement of turrets is that of all the
+super-Dreadnoughts, with the middle turret (always the
+most restricted in arc of fire) omitted.</p>
+
+<p>Nothing has ever been officially stated as to the
+armour protection; but it is known to be equal or
+superior to that of any preceding battleships.</p>
+
+<p>When war broke out, the first two of these ships
+were nearing completion—the first being completed
+about the end of 1914 and the second at the end of
+March, 1915.</p>
+
+<p>The 1913–14 Estimates provided for five more or
+less normal battleships designed for coal fuel,<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">36</a> the usual
+21 knots speed, but 15-inch instead of 13.5-inch guns.</p>
+
+<table id="t192" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Built at.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Machinery by.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Royal Sovereign</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Portsmouth Y.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">(not stated)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Royal Oak</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devonport Y.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">(not stated)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Resolution</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Palmer</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Palmer</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Ramillies</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Beardmore</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Beardmore</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Revenge</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Vickers</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Beyond that they are of 25,750 tons, and were
+designed for 31,000 horse-power, no details of these ships
+have been furnished. Two were estimated to be completed
+by the end of 1915—the others in 1916.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">193</span></p>
+
+<p>The rest of the programme consisted of eight more
+lightly armoured cruisers, a reduced number of destroyers
+and an increased number of submarines.</p>
+
+<p>In the 1914–15 Estimates three more battleships of
+the <i>Royal Sovereign</i> class—to be named <i>Renown</i>, <i>Repulse</i>,
+and <i>Resistance</i>—were provided for, also a sixth ship of the
+<i>Queen Elizabeth class</i>, which was provisionally named
+<i>Agincourt</i>. The participation of any of these in the war
+is very improbable.</p>
+
+<p>The other vessels of the programme were four
+lightly armoured cruisers, twelve destroyers and an
+unstated number of submarines.</p>
+
+<p>When war broke out three battleships building in
+British Yards—two for Turkey and one for Chili—were
+taken over by the British Admiralty. Details of these
+are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t193" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Displacement.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Armament.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Agincourt</i><br>(ex-<i>Sultan Osman I</i>)</td>
+  <td class="tdc bot">27,500</td>
+  <td class="tdl bot">14—12in., 20—6in.; 3 tubes.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Erin</i><br>(ex-<i>Sultan Rechad V</i>)</td>
+  <td class="tdc bot">23,000</td>
+  <td class="tdl bot">10—13.5, 16—6in.; 3 tubes.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Canada</i><br>(ex-<i>Almirante Latorre</i>)</td>
+  <td class="tdc bot">28,000</td>
+  <td class="tdl bot">10—14in., 16—6in.; 4 tubes.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>There were also taken over three Brazilian armoured
+gunboats—renamed <i>Humber</i>, <i>Severn</i>, and <i>Mersey</i>—of
+1,200 tons each, carrying two 6-inch guns forward and
+two 4.7-inch howitzers aft. The speed is about 11½
+knots, and early use was made of these vessels on the
+Belgian coast shortly after the outbreak of war.</p>
+
+<p>In addition to the above, two large Chilian destroyers
+building at Cowes were taken over and renamed <i>Broke</i>
+and <i>Faulknor</i>.</p>
+
+<p>A variety of other vessels were likewise incorporated
+into the British Fleet, liners (to act as auxiliary cruisers),<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">194</span>
+trawlers (to act as mine sweepers), plus various hospital
+ships, transports, and so on and so forth. Roughly, from
+25 to 33 per cent. of the British Mercantile Marine came
+to be used in some way or other by the Admiralty—to
+say nothing of innumerable private yachts and motor
+boats.</p>
+
+<p>The destroyers of the period have not materially
+differed from their predecessors of the Dreadnought era,
+save for the adoption of two, and subsequently three,
+4-inch guns in the armament, instead of one.</p>
+
+<p>Submarines and aerial craft are dealt with in a
+separate chapter.</p>
+
+<div class="tb">* * * * *</div>
+
+<p>At and about the year 1912, the “super-Dreadnought”
+may be said to have reached its apotheosis.</p>
+
+<p>For what it is worth, however, it may here be put
+on record that junior opinion in the Navy was then
+becoming opposed not only to “super-Dreadnoughts”
+but to Dreadnoughts in any shape or form. Hardly any
+naval officer under the rank of Commander, and an
+ever-increasing percentage over that rank, was to be
+found who was not more or less convinced that the days
+of the Dreadnoughts and “super-Dreadnoughts” might
+be nearly numbered, and that we were possibly on
+the verge of some as yet indeterminate revolution in
+naval construction as great as any that the “fifties”
+saw.</p>
+
+<p>As yet no very clear argument can be produced.
+Only vaguely it is put forward that with torpedo
+range what it is, the big ship’s chance against torpedo
+craft is practically relegated to not being found, and
+“not being found” depends mainly upon the “super-Dreadnought”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">195</span>
+being screened with very numerous
+smaller craft.</p>
+
+<p>When Lord Charles Beresford put it on record that
+a hundred anti-torpedo attack guns would be useless
+in a battleship, he spoke for all progressive naval ideas.
+A destroyer may be hit and hit vitally, but it is hard
+to imagine a hit which will stop her drifting within
+easy range of her quarry before going down. If hostile
+destroyers get in, the only real chance of big ships is to
+sweep their decks with the modern variant of “case shot”
+and so kill the crews, a difficult proposition at the best
+owing to the small amount of time available. The
+proposition is rendered tenfold harder by the certainty
+that attack, if it comes, will not come from one quarter
+only, but from several. Consequently to preserve the
+Dreadnoughts, an ever increasing number of auxiliaries
+is demanded. Of these no Navy can be said to have a
+sufficiency. Hence it is argued that a destroyer attack
+is bound to succeed sooner or later, while even did a
+sufficiency of small craft exist, the big ship has to be so
+nursed and protected that her sphere of usefulness is
+enormously reduced. Submarines also are a deadly
+danger.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand it is argued that, given sufficient
+bulk to the big ship, torpedoes are likely to be relatively
+harmless to her; it is also asked how can the small craft
+protect their own big ships and also search out and
+attack the enemy’s mastodons?</p>
+
+<p>There, till the war proves something definite one
+way or the other, the matter must be left. The big ship
+has been doomed so often, and so often adapted itself to
+changed conditions, that it may well do so again, despite
+the seemingly heavy odds against it.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">196</span></p>
+
+<h3><i>PROTECTED CRUISERS OF THE DREADNOUGHT ERA.</i></h3>
+
+<p>The original conception of the Dreadnought era
+was “nothing between the most powerful armoured
+ships and torpedo craft,” though so far as second class
+cruisers were concerned the last of these had been laid
+down in 1901.</p>
+
+<p>The persistence with which Germany continued
+yearly to build small protected cruisers eventually,
+however, began to cause some perturbation; and in
+the 1908–09 Estimates five protected cruisers of the
+<i>Bristol</i> class were provided for. These were the <i>Bristol</i>
+(Clydebank), <i>Glasgow</i> (Fairfield), <i>Gloucester</i> (Beardmore),
+<i>Liverpool</i> (Vickers), <i>Newcastle</i> (Elswick). The designed
+displacement was 4,820 tons, length 453 feet over all,
+beam 47 feet, and mean draught 15¼ feet. Armament
+two 6-inch, ten 4-inch, and two submerged tubes. A
+speed of 25 knots was expected from 22,000 horse-power.
+On trials all exceeded 26 knots. All were fitted with
+Yarrow boilers, also turbines of the Parsons type, except
+in the <i>Bristol</i>, in which Curtiss type turbines were
+installed.</p>
+
+<p>For 1909–10 four more similar ships were provided—the
+<i>Weymouth</i> class. Displacement rose to 5,250 tons,
+and a uniform armament of eight 6-inch was substituted
+for the mixed armament of the <i>Bristol</i> class. These
+four “Town” cruisers were the <i>Weymouth</i> (Elswick),
+<i>Yarmouth</i> (London and Glasgow Co.), <i>Dartmouth</i>
+(Vickers), and <i>Falmouth</i> (Beardmore). All were given
+Yarrow boilers and Parsons turbines except the <i>Weymouth</i>,
+which was supplied with Curtiss turbines.</p>
+
+<p>The Estimates of 1910–11 contained three cruisers,
+the <i>Chatham</i>, <i>Dublin</i>, and <i>Southampton</i>, of the same
+type, but with a displacement increased by 200 tons.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">197</span>
+Three more, the <i>Birmingham</i>, <i>Nottingham</i>, and <i>Lowestoft</i>,
+figured in the Estimates of 1911–12.</p>
+
+<p>In 1907 the practice was instituted of building a
+Scout or two a year, those constructed to date being the
+<i>Boadicea</i>, <i>Bellona</i>, <i>Blanche</i>, <i>Blonde</i>, <i>Active</i>, <i>Amphion</i>, and
+<i>Fearless</i>, all of which are unarmoured, and so more or
+less compelled to fight modern destroyers on equal terms.
+Of these the <i>Amphion</i> was lost early in the war by a
+mine.</p>
+
+<p>Of the original type were three Australian cruisers,
+<i>Sydney</i>, <i>Melbourne</i> and <i>Brisbane</i>, of which two were built
+in this country and the third built, or put together, in
+Australia. In all these ships the slight increase in
+displacement was due to the introduction of a thin
+armour belt amidships—a “reply” to a similar innovation
+in the German Navy.</p>
+
+<p>The 1912–13 Estimates saw no more of the “Town”
+class cruisers being provided for, but, as already stated,
+they heralded the appearance of eight vessels of a new
+type, officially described as “lightly armoured cruisers.”</p>
+
+<p>They were at one and the same time an entirely new
+type, and also a reversion to the original <i>Bristol</i> with
+modifications born of experience.</p>
+
+<p>In essence, these ships of the <i>Arethusa</i> class—<i>Arethusa</i>,
+<i>Aurora</i>, <i>Galatea</i>, <i>Inconstant</i>, <i>Royalist</i>, <i>Penelope</i>,
+<i>Phaeton</i> and <i>Undaunted</i>, compared with the prototype
+as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t197" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Arethusa.</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Bristol.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Displacement (tons)</td>
+  <td class="tdl">3520</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4800</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Armament</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2—6in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2—6in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdl">6—4in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">10—4in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdl">4 above water t. tubes</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2 submerged t. tubes</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Side protection</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2½″</td>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>nil.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">H.P.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">30,000</td>
+  <td class="tdl">22,000</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl">Speed (est.) kts.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">30</td>
+  <td class="tdl">25</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">198</span></p>
+
+<p>Fuel supply has never been given out officially, but it
+may be stated that, roughly, by making use of oil fuel
+in the <i>Arethusa</i>, a radius equal to that of the <i>Bristols</i>
+was secured with a considerable saving in weight.</p>
+
+<p>Incidentally, this is one of the most interesting
+examples of how the progress of invention makes possible
+to-day the impossibility of yesterday. When the <i>Bristols</i>
+were designed they were the “best possible” of 1908.
+Four years later oil fuel had opened out an entirely
+novel vista.</p>
+
+<p>In the 1913–14 Estimates another eight of similar
+cruisers were provided for, with, however, 250 tons odd
+added to the displacement and an extra 6-inch gun
+forward allowed for; though this, however, was altered
+afterwards, as this batch of cruisers, the <i>Calliope</i>, <i>Caroline</i>,
+<i>Carysfort</i>, <i>Champion</i>, <i>Cleopatra</i>, <i>Comus</i>, <i>Conquest</i>, <i>Cordelia</i>,
+do not carry any 6-inch guns forward like the <i>Arethusa</i>,
+but mount a couple, one abaft the other aft—a wise
+arrangement, as a heavy weight forward does not make
+for sea-worthiness.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Arethusas</i> and the “C” class, therefore, compare
+as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t198" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdl"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">Forward.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Amidships.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Aft.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Arethusas</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">One 6in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Four 4in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">One 6in., two 4in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl">“<i>C</i>” <i>class</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Two 4in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Six 4in.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Two 6in.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="in0">which indicates a couple of 4-inch guns gained for the
+extra 250 tons.</p>
+
+<p>In the 1914–15 Estimates four similar vessels were
+provided for, but no details whatever have been published
+concerning them.</p>
+
+<h3><i>DESTROYERS IN THE DREADNOUGHT ERA.</i></h3>
+
+<p>The Dreadnought era, while simplifying types of
+big ships, was the early institution of two distinct types<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">199</span>
+of destroyers, plus an experimental vessel which was
+not duplicated. The original staple idea of Dreadnought
+era destroyers was to build very fast ocean-going
+destroyers for fleet work, and smaller craft, “coastals,”
+for local duties. A considerable flourish of trumpets
+accompanied the announcement of this decision, which,
+however, was in no way really novel. It merely reproduced
+in destroyers the long exploded idea of sea-going
+and coast-defence ironclads.</p>
+
+<p>Of these boats the first instalment amounted to
+a total of eighteen; the most important being the
+experimental boat <i>Swift</i>, which was given a displacement
+of 1,825 tons, and so might just as well have been
+designated a fast small cruiser. The horse-power provided
+was no less than 30,000, the speed 36 knots, though
+on trials she once reached nearly 39 knots. Armament
+four 4-inch, two 18-inch tubes. Cost about £280,500.</p>
+
+<p>It is interesting to note that in 1885 a precisely
+similar idea found vent in a <i>Swift</i> (afterwards renamed
+t.b. 81) of 125 tons against the 40 to 65 tons that was
+then normal for torpedo boats. It was nine years before
+anything else of the same size was built.</p>
+
+<p>The first standard destroyers of the era were the
+“Oceans” (often known as “Tribals”). These averaged
+880 tons, 33 knot speed with oil fuel only. Between 1906
+and 1910 altogether a dozen were built. The armament
+given to the five first was five 12-pounder, and two
+18-inch tubes; in later boats two 4-inch, 25-pounder
+were substituted for the five 12-pounders.</p>
+
+<p>The “coastal destroyers,” which have since lost
+that name, and are now known as first-class torpedo-boats,
+were built in groups of twelve for three years;
+the first batch averaging 225 tons, and later boats about<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">200</span>
+260 tons. In all the armament is two 12-pounder and
+three 18-inch torpedo tubes; speed 26 knots. Parsons
+turbines in all, and oil fuel instead of coal.</p>
+
+<p>In 1908–09 there came a revulsion of official feeling
+against both types, and an attempt to evolve a species
+of intermediate was made. It was held that the Oceans
+were exceedingly costly; also somewhat fragile. The
+new boats, the <i>Beagle</i> class, averaged 900 tons instead
+of the thousand tons that the latest Oceans were
+getting to. Armament was reduced to one 4-inch,
+25-pounder, and three 12-pounders, with the usual
+two 18-inch torpedo tubes. Speed was cut down to
+27 knots. Oil fuel was done away with, and coal
+reverted to.</p>
+
+<p>The 1909–10 programme provided for 20 destroyers
+of the <i>Acorn</i> class. These are slightly smaller than the
+<i>Beagles</i>, armed with two 4-inch and two 12-pounders,
+but with oil again instead of coal only.</p>
+
+<p>On account of considerable agitation in Parliament
+as to the small number of modern British destroyers,
+the construction of all this class was accelerated by a
+few months, and with a single exception they were
+completed in June, 1911.</p>
+
+<p>Up till this time considerable latitude had been
+given to contractors for destroyers. In the 1910–11
+programme the <i>Acheron</i> class, an Admiralty design,
+was given out for fourteen of the boats, which, except
+that they had two funnels instead of three, closely
+corresponded with the destroyers of the preceding year.
+In the other six boats the firms of Thornycroft, Yarrow,
+and Parsons were given some considerable freedom of
+design with two boats each, and an increased speed was
+obtained with all.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">201</span></p>
+
+<p>For 1911–12 boats a similar principle was followed,
+and there was also still further acceleration. These
+latest boats are somewhat faster than heretofore, and
+an interesting innovation in the case of one of them—the
+Thornycroft type—is the appearance of the Diesel
+engine for partial propulsion instead of steam. As a
+matter of fact, this idea did not eventually materialise,
+owing to various circumstances of the side issue nature.
+More or less contemporaneously with this the Yarrow
+firm in the <i>Archer</i> and <i>Attack</i>, their special destroyers,
+evolved a system of super-heated steam, which led to a
+very considerable increase in speed, as compared with
+older methods. A conflict between steam and “gas
+engines” for destroyers was, therefore, in 1912, a
+probable feature of the early future, a conflict still in the
+“to-morrow” stage; but it may be unwise to place too
+much reliance on the fact that a similar conflict with
+motor cars ended in the practical extinction of steam,
+for all that the probabilities point in that direction.
+The superior convenience of the Diesel engine whether
+for destroyers or larger ships is obvious, but there are
+undoubtedly still certain practical difficulties which
+cannot be ignored.</p>
+
+<p>In 1912 the destroyer may be said to have reached
+its apotheosis. Later boats are considerably larger,
+more powerfully armed, and occasionally a trifle faster,
+but, taken all in all, they do not indicate any definite
+advance on the “general idea” of a destroyer.</p>
+
+<p>Novelty, such as it exists, is confined to the introduction
+of flotilla leaders. The idea is not new, since the
+Germans hit on it for torpedo boats long before destroyers
+as we understand them were evolved. There is also the
+still older idea of our original <i>Swift</i>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">202</span></p>
+
+<p>The integral notion is in each case the same. The
+idea is to provide the commander of the flotilla with a
+boat swifter and more powerful than those of his normal
+command, and thus to enable him to reinforce as requisite
+any particular portion of his squadron. Thus viewed, the
+idea is, of course, as old as naval warfare itself, or, for
+that matter, any warfare whatever; and it is strange that
+the principle of the superior power of the chief should
+ever have been allowed to lapse.</p>
+
+<p>It is, however, curious to note that at the outbreak
+of the present war the British was the only Navy
+in which the idea was in actual practice. Not till
+the war is over shall we learn whether the seeming
+advantage is or is not of real value. All the indications,
+however, are that it should be an immense asset
+if properly handled.</p>
+
+<h3><i>GUNS OF THE WATTS ERA.</i></h3>
+
+<p>The principal guns of the Watts era are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t202" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Calibre in.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Length in cals.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Weight tons.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Weight of projectile lbs.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> Maximum penetration A.P. capped against K.C.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="theadsub">
+  <td class="tdc">at 5000 yds.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3000 yds.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td></td>
+  <td class="tdc">in.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">in.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">13.5</td>
+  <td class="tdc">45</td>
+  <td class="tdc">80</td>
+  <td class="tdc fsr1">1250</td>
+  <td class="tdc">22</td>
+  <td class="tdc">26</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">12</td>
+  <td class="tdc">50</td>
+  <td class="tdc">58</td>
+  <td class="tdc">850</td>
+  <td class="tdc">19</td>
+  <td class="tdc">24</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">12</td>
+  <td class="tdc">45</td>
+  <td class="tdc">50</td>
+  <td class="tdc">850</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">17½</td>
+  <td class="tdc">22</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc fs2p">9.2</td>
+  <td class="tdc">50</td>
+  <td class="tdc">30</td>
+  <td class="tdc">380</td>
+  <td class="tdc">10</td>
+  <td class="tdc">13</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdc fs2p">9.2</td>
+  <td class="tdc">45</td>
+  <td class="tdc">27</td>
+  <td class="tdc">380</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs2p">8¾</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1p">11¼</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>It may be noted that the 12-inch, 45 cal. (as mounted
+in the original <i>Dreadnought</i>) is quite capable of penetrating
+anything in existence at most ranges, and the 12-inch,
+50 cal. anything likely to exist. The main advantage of
+the 13.5 is the superior weight of the projectile and the
+better capacity of its shell.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">203</span></p>
+
+<p>Modern progress in gunnery is remarkably demonstrated
+by a comparison between the 13.5 of the Barnaby
+era and the same calibre of the Watts era.</p>
+
+<table id="t203" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Calibre in.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Length in cals.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Weight tons.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Projectile lbs.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2">Maximum penetration A.P. capped against K.C. at</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Corresponding value in K.C. of belt of ship carrying</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="theadsub">
+  <td class="tdc">5000 yds.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3000 yds.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">13.5</td>
+  <td class="tdc">30</td>
+  <td class="tdc">80</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1250</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">9</td>
+  <td class="tdc">12</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">9</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdc">13.5</td>
+  <td class="tdc">45</td>
+  <td class="tdc">67</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1250</td>
+  <td class="tdc">22</td>
+  <td class="tdc">26</td>
+  <td class="tdc">12</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>From which it will be seen that armour has in no
+way kept pace with the gun, except in so far as that
+in the conditions which obtained with the old 13.5
+a range of 3,000 yards was considered an outside
+limit, 12,000 yards is now held in the same or even
+less estimation.</p>
+
+<p>Along such lines progress has been practically
+nullified during the last twenty years. But the limit of
+vision has now been reached, and increased gun-power
+cannot, practically speaking, any longer be met by
+range. Whence the argument of many that, failing
+the production of some armour altogether superior to
+anything now existing, the armoured ship is closely
+approaching the status of the armoured soldier of the
+Middle Ages. A precisely similar remark, however, was
+first made in 1887,<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">37</a> and proved an incorrect prophecy.
+To-day, therefore, those best able to judge are extremely
+careful about prophecying.</p>
+
+<p>Meanwhile, the outbreak of war synchronised with
+the fact that both the British and German Navies had
+under construction ships carrying 15-inch guns; thus<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">204</span>
+indicating a trend of opinion towards ships capable of
+delivering heavier and heavier projectiles.</p>
+
+<h3><i>TORPEDO PROGRESS.</i></h3>
+
+<p>The principal feature of the last few years has been
+the steadily increasing efficiency of torpedoes, mainly
+by the adoption of improved engines. For many years
+2,000 yards had been the maximum torpedo range.
+About 1904 an 18-inch Whitehead with 4,000 yards
+range and a maximum speed of 33 knots came into
+service. This was presently improved upon by torpedoes
+of 7,000 yards range. The exact range of the latest type
+Hardcastle torpedo—so called after its inventor, Engineer
+Commander Hardcastle—is a matter of uncertainty, but
+it is supposed to be capable of about 7,000 yards at 45
+knots, and up to 11,000 at 30 knots. As a torpedo would
+take about 5½ minutes to travel this distance, it is
+obviously unlikely to be able to anticipate the position
+of a single enemy sufficiently to ensure hitting her,
+except by pure chance. On the other hand, if a fleet be
+fired at, hits with a torpedo are almost as likely as hits
+from a gun, and it seems impossible that the old idea of
+ships fighting in line can possibly survive, and Admiral
+Bacon’s theory that for the squadron of the past there
+will have to be substituted the isolated monster ship of
+the future seems the only reasonable one, despite all
+the protests against “mastodons.”</p>
+
+<p>With the improvement of torpedoes, especial
+attention has been devoted to under-water protection
+against them. One form of this, the solid bulkheads of
+the original <i>Dreadnought</i>, was, after a time, partially
+abandoned owing to its extreme inconvenience. Another
+form of protection adopted in all Dreadnoughts is a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">205</span>
+certain amount of internal armour, an idea first evolved
+in France for the battleship <i>Henri IV</i>, which was laid
+down in July, 1897. Experiments with a view to testing
+the efficiency of this device were not very promising.
+An improvement on the system was effected by M.
+Lagane, of La Seyne, in the Russian <i>Tsarevitch</i> in 1899.
+This ship was actually torpedoed in the Russo-Japanese
+War, but unfortunately she was not hit on the specially-protected
+portion, so no experience was gained of the
+war utility of the system. While at the outbreak of
+war it was believed by some that the modern system
+is proof against half a dozen torpedoes, others were
+extremely sceptical as to whether any real immunity is
+afforded. The most that could ever be prophesied was
+that the next naval war would see the torpedo accomplish
+either a great deal more or a great deal less than is
+generally assumed. A paradoxical position; but so things
+are! No one can predict with any more certainty, even
+now that war is on us. We do not know what may
+happen. Some of us adhere to the idea that the torpedo
+is going to be omnipotent: that the gun is going to be
+relegated to the second place. The future is likely enough
+to discount the destroyer idea. But, from the submarine
+the torpedo is likely to do many unexpected things. If the
+Germans realise the torpedo, startling things are toward.<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">38</a></p>
+
+<p>The period just preceding the war saw a curious
+state of affairs in connection with net defence against
+torpedoes. Practically ever since nets were invented the
+use of them had been confined to the British, Russian and
+Japanese Navies—most other navies making no use of
+net defence. Curiously enough the adoption of nets by<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">206</span>
+Germany and Austria coincided with their abandonment
+in the British Navy—the British theory being that net
+cutters had become so efficient that any kind of net
+would immediately be cut through. Incidentally it may
+be observed that with nets down a ship can only proceed
+at a very slow speed.</p>
+
+<h3><i>NAVAL ESTIMATES OF THE WATTS ERA.</i></h3>
+
+<table id="t206" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Financial Year.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Amount.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Personnel.</td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="4">Ships provided.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="theadsub">
+  <td class="tdc">Battleships</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Battle-cruisers</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Armoured cruisers.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">Prot. cruisers.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1902–03</td>
+  <td class="tdc">31,003,977</td>
+  <td class="tdc">122,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1903–04</td>
+  <td class="tdc">35,709,477</td>
+  <td class="tdc">127,100</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">4</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1904–05</td>
+  <td class="tdc">36,859,681</td>
+  <td class="tdc">131,100</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1905–06</td>
+  <td class="tdc">33,389,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">129,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1906–07</td>
+  <td class="tdc">31,472,087</td>
+  <td class="tdc">129,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1907–08</td>
+  <td class="tdc">31,419,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">128,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1908–09</td>
+  <td class="tdc">32,319,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">128,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">5</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1909–10</td>
+  <td class="tdc">35,142,700</td>
+  <td class="tdc">138,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">6</td>
+  <td class="tdc">2</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1910–11</td>
+  <td class="tdc">40,603,700</td>
+  <td class="tdc">131,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">4</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc">1911–12</td>
+  <td class="tdc">44,392,500</td>
+  <td class="tdc">134,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">4</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdc">1912–13</td>
+  <td class="tdc">44,085,400</td>
+  <td class="tdc">136,000</td>
+  <td class="tdc">3</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1</td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Later in 1912 the sum of £1,000,000 was handed to
+the Navy out of the Budget surplus. This sum, the
+“supplementary estimate,” was allotted in order to set
+off a corresponding German increase.</p>
+
+<p>The decrease of 1905–1908 is probably directly
+responsible for the increase 1910–1912; owing to the
+fact that the British decrease was met by a corresponding
+rise in German expenditure. It was the fashion before
+the war to deplore the sums spent on naval armaments,
+while little or nothing was said about the military
+estimates.</p>
+
+<p>For 1912–13 the Naval Estimates were £45,075,400.</p>
+
+<p>For 1912–14 they increased to £48,809,300, and for
+1914–15 they stood at £51,550,000.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">207</span></p>
+
+<p>On the face of things, this ever-increasing naval
+outlay looked likely to lead to ultimate financial ruin.
+This, however, is really a somewhat superficial view, and
+mostly nothing but a modern equivalent to that “Insular
+Spirit” which has been referred to in previous pages.</p>
+
+<p>Compared to the national interests at stake, the
+increase regarded as an insurance is more apparent than
+real. It is, if anything, a smaller percentage on national
+existence; also over a period of a hundred years it is
+far less than the corresponding increase in the Civil
+Service Vote, which lacks any claims to be considered
+an “insurance.” The entire amount spent in shipbuilding
+is expended in the country, and about 70 per cent. of it
+goes in direct payment to “Labour”: which is probably
+a larger percentage than would be achieved were the same
+sum spent in any other way whatever.</p>
+
+<p>The “ruinous competition in naval armaments”
+so prated on by certain publicists was really little better
+than an idle phrase so far as the British nation is
+concerned; and there was never any real reason to
+regard future increases with apprehension.</p>
+
+<p>Now that the nation is at war this fact is being
+recognised. We must continue to recognise it. In
+trenches over the water we may attack. But on the
+British Navy depends our defence of home interests.</p>
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">208</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="V"><span id="toclink_208"></span>V.<br>
+
+<span class="subhead">SUBMARINES.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="drop-cap"><span class="smcap1">The</span> submarine as anything of the nature of a
+practical arm made its first appearance as a
+“submarine torpedo boat,” useful merely for
+harbour defence. As such it was eagerly embraced by
+the French Navy, and had a considerable vogue therein,
+besides being a commonplace in the United States long
+before the British Admiralty accepted it as serious in a
+way.</p>
+
+<p>As a matter of fact, till the invention of the
+periscope enabled it to see where it was going when
+submerged, the submarine was little if anything but a
+paper menace. The periscope altered all this.</p>
+
+<p>The first submarines for the British Navy figured in
+the 1901–2 Estimates. Five copies of the American
+<i>Holland</i> were laid down at Barrow, the first being
+launched in October, 1901. These boats were of 120
+tons submerged displacement, and used merely as
+instructional or experimental craft almost as soon as
+completed.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_209" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 39em;">
+  <img src="images/i_209.jpg" width="2450" height="1635" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">SUBMARINES LEAVING PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>They were followed immediately by the “A” class,
+totalling thirteen boats in all. Displacement submerged,
+207 tons. Those numbered from five to thirteen were
+given sixteen cylinder surface motors of 550 horse-power
+in place of the 450 horse-power twelve cylinder ones
+of the earlier boats. In 1904 A1 was lost with all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">211</span>
+hands under tragic circumstances off Spithead, being run
+down by a merchant steamer. This disaster led to the
+installation of double periscopes in later types. A3 was
+lost off Spithead in 1912, being run down by the <i>Hazard</i>,
+very near where A1 was lost.</p>
+
+<p>The B class which followed numbered eleven boats,
+of which B1 was originally known as A14. The remaining
+B class belong to the 1904–05 Estimates. The submerged
+displacement in these rises to 313 tons, and the surface
+speed to thirteen knots, instead of eleven and a half,
+though, owing to improved lines, the horse-power was
+little increased.</p>
+
+<p>New boats, completed in 1906 and later, though
+generally identical with the B class, were known as the
+C class, and totalled thirty-eight altogether. One, C11,
+was lost at sea from a collision.</p>
+
+<p>In 1907 the earliest boat of a new type (D Class)
+was put in hand. Displacing 600 tons submerged, she
+practically doubled her predecessors. Her surface speed
+rose to sixteen knots with 1,200 horse-power. Three
+instead of two torpedo tubes were fitted, also wireless
+telegraphy was experimentally adopted in her. She
+herself was never any great success, but the rest of the
+type were far more successful.</p>
+
+<p>By the end of 1911 eight boats of the D class had
+been launched. It was originally intended to build a
+total of nineteen of this class, but meanwhile an improved
+boat of the E type was evolved. The E class are 177ft.
+long, with a submerged displacement of 800 tons or
+thereabouts, and four 21-inch tubes. They are fitted
+with wireless. Their special feature, however, is the
+fitting of guns, as a regular and integral part of the
+design.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">212</span></p>
+
+<p>The first submarine to mount a gun was D4, in which
+a special 12-pounder was experimentally mounted, so
+that it could be housed when the boat was submerged;
+for later boats two guns were decided on.</p>
+
+<p>The E class were followed by an F class—and a
+variety of other boats, most of which have been completed
+since the war began and concerning which it is obviously
+undesirable to say anything whatever.</p>
+
+<p>Guns for submarines were expected to appear
+sooner than they actually did. At an early stage it was
+foreseen that, once radii developed, submarines were
+likely enough to find themselves in contact with hostile
+submarines and to need something to attack them with.
+The original idea of the submarine as “the weapon of the
+weaker Power” soon went the same way as did a similar
+idea about torpedo boats at their first inception.</p>
+
+<p>In torpedo-boats it was at once self-evident that,
+whatever the value of the torpedo boat, the stronger
+Power was able to build far more than the weaker, and
+to annihilate accordingly.</p>
+
+<p>For a time the submarine seemed to defy this law.
+It was fatuously hoped that “submarines cannot injure
+hostile submarines”; and that the “torpedo boat is the
+answer to the torpedo boat” would not have as sequel
+“the submarine is the answer to the submarine.”</p>
+
+<figure id="i_213" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 40em;">
+  <img src="images/i_213.jpg" width="2544" height="1649" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p class="left"><i>Photo</i></p>
+    <p class="right up1"><i>Stephen Crabb. Southsea.</i></p>
+    <p>SUBMARINE E 2.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>It may well be in the womb of the future that
+submarines to-morrow, or perhaps to-day, may be what
+the ironclad was yesterday or the day before. The
+submarine battleship may appear and render obsolete
+the “Dreadnought” of to-day! But nothing can alter
+the cardinal fact that, given equal efficiency, the Power
+with most such craft must win, and that, given an
+inferior efficiency, defeat may be looked for as the natural<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">215</span>
+corollary on lines entirely unconnected with whether the
+“capital ship” is of a type that floats only or one that
+can be submerged at will.</p>
+
+<p>Tactics may alter, the means may alter, and the
+most obvious instruments of naval strategy may do the
+same. But nothing whatever can affect the bedrock
+truth that, given equal efficiency, “numbers only can
+annihilate.” Given the “equal efficiency” nothing else
+really matters!</p>
+
+<p>If the creators of weapons keep themselves to date,
+if those who supply them see to it that the supply is
+sufficient, if those who work the weapons are efficient,
+the part of those in chief control resolves itself into
+little save achieving victory with the minimum of loss.
+The day may yet arrive when someone discovers that a
+good deal of what has been written about the genius of
+various famous admirals of the past is verbiage rather
+than fact, that they were a part of one great whole,
+rather than the sole controlling organisation—at any rate,
+once battle was engaged.</p>
+
+<p>In the future, if the submarine “Dreadnought”
+becomes an actuality, this is probably likely to be so to
+a greater extent than anything which obtained in the
+past. So far as we can to-day conceive of such future
+fights, much of the battle, at any rate, will entail more
+or less blind work under the surface, individual enemies
+engaging one another, the leader compelled to rely more
+and more upon the efficiency of his individual units and
+less and less upon his own tactical combinations.</p>
+
+<p>Of course things may turn out otherwise. Inventions
+yet undreamed of may come to the fore, and the nether
+waters present no greater obstacle to regular operations
+than the surface does to-day. Plunging may offer no<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">216</span>
+salvation to a beaten enemy. We can only make idle
+speculations now.</p>
+
+<p>Yet, however things may shape, success or failure,
+victory or defeat must assuredly depend in a great
+measure on the makers of the weapons and the efficiency
+of those who work them—the tools, on the reliability of
+which every admiral must trust for victory.</p>
+
+<p>When this war started there were roughly thirty
+German submarines to something like seventy British.
+At the moment of writing (June, 1915) at least twenty
+of those German submarines have gone below. How and
+why cannot be published: but they have gone under in
+one way or another. Means of defeating submarines are
+being developed.</p>
+
+<p>Where big ships are concerned the principle means
+in use are high speed and a zig-zag course, the combination
+making it difficult for the relatively slow submarine
+to arrive at the correct striking point.</p>
+
+<p>In this connection it has to be remembered that the
+vision of a submarine is limited; and so that though the
+range of modern torpedoes is something like five miles,
+the actual effective range of a submarine’s torpedoes is
+nearer a mile or less.</p>
+
+<p>So much is this the case that German submarines
+are fitted with a torpedo which has a range of only a
+thousand yards or thereabouts, the reduced range being
+compensated for by a greatly increased charge. This
+charge, 420 lbs. of very high explosive instead of the
+usual charge of 300 lbs. or less, accounts for the devastating
+effects of German torpedoes fired from submarines.</p>
+
+<p>It is merely a phase in submarine warfare. At
+present a submarine dare not fire too near its victim lest
+it be involved in the common destruction. That,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">217</span>
+however, is likely enough to be guarded against in future
+construction, and the prospects of the early future is one
+of more importance for submarines rather than less.
+They are bound to become larger and larger, their radius
+increasing with the size. Coincidently with this we may
+expect to see the birth of small submarines designed to
+attack big ones: some new variant of the swordfish
+and the whale.</p>
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">218</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="VI"><span id="toclink_218"></span>VI.<br>
+
+<span class="subhead">NAVAL AVIATION.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="drop-cap"><span class="smcap1">The</span> aeroplane idea is so old that we find it in Greek
+mythology, and it is consequently of unknown
+antiquity. Hundreds of years before Christ there
+were hoary old legends of Dædalus and Icarus, who made
+wings for themselves and flew. Icarus flew too high, the
+sun melted his wings, with the result that there happened
+to him what happens about once a week to aviators
+to-day, he fell and died. Contemporary with these
+legends, are legends of floating rocks which spurted out
+fire—stories which sounded inestimably silly till steamships
+came along. We may imagine prophets able to
+look ahead<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">39</a> and to invest their day with visions
+of the future. Equally we can discard prophets
+and imagine a civilisation long since dead which
+knew all about flying and steamers, and survives
+in legends only.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_219" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 40em;">
+  <img src="images/i_219.jpg" width="2539" height="1641" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p class="left"><i>Photo</i>]</p>
+    <p class="right up1">[“<i>Topical.</i>”</p>
+    <p>BRITISH NAVY SEAPLANE.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The latter alternative is really the more reasonable
+of the two. While imagination can do a very great deal
+and exaggerate to any extent, it must have a base to work
+on. It is easier to believe in some long gone and extinct
+civilisation which destroyed itself in the air, than to
+believe that pure imagination accounts for the flying<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">221</span>
+stories of long ago. Africa is full of traces of vast cities
+older than any history, telling of past civilisations of
+which nothing is or ever will be known. Also there is
+practically no known age in which anything but the
+motive power stood between aeroplane theories and
+their realisation.</p>
+
+<p>In support of the theory that men flew before to-day
+there is the following:—Somewhere about the year 1100,
+that is to say, back in the reign of King Stephen, a
+French historian relates the appearance of “as it were,
+a ship, in the air over London.” It anchored, and the
+citizens of London got hold of the anchor. The airship
+sent a man down to free it, and the citizens
+of London caught him and drowned him in the river.
+The rest of the aviators then cut the rope and sailed
+away.</p>
+
+<p>This incident is mentioned so baldly and casually
+and so much mixed up with ordinary petty chat of the
+era (chat which proves to have been quite true), that it
+takes far more faith to accept it as “pure lies” than to
+accept it as fact more or less.</p>
+
+<p>These legends cannot be disregarded lightly. They
+one and all give priority to the aeroplane—the “heavier
+than air” vehicle. Once in a way the “lighter than air”
+idea got a casual look in; but it was not till the end of
+the eighteenth century that it got into the regions of
+practical politics with the French Montgolfiers. But
+there were people who invented elementary aeroplanes
+long before Montgolfier.</p>
+
+<p>From the end of the eighteenth century until to-day
+the Montgolfier idea of “lighter than air” has got little
+further. The shape has altered; instead of hot air,
+hydrogen gas is now employed; and by means of motors<span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">222</span>
+the balloon no longer drifts before the wind. But
+progress is terribly slow. That it is so, is a very
+important thing to recognise, as slow development is by
+no means a reason for ignoring an invention. Sometimes
+it is quite the opposite.</p>
+
+<p>It will probably be a good many years before it
+is definitely settled whether the “heavier than air”
+or “lighter than air” principle is the better
+for Naval purposes, though there are not wanting
+enthusiasts who decry the “lighter than air”
+machines altogether.</p>
+
+<p>This is probably a grave mistake, brought about by
+the fact that practical balloons existed long before
+practical aeroplanes, and dirigibles made flights before
+ever aeroplanes rose off the earth. Yet the dirigible
+is in a far more elementary stage than the aeroplane is.
+Not only is the aeroplane a much older idea in the
+theoretical direction, but, being very much smaller, it
+on that account has very possibly developed more
+quickly.</p>
+
+<p>The world has been building ships for thousands of
+years, yet it has only recently developed <i>Tigers</i> and
+<i>Olympics</i>, and both are still developing and likely to
+do so for some time to come. Row-boats, however,
+arrived at perfection a good thousand years ago.
+That is to say, there has been no alteration or
+improvement in them at all commensurate with
+the alterations that have taken place in big ships during
+the same period.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_223" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 39em;">
+  <img src="images/i_223.jpg" width="2469" height="1849" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p class="left"><i>Photo</i>]</p>
+    <p class="right up1">[<i>Sport &amp; General.</i></p>
+    <p>HOISTING A NAVAL SEAPLANE ON BOARD THE <i>HIBERNIA</i>.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>Something of the same sort is quite possible with
+aeroplanes. It is already comparatively easy to forecast
+their eventual form without much danger of being
+proved a false prophet later on. We may safely say that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">225</span>
+they will become capable of much higher speeds than at
+present; also (which is perhaps more important) <i>slower</i>
+speeds; and that all existing troubles with stability will
+eventually be overcome. But experiments made with
+birds indicate that the run which an aeroplane has to take
+before it can rise occurs in much the same proportion
+with birds; and so there are few, if any, practical men
+who now expect to see future aeroplanes capable of rising
+vertically from the ground, or hovering in the air except
+under such conditions as any bird can hover without
+inconvenience.</p>
+
+<p>The possibilities of the dirigible, on the other hand,
+no man can foresee. The gasbag that can be brought to
+the ground by a single bullet hole in it, is a very
+different thing from the possibility of airships of the
+future, which may be a mile or two long, divided into
+innumerable compartments, filled with non-explosive gas
+such as is sure to be discovered sooner or later. Two
+miles seems an extraordinary length to-day, but a ship
+ten miles long would only be something like the ratio
+of the early dirigible to the future ones compared
+to the ratio Dreadnoughts bear to the first ships built
+by men.</p>
+
+<p>On the water, bulk is limited by the depth and
+size of harbours, but in the vast regions of the air there
+are practically no limitations whatever, and there is
+virtually nothing to limit size, save the building of land
+docks on open plains into which airships could descend
+for purposes of repair and so forth. Consequently those
+who hastily assume from a few accidents that the
+“lighter than air” craft has no future are probably
+making a mistake; at any rate, so far as naval work
+is concerned. Certain definite uses are apparent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">226</span>
+even now to those who think and ignore commercial
+rivalries.</p>
+
+<p>It has been wisely laid down that aeroplanes for
+naval purposes must be capable of rising from and
+descending on the water. The Curtiss was the first
+successful hydro-aeroplane, but since then floats have
+been fitted to various other types with equal success.
+It is doubtful whether naval aeroplanes will ever be
+carried on shipboard like boats, although this is by no
+means impossible. It will, however, be more convenient
+for a variety of reasons to use them like submarines with
+their own special depot ships.</p>
+
+<p>The main naval use of aeroplanes at the outbreak of
+war was for scouting purposes. How near they would
+be able to approach a hostile fleet was a question not
+likely to be solved until the day of battle. The question
+of their being hit is secondary to the question of their
+being upset, owing to tremendous concussions of heavy
+gun fire. The idea of aeroplanes dropping bombs down
+the funnels of warships can be dismissed as the entirely
+fanciful dreams of people who know nothing whatever
+about aeroplanes or the mathematical problems involved.
+Judging by recent events, dropping bombs anywhere upon
+a moving ship is nearly or entirely impossible, except at
+ranges where the aviator would at once be brought down
+by rifle fire.</p>
+
+<p>A far more likely and useful service would be the
+destruction of enemy aeroplanes. For this purpose
+a special gun, firing a species of chain shot, has already
+been suggested, and the naval aeroplane of the future
+was always certain to carry a gun of some kind. The
+off-chance of doing a certain amount of damage to a
+hostile ship by dropping a bomb upon it, is nothing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">227</span>
+compared to the importance of destroying the enemy’s
+aeroplanes. This last seems likely to be all-important as
+time goes on.</p>
+
+<p>The duties of naval airships will be of a different
+nature. Already a point kept in view in their design is
+ability to “keep the air” for a considerable period, and
+with what are in these days “large airships” of the
+Zeppelin type (to which the ill-fated Naval Airship No. 1
+<i>Mayfly</i> belonged) there seems no reason why an airship
+should not be kept in the air for three or four days
+already.</p>
+
+<p>The fuel problem is not very difficult, because a great
+deal can already be done without the use of the engines,
+or with only partial use of them. It is also more than
+probable that with a view to further economy some kind
+of sails, combined with sea-anchors, will be evolved,
+whereby the ship might become able to sail in the air
+nearly as well as the old three-deckers, or, at any rate,
+as well as the masted ironclads, sailed in the water. The
+difficulty of “keeping the air” is the inevitable leakage
+of gas, but as leakage nowadays is infinitesimally less
+than it once was, the assumption is that as the years
+go on it will eventually be reduced to almost a minus
+quantity. Gales will be met by “bulk” and efficient
+anchors, on the principle that the gale which swamps a
+fishing-boat or blows over a haystack has no effect on a
+Dreadnought or a cathedral.</p>
+
+<p>Ability to keep the air will enable all Fleets to be
+accompanied by airships, which would detect mines and
+perhaps submarines, and with their ability to adapt their
+speeds at will, the presumption is that they would be able
+to destroy submarines by bombs.</p>
+
+<p>A further and very important duty would be the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">228</span>
+detection of torpedo attacks at night. Experiments
+carried out in Austria some few years ago with a captive
+balloon proved conclusively that except in cases of thick
+fog any vessels in motion are easily detected at a distance
+of ten or twelve miles. It is not merely the tell-tale
+flames in the funnels which betray attacking vessels;
+their wakes are always clearly visible, and as a general
+rule the vessels themselves, no matter how dark the
+night.</p>
+
+<p>Bomb-dropping from an airship must be a more
+serious matter than from aeroplanes, as so much more in
+the way of explosives could be carried. The chance of
+being hit, however, would probably be so much greater
+that it was (when war broke out) unlikely that any
+airships would be risked for such purposes. Nor is it
+very probable that naval airships will for some time to
+come attack each other, if they can possibly avoid it,
+the reason being that for a good many years they will
+be comparatively few in number, and the attack would
+have, in most cases, to be delivered in the presence of a
+fleet, which would make the attack, to say the least of it,
+very hazardous.</p>
+
+<p>Eventually, of course, aerial Dreadnoughts fighting
+each other are probable enough; but “the Trafalgar of
+the air” is unlikely to be witnessed within the lifetime
+of most or any of us now living. Nor is it likely that
+aerial Dreadnoughts will replace Dreadnoughts of the
+water, although as years go on they may cause profound
+modifications in design in order to allow of mounting
+guns for vertical fire.</p>
+
+<p>We are in the presence of the introduction of a “new
+arm.” But between what a “new arm” can actually
+accomplish, and what enthusiastic inventors say it will<span class="pagenum" id="Page_229">229</span>
+do, there is always an enormous gap. Inventors, when
+they come to prophesying, are usually one of two things—asses,
+or prodigious asses! France—once the second
+Naval Power in Europe—became of little or no account
+because it took the submarine at the enthusiastic
+inventor’s face value, and neglected the present and
+immediate future.</p>
+
+<p>The present stage of aerial progress in the
+British Navy is briefly to be summarised as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p>
+
+<p>1. A big Zeppelin type naval airship was built
+in 1909–1911. It proved a total failure.</p>
+
+<p>2. In 1911 four naval officers were appointed to
+learn aeroplane work. Subsequently a few others were
+appointed. Others, again, qualified privately. In 1912,
+the Royal Flying Corps was established—both naval and
+military aviators becoming “wings” of the same body—an
+excellent principle, but one necessarily experimental
+so far as practical work was concerned.</p>
+
+<p>3. In practice it proved a failure; so the Naval
+Air Service was formed into a branch by itself. Four
+small army airships were handed over to it—craft
+too small to be of any value except for instructional
+purposes.</p>
+
+<p>At the outbreak of war there were two effective
+dirigibles—one of French type of Astra-Torres design,
+the other a Parseval purchased in Germany. Neither
+of these ships is in any way comparable to the German
+Zeppelins in dimensions or endurance. A number of
+other dirigibles of varying sizes were on order, but it is
+inadvisable to publish any particulars on this subject.
+The designs for these were foreign, but the construction
+was British.</p>
+
+<p>In the matter of aeroplanes a number of special<span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">230</span>
+naval stations were established and supplied with
+seaplanes and landplanes of various types, while strenuous
+efforts were made towards the training of a large number
+of efficient pilots. The building of an aeroplane is a
+matter of only a few weeks, whereas the training
+of a really efficient pilot is a matter of a year or
+thereabouts.</p>
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_231">231</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="VII"><span id="toclink_231"></span>VII<br>
+
+<span class="subhead">AUXILIARY NAVIES.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="drop-cap"><span class="smcap1">No</span> account of the British battle fleet would be
+complete without reference to the various auxiliary
+navies. Though none of them possesses any
+very serious fighting value, yet all possess potentialities
+for the future which can with difficulty be computed.</p>
+
+<p>The auxiliary navies may be divided into two main
+sections—(1) those which are direct branches of the
+British Navy, and (2) those which belong to the semi-independent
+colonies.</p>
+
+<p>Of the former, the principal is the Royal Indian
+Marine, which consists of a number of armed troopships.
+Of these the chief are the <i>Northbrook</i>, launched at
+Clydebank in 1907, 5,820 tons, 16 knot speed, and an
+armament of six 4-inch and six 3-pounders. The
+<i>Dufferin</i>, which was launched in 1904, is of 7,457 tons,
+has a speed of 19 knots, and an armament of eight 4-inch
+and eight 3-pounders. The <i>Hardinge</i>, launched 1900, is
+of 6,520 tons, 18 knots speed, and carries six 4.7-inch
+guns as well as six 3-pounders and 4 Maxims.</p>
+
+<p>There are three older troopships, the <i>Minto</i> (1893),
+the <i>Elphinstone</i> (1887), and the <i>Dalhousie</i> (1886). These
+are supplemented by ten small steamers and nine small
+mining vessels.</p>
+
+<p>The germ of this fleet was created in the early
+seventies when the breastwork monitors <i>Abyssinia</i> and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_232">232</span>
+<i>Magdala</i> were sent out for the defence of Indian harbours.
+These were small predecessors of the <i>Devastation</i>, very
+similar to the home coast-defence monitors of the <i>Cyclops</i>
+class, and carried four 18-ton muzzle-loading guns.</p>
+
+<p>About the year 1888 some new torpedo boats (Nos.
+100–106) were lent for the Indian Marine service. These,
+with their names and numbers, were as follows:—<i>Baluch</i>
+(100), <i>Ghurka</i> (101), <i>Kahren</i> (102), <i>Pathan</i> (103),
+<i>Maharatta</i> (104), <i>Sikh</i> (105), and <i>Rajput</i> (106). The two
+earliest numbers were built by Thornycroft, and were of
+92 tons; the others were built by White, of Cowes, and
+were of 95 tons displacement.</p>
+
+<p>In the years 1890–91 two torpedo gunboats, <i>Plassy</i>
+and <i>Assaye</i>, of the <i>Sharpshooter</i> class, were launched at
+Elswick for the Indian Marine, in which they remained
+until withdrawn in the early years of the present century.</p>
+
+<p>On a similar footing to the Royal Indian Marine
+are the flotillas, mostly consisting of river gunboats,
+maintained in North and South Nigeria and in Central
+Africa, and the gunboats on the Nile under the Egyptian
+Government.</p>
+
+<p>The Colonial Navies are on a different standing.
+First place in their formation belongs to Australia.
+The monitor <i>Cerberus</i>, practically a sister of the <i>Abyssinia</i>
+and <i>Magdala</i> already mentioned, was launched at Jarrow
+in 1868 for Victoria. This vessel (which still exists as a
+drill ship) is of 3,480 tons, armed with four 18-ton
+muzzle-loaders, and protected with an 8-inch belt.</p>
+
+<p>In 1884 Australia’s local defence was re-inforced
+with four gunboats as follows:—The <i>Protector</i>, of 920
+tons, carrying one 8-inch and five 6-inch guns, for South
+Australia. She, as well as the others, was built at
+Elswick. For Western Australia a similar vessel of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_233">233</span>
+530 tons, named the <i>Victoria</i>, was built, armed with
+one 18-ton muzzle-loader. The <i>Gayundah</i> and <i>Paluma</i>,
+also of the same type, carrying one old 8-inch and one
+6-inch, were built for Queensland. Their displacement
+is 360 tons each.</p>
+
+<p>From that time onward the Australian Navy
+occasionally sent a few officers and men for training in
+the British Navy.</p>
+
+<p>Towards the end of the eighties interest began to
+be taken in Australian naval defence, and five cruisers
+and two torpedo gunboats were ordered for local
+Australian service while borne on the Royal Navy List.
+Of these vessels the five cruisers were the <i>Katoomba</i>
+(ex <i>Pandora</i>), <i>Mildura</i> (ex <i>Pelorus</i>), <i>Ringarooma</i> (ex
+<i>Psyche</i>), <i>Tauranga</i> (ex <i>Phœnix</i>), and the <i>Wallaroo</i>
+(ex <i>Persian</i>), all 2,575 vessels of the old <i>Pallas</i> class, of
+which at the time of writing the <i>Philomel</i> still
+exists. These ships had a designed speed of 16.5 knots,
+a protective deck, and an armament of eight 4.7-inch
+and some smaller guns.</p>
+
+<p>The torpedo gunboat <i>Boomerang</i> (ex <i>Whiting</i>) and
+<i>Karrakatta</i> (ex <i>Wizard</i>) belonged to the <i>Sharpshooter</i>
+class, and were lent under the same conditions as the
+cruisers.</p>
+
+<p>In the course of time all of them wore out and were
+eventually recalled.</p>
+
+<p>Coincident with this the Australians commenced to
+have a revived interest in Imperial defence, and in the
+year 1905–6 Australia and New Zealand contributed
+£240,000 to Imperial naval defence, and a project was
+put forward for the building of eight destroyers and four
+torpedo gunboats for Colonial Defence purposes.</p>
+
+<p>A few years later this project took a more definite<span class="pagenum" id="Page_234">234</span>
+shape, and about the year 1910 the battle-cruiser
+<i>Australia</i>, a sister of the <i>Indefatigable</i>, was ordered. As
+part of the same programme, three protected cruisers of
+the <i>Dartmouth</i> type, the <i>Melbourne</i>, <i>Sydney</i>, and <i>Brisbane</i>,
+were also ordered. Previously to this, three destroyers
+of the <i>Paramatta</i> type had been commenced, and in 1911
+three more were ordered, thus forming a nucleus of a
+serious Australian Navy.<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">40</a></p>
+
+<p>New Zealand’s interest in the Imperial Navy may
+be said to have commenced about the year 1900. It
+eventuated in paying for the battleship <i>New Zealand</i><a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">41</a> of
+the <i>King Edward</i> class, which was laid down in September,
+1903. An old gunboat of the <i>Magpie</i> class was purchased,
+re-christened the <i>Amokoura</i>, and used for training
+purposes, while to replace some old torpedo boats, which
+had been sent to New Zealand about the same time as
+similar boats went to Australia, three destroyers of the
+<i>Paramatta</i> type were ordered. Finally, an offer from the
+New Zealand Premier to supplement the Dreadnought
+efficiency of the British Navy culminated in the battle-cruiser
+<i>New Zealand</i>, which was offered to be provided
+about the same time or a little before Australia offered
+a similar vessel.<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">42</a></p>
+
+<figure id="i_235" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 26em;">
+  <img src="images/i_235.jpg" width="1629" height="2440" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">BATTLE CRUISER “NEW ZEALAND” ON THE STOCKS—1912.
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The Dominion of Canada has always maintained a
+certain number of small vessels for Customs duties or
+fishery protection, also for service on the Great Lakes.
+In 1909 the question of a Canadian Navy became
+insistent, and two old British cruisers—the <i>Niobe</i> of
+the <i>Diadem</i> class and the <i>Rainbow</i> of the <i>Apollo</i> class—were
+purchased as training ships for the Canadian Navy.
+A project was also brought forward for the creation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_237">237</span>
+of Canadian dockyards and building therein four second-class
+cruisers of the <i>Dartmouth</i> class and six destroyers,
+though up to the time of writing none of these ships have
+materialised, and the Canadian Navy is still very much a
+project in the air.</p>
+
+<p>Newfoundland has a naval reserve, trained over
+many years in the drill-ship, which is ex H.M.S. <i>Calypso</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The whole subject of Colonial Navies is somewhat
+involved, owing to the question as to how far they should
+be under the orders of and part of the British Navy,
+liable to be used when and where required for Imperial
+needs, and how far they should be regarded as merely for
+local defence. It has been argued from one point of view
+that Colonial Navies acting on their own responsibility
+might create undesirable Imperial complications—as for
+instance, Australia with Japan, or Canada with the
+United States. On the other hand it is argued that it
+would not be possible to arouse Colonial enthusiasm for
+a Colonial fleet which was not always on the spot, despite
+any strategical grounds that might exist for its being
+elsewhere. New Zealand, in May, 1912, negatived this
+by presenting her battle-cruiser to the Imperial Navy for
+use where most needed, but generally speaking Colonials
+think first of local defence.</p>
+
+<p>These two divergent points of view, which are
+certainly extremely delicate, may be said to be still
+<i>subjudice</i>, but in the year 1911 the following agreement,
+which is of the nature of a very judicious compromise,
+was drawn <span class="locked">up:—</span></p>
+
+<p>1. The naval services and forces of the Dominions
+of Canada and Australia will be exclusively under the
+control of their respective Governments.</p>
+
+<p>2. The training and discipline of the naval forces of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_238">238</span>
+the Dominions will be generally uniform with the training
+and discipline of the fleet of the United Kingdom, and
+by arrangement, officers and men of the said forces will
+be interchangeable with those under the control of the
+British Admiralty.</p>
+
+<p>3. The ships of each Dominion naval force will
+hoist at the stern the white ensign as the symbol of
+the authority of the Crown, and at the jack-staff the
+distinctive flag of the Dominion.</p>
+
+<p>4. The Canadian and Australian Governments will
+have their own naval stations as agreed upon and from
+time to time. The limits of the stations are described
+in Schedule A (Canada) and Schedule B (Australia).</p>
+
+<p>5. In the event of the Canadian or Australian
+Government desiring to send ships to a part of the
+British Empire outside of their own respective stations,
+they will notify the British Admiralty.</p>
+
+<p>6. In the event of the Canadian or Australian
+Government desiring to send ships to a foreign port,
+they will obtain the concurrence of the Imperial Government,
+in order that the necessary arrangements with the
+Foreign Office may be made, as in the case of ships of
+the British Fleet, in such time and manner as is usual
+between the British Admiralty and the Foreign Office.</p>
+
+<p>7. While ships of the Dominions are at a foreign
+port a report of their proceedings will be forwarded by
+the officer in command to the Commander-in-Chief on
+the station or to the British Admiralty. The officer in
+command of a Dominion ship so long as he remains in
+the foreign port will obey any instructions he may
+receive from the Government of the United Kingdom
+as to the conduct of any international matters that may
+arise, the Dominion Government being informed.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_239">239</span></p>
+
+<p>8. The commanding officer of a Dominion ship
+having to put into a foreign port without previous
+arrangement on account of stress of weather, damage,
+or any unforeseen emergency, will report his arrival and
+reason for calling to the Commander-in-Chief of the
+station or to the Admiralty, and will obey, so long as
+he remains in the foreign port, any instructions he may
+receive from the Government of the United Kingdom
+as to his relations with the authorities, the Dominion
+Government being informed.</p>
+
+<p>9. When a ship of the British Admiralty meets a
+ship of the Dominions, the senior officer will have the
+right to command in matters of ceremony or international
+intercourse, or where united action is agreed upon, but
+will have no power to direct the movements of ships
+of the other service unless the ships are ordered to
+co-operate by mutual arrangement.</p>
+
+<p>10. In foreign ports the senior officer will take
+command, but not so as to interfere with the orders that
+the junior may have received from his Government.</p>
+
+<p>11. When a court-martial has to be ordered by a
+Dominion and a sufficient number of officers are not
+available in the Dominion service at the time, the
+British Admiralty, if requested, will make the necessary
+arrangements to enable a court to be formed. Provision
+will be made by order of his Majesty in Council and by
+the Dominion Governments respectively to define the
+conditions under which officers of the different services
+are to sit on joint courts-martial.</p>
+
+<p>12. The British Admiralty undertakes to lend to
+the Dominions during the period of development of
+their services, under conditions to be agreed upon, such
+flag officers and other officers and men as may be needed.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_240">240</span>
+In their selection preference will be given to officers and
+men coming from, or connected with, the Dominions,
+but they should all be volunteers for the service.</p>
+
+<p>13. The service of officers of the British Fleet in
+the Dominion naval forces or of officers of those forces
+in the British Fleet will count in all respects for
+promotion, pay, retirement, etc., as service in their
+respective forces.</p>
+
+<p>14. In order to determine all questions of seniority
+that may arise, the names of all officers will be shown in
+the Navy List, and their seniority determined by the
+date of their commissions, whichever is the earlier, in
+the British, Canadian, or Australian services.</p>
+
+<p>15. It is desirable in the interests of efficiency and
+co-operation that arrangements should be made from
+time to time between the British Admiralty and the
+Dominion for the ships of the Dominions to take part in
+fleet exercises or for any other joint training considered
+necessary under the Senior Naval Officer. While so
+employed the ships will be under the command of that
+officer, who would not, however, interfere in the internal
+economy of ships of another service further than is
+absolutely necessary.</p>
+
+<p>16. In time of war, when the naval service of a
+Dominion or any part thereof has been put at the
+disposal of the Imperial Government by the Dominion
+authorities, the ships will form an integral part of the
+British Fleet, and will remain under the control of the
+British Admiralty during the continuance of the war.</p>
+
+<p>17. The Dominions having applied to their naval
+forces the King’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions
+and the Naval Discipline Act, the British Admiralty and
+Dominion Governments will communicate to each other<span class="pagenum" id="Page_241">241</span>
+any changes which they propose to make in these
+Regulations or that Act.</p>
+
+<p>The Schedules A and B defined the stations of
+Canadian and Australian ships respectively. These
+stations cover the territorial and contiguous waters in
+each case. The agreement generally seems framed in
+an exceedingly able and statesmanlike spirit, designed
+so far as may be to avoid any possible friction or
+misunderstanding in the future, and in preparation for
+the day when the Imperial British Fleet shall be something
+very much more than a dream or just a fancy.</p>
+
+<p>This chapter merely records the birth of something
+the end of which none can foretell. It may be the
+first hint of a great world-wide English-speaking confederation:
+it may be the swan song of the British
+Empire. But it is probably one or the other in full
+measure.</p>
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_242">242</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="VIII"><span id="toclink_242"></span>VIII.<br>
+
+<span class="subhead">GENERAL MATTERS IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="drop-cap"><span class="smcap1">Since</span> the Great French Wars the British Navy has
+altered out of all recognition in its <i>materiel</i>; but
+changes in the <i>personnel</i> are often considerably less
+than appears on the surface.</p>
+
+<p>To take matters in the same order as they are taken
+in Chapter <span class="allsmcap">VIII</span>, Vol. I., uniform has, of course, long
+established itself. It has done so with a formality which,
+in the view of many, has “established the régime of the
+tailor rather than the sailor.” Within the last few years
+a slight change for the better has occurred; but of the
+greater part of the period so far as concerns purposes
+for which uniform was first introduced—the sailor and
+tailor exchanged places. Much has been written about
+admirals and captains whose ideas of naval efficiency
+were limited by “spit and polish,”<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">43</a> but “spit and
+polish” at its worst was never so bad as that tailoring
+idea which was the ultimate result of George II admiring
+the costume of the Duchess of Bedford.<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">44</a></p>
+
+<figure id="i_243" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 21em;">
+  <img src="images/i_243.jpg" width="1299" height="2641" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p class="left"><i>Photo</i>]</p>
+    <p class="right up1">[<i>Stuart, Southampton.</i></p>
+    <p>ADMIRAL FISHER.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>The mischief is popularly supposed to lie with naval
+officers. Actually its roots lie with officials, who have
+piled regulation upon regulation, and the Vanity of
+Vanities is to be found so far back as the days of the
+great St. Vincent and his recorded orders about officers<span class="pagenum" id="Page_245">245</span>
+shoe-laces. Lesser lights than he, being in authority,
+blindly imitated. And so the uniform fetish grew and
+prospered.</p>
+
+<p>This is not to be taken wholly as a condemnation—for
+all that a system which made one of the most
+important duties of a lieutenant to be the carrying round
+of a tape measure with a view to ascertaining whether
+every man was “uniform” within a fraction of an inch
+may seem more suggestive of comic opera than of naval
+efficiency. Within reasonable limits, conformity has
+many virtues; and a man slovenly in observing uniform
+regulations is likely enough to be slovenly in things of
+greater moment. Like most bad things in the Navy, the
+principle was ideal: only the carrying of it too far was
+at fault. There is not the remotest reason to believe
+that a Navy not in uniform would be as efficient as one
+in uniform—all the probabilities are that it would be
+less so. The man who invented the saying that “a
+pigmy in uniform is more impressive than a giant in
+plain clothes” was making no idle statement, but stating
+a general verity. The trouble is solely in the difficulty
+that has ever been experienced in striking a common-sense
+mean—a difficulty created by the first mediocrity
+who tried to stand in St. Vincent’s shoes, and who
+lacked the brains to realise that what St. Vincent had
+started with a definite Service object in view, he—the
+unknown mediocrity—had merely lost in the <i>means</i>.
+An example once created had to be followed. The
+hardships of conformity—of which overmuch is heard
+nowadays—are actually trivial, on account of the custom.
+The mischief lies not in the conforming, but in the waste
+of time of those who are made responsible for that
+conformity.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_246">246</span></p>
+
+<p>In essence, modern uniform is simple enough: that
+the various ranks should be noted by special insignia is
+obviously desirable. For combatant officers, the distinguishing
+sleeve-marks <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<figure id="i_246" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 40em;">
+  <img src="images/i_246.jpg" width="1625" height="370" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">Admiral
+      &nbsp;Vice-Admiral &nbsp;Rear-Admiral &nbsp;Commodore
+      &nbsp;Captain &nbsp;Commander &nbsp;Lieutenant-Commander
+      &nbsp;Lieutenant &nbsp;Sub-Lieutenant
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>Engineer officers wear the same insignia with purple
+between the stripes. Non-combatant officers are without
+the curl to the stripes, and wear colours to distinguish
+them as follows:—Doctors, red; Paymasters, white;
+Naval Instructors, blue.</p>
+
+<p>The system for the supply of the <i>personnel</i> is to-day
+altogether different from what it was a hundred years
+ago. Till comparatively recently future deck officers
+were taken very young, passed into the Service as Naval
+Cadets, and thence promoted up to Midshipmen, etc.,
+while Engineers and officers of the other civilian branches
+joined later in life.</p>
+
+<p>More or less contemporaneously with the Dreadnought
+era this was altered by the “New Scheme of
+Entry,” also known as the “Selbourne Scheme,” after
+the then first Lord of the Admiralty, but really the
+creation of Admiral Fisher, the Sea Lord who was the
+moving spirit at the Admiralty at that time.</p>
+
+<p>Few schemes have been more virulently criticised—few,
+in some cases, more unfairly. Like nearly all Admiral
+Fisher’s innovations, the scheme was better on paper
+than in fact. Like all his other schemes it was carried
+through at far too great a pace for the ultra-conservative
+moods of the British Navy, which has ever resented<span class="pagenum" id="Page_247">247</span>
+anything but the most gradual of changes. On the
+other hand, it is too often forgotten by critics that a
+great agitation on the part of naval engineer officers,
+backed by very considerable shore-influences, was then in
+existence. Something had to be done, and done quickly.
+Of Admiral Fisher it may ever be said that he acted
+where others merely argued.</p>
+
+<p>Under the New Scheme, the deck-officer, the
+engineer, and the marine-officer were all to enter as
+cadets at a very tender age, undergo a common training,
+and be specialised for any Branch at option or at
+Admiralty discretion later on.</p>
+
+<p>Whatever may be said against the New Scheme, it
+was magnificent on paper. Engineer officers had first
+come into the Navy as mechanics to work an auxiliary
+motive-power in which no “seamen” had much faith.
+From that humble beginning the status of their Branch
+grew and grew, till both motive-power and the existence
+of nearly everything on ship-board depended on the
+engineers. At the same time the official status of the
+Branch remained practically in the same stage as it did
+when the first few “greasers” were entered. The deck-officer
+was (nominally, at any rate) drawn from the
+aristocracy; the engineer officer from the democracy in
+a great measure. In so far as this obtained, “social
+war” was added to the real issue. It was obvious that
+this state of affairs was detrimental to naval efficiency.
+Something had to be done.</p>
+
+<p>Admiral Fisher cut the Gordian knot in his own
+fashion. In substance his Scheme provided that future
+engineer officers were to be drawn from the same class
+as deck-officers—to gild the pill, marine officers were
+flung into the same melting pot. He might have done<span class="pagenum" id="Page_248">248</span>
+better: but far more conceivably harm might have been
+perpetrated.</p>
+
+<p>As an argument behind him, he had Drake and
+Elizabethan conditions, the history of the days when
+every man was made to “sail his ship and fight it too.”
+The U.S. Navy had already plunged on a somewhat
+similar experiment. When the Russo-Japanese War
+came, the Japanese, in the middle of a life-and-death
+fight, suddenly granted executive rank to their engineer
+officers—<i>i.e.</i>, that right to control and punish their own
+men which British marine officers have always had.</p>
+
+<p>The Scheme met its first rock in the Marines. For
+three hundred years or thereabouts the “Sea Regiment”
+has been afloat as a thing apart. The “leather-necks”—as
+the sailors call them—have built up their own
+traditions. They have ever remained a force apart from
+both Army and Navy, belonging to both and yet to
+neither. The record of the Marines is such that when,
+recently, it was proposed that they should have a
+regimental colour with their battles emblazoned on it,
+the idea had to be abandoned because there was not
+room on the flag for their services!</p>
+
+<p>Any attempt to interfere with the continuity of
+such a corps was fore-doomed to failure from the first.
+The Marines resisted being turned into sailors just as
+they would have resisted being turned into soldiers.
+They stood out uncompromisingly for being “the Sea
+Regiment.” The expected happened. By 1911 this
+part of the New Scheme was practically shelved, and
+the most unique body of men in the world was left to
+carry out its own traditions.</p>
+
+<figure id="i_249" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 23em;">
+  <img src="images/i_249.jpg" width="1432" height="2694" alt="">
+  <figcaption class="caption">
+    <p class="left"><i>Photo</i>]</p>
+    <p class="right up1">[<i>Russell &amp; Sons, Southsea.</i></p>
+    <p>ADMIRAL SIR JOHN JELLICOE.</p>
+  </figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+<p>In the matter of future engineers, snags were struck
+likewise, but here a more or less unreasoning conservatism<span class="pagenum" id="Page_251">251</span>
+on the part of parents played its full part. The average
+parent objected to his son becoming an engineer specialist
+over old-time reasons. A further and weightier objection
+was, and continues to be, raised by engineering experts,
+who argue that engineering is a life profession, not to
+be picked up efficiently by casual specialization.</p>
+
+<p>The matter is still under discussion, and its verification
+or otherwise rests with the future. As to the first
+point, a serious effort to overcome it was made early in
+1912 by the promulgation of an order that New Scheme
+officers, specialised for engineering, would be eligible for
+the command of submarines equally with deck-officers.</p>
+
+<p>The importance of this particular point is great;
+for by the end of 1911 it was generally believed that
+the motor warship would at some more or less early date
+in the future replace the steam-driven one; and so the
+“sail-his-ship-and-fight-it-too” theory found a new
+interpretation.</p>
+
+<p>As regards the rank and file of the Navy, the
+difference of a hundred years has been so great and so
+commented on that to-day we perhaps tend to make it,
+seem far greater than it really is. It is to be doubted
+whether the “prime seaman” has altered to anything
+like the extent imagined. We are all too prone to forget
+that in the days of the Great French Wars <i>all</i> the crews
+were not jail-birds, pressed-men, and riff-raff. The
+leaven of the mass were the “prime seamen,” who, in
+their own way, were as well trained for the naval service
+as are the bluejackets of to-day.</p>
+
+<p>Since then the “prime seamen” have had many
+vicissitudes. So long ago as the time of the Crimean War
+men of ten years’ continuous service were in existence,
+but whatever the “paper” value of this force may have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_252">252</span>
+been, the extracts given in Chapter <span class="allsmcap">VIII</span>, Vol. I, make it
+abundantly clear that the “prime seaman” was in practice
+very scarce. It is long since then that the long service
+system was built up.</p>
+
+<p>Under this every bluejacket was a “prime seaman”
+either in <i>posse</i> or in <i>esse</i>. He was entered for a period of
+ten years, with option to re-engage for a further ten
+years at slightly increased pay and a pension on retirement.
+At a later and comparatively recent stage this
+total of twenty years got increased to twenty-two years.
+The prospects were improved to the extent that the best
+men of the Lower Deck upon reaching Warrant Rank
+were able, towards the close of their careers, to reach
+the rank of lieutenant on the Active List. In a word,
+the idea of a Navy consisting entirely of “prime seamen”
+was more or less actually reached.</p>
+
+<p>This system had, however, one drawback. It was,
+relatively speaking, very expensive. When the Fisher
+revolution took place Economy was very much the
+motto of the day. It was pointed out that outside the
+Royal Naval Reserve, consisting of merchant seamen,
+no effective reserve existed. It was further pointed out
+that on board a modern battleship there were many
+duties which could just as well be performed by partially
+trained or even untrained men as by skilled men.</p>
+
+<p>Out of these two points (according to some critics),
+by using the first as a cloak for the economy of the
+second, a certain retrograde movement was established
+in the institution of the Short Service System. Under
+this the old time “landsman” was revived under another
+name. Under the Short Service System a man could
+enter the Navy for five years, receiving ordinary pay
+for ordinary duties, but without prospects of promotion<span class="pagenum" id="Page_253">253</span>
+or pension, except in so far as he might afterwards be
+utilised for reserve purposes.</p>
+
+<p>How far this scheme made for efficiency is a moot
+point, but it certainly led to economy. As certainly it
+was bitterly resented by the men of the Navy. The
+views of the officers on the subject of “ticklers”—as
+Short Service men were termed afloat—were less decided.
+Some considered the scheme an abomination; others
+thought it very satisfactory.</p>
+
+<p>With so conservative an institution as the British
+Navy, it is yet too early to give a definite decision one
+way or the other on the subject. But it is worth noting
+that no one seems to have remarked on the fact that it
+was a tentative return, under modern and peace
+conditions, to what obtained in the days of the Great
+French Wars, and then at least satisfactorily answered
+requirements.</p>
+
+<p>No one really knew, and no one could do more than
+surmise, what would be required for manning the Fleet
+in the next great war in which the British Navy was
+engaged. It was generally assumed that in the present
+century the re-institution of the press-gang would be
+quite impossible owing to public opinion.</p>
+
+<p>Public opinion, however, is a variable quantity, and
+with a Navy in desperate plight for men there is no
+saying definitely what might or might not happen, either
+publicly or <i>sub rosa</i>. It was generally agreed on all hands
+that, large as the trained <i>personnel</i> of the British Navy
+is, it might prove totally inadequate in a big naval
+war. In such case extra men would have to be found—sentiment
+or no sentiment. The Short Service System,
+despite all its drawbacks, has so far proved a loophole to
+avoid the horrors of the press-gang of the old days; and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_254">254</span>
+much which on the face of it was at the time obviously
+unsatisfactory may in the future prove to have been
+foresight of an unexpectedly high order.</p>
+
+<p>It only remains to add that nothing of this sort has
+ever been advanced in extenuation by advocates of
+Short Service, who have confined themselves entirely to
+the obvious point of economy and the more or less
+debatable point of an efficient reserve.</p>
+
+<p>To-day, of course, the crews do not find their ships
+a prison; but it is a moot question whether they are
+relatively much better off than in Nelson’s day. A
+great deal of leaven is given—far more, indeed, than is
+represented by philanthropic agitators—but it is mainly
+of the nature of “short leave.” This—in these days of
+travel—means very little relatively, since it rarely allows
+of a trip home. For good or ill, the bluejacket of to-day
+is a “home-bird”; consequently, what a hundred years
+ago would have represented “ample liberty,” to-day
+appears much on all fours with the old time confinement
+to the ship. Modern facilities for travel have swallowed
+up most of the difference! This is among the matters
+not understood by the Powers That Be. The perspective
+has changed; and Service Conditions have not yet been
+fully accommodated to the alteration.</p>
+
+<p>Food remains a source of naval grievance to-day
+almost as much as in the days of the Great Mutiny.
+That it does so is mostly an inherited tradition of the
+past; for both quality and quantity are now excellent.
+An impression prevails, however, that were messing
+provided by the Admiralty on non-profit lines instead
+of by contract, “extras” would either be cheaper, or
+that what are now “canteen profits” on them would
+be more available than they are at present. There is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_255">255</span>
+little reason to believe that this is so. Like the purser
+of a hundred years ago, the modern contractor probably
+does not make a tenth of the profit that he is legendarily
+supposed to make, nor is there any clear proof that
+things could be materially bettered, except in details
+which have little or nothing to do with the main point.</p>
+
+<p>When all is said and done, the bluejacket of the
+Twentieth Century has always been fed as well or better
+than his brother in civilian life, and his growls upon the
+subject of messing do not demand any very serious
+attention. Just as the Great Mutiny of 1797 brought
+about an attention to details of uniform, regulations and
+things of that sort which have ever since endured, so it
+perpetuated a corresponding impression that an official
+eye must ever be directed to keeping messing more or
+less up to the mark. And that eye has never slumbered.</p>
+
+<p>In Chapter <span class="allsmcap">VIII</span>, Vol. I, a page is devoted to surgery
+in the Great War Era. Here, as in some other matters,
+progress may be more real than imaginary. Now, as
+then, the Navy offers little in the way of lucrative
+inducements to a good surgeon. In one sense it offers
+less than it did; for, though exceptions can be found,
+the general naval conception of the doctor is still the
+old-fashioned notion of someone to cure the sick man
+rather than the more modern idea of preventing the man
+from becoming sick.</p>
+
+<p>The problem, it must, however, be admitted, is a
+difficult one in many ways. In peace conditions the
+medical staff is rather too large than too small; for all
+that, for modern war conditions it is probably hopelessly
+inadequate.</p>
+
+<p>It is more or less accepted that in modern battle
+the wounded must lie where they fall. Theoretically, at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_256">256</span>
+any rate, this is mitigated by certain instructions in
+First Aid, and the furnishing of hypodermic syringes to
+one member of each gun’s crew for use on the badly
+wounded. The days when lint was forbidden as a
+useless extravagance, and sponges were restricted for the
+sake of economy, have indeed gone, just as surely as
+has the old-time surgeon who, unable to afford his own
+instruments, had to borrow from the carpenter an
+ordinary saw to amputate a limb! But—relatively to
+shore-practice of equal date—the naval medical service
+is not much less hampered than it was a hundred odd
+years ago; and a really big naval action is likely enough
+to see as much superfluous agony (relatively speaking)
+as in the old days!</p>
+
+<p>The true position of the surgeon in a warship is not
+recognised; the official duties of a doctor are officially
+purely “curative,” very rarely “preventive.” Some
+or most of this is due to the prevalence of old-fashioned
+obsolete ideas in high quarters; but some also is to be
+laid at the door of the “Churches,” and their fancy for
+differentiating between diseases. The matter is not one
+that admits of further discussion here; but the enforcement
+upon naval surgeons (who have to deal with large
+bodies of men crowded into spaces necessarily favourable
+for contagion) of conditions which, rightly or wrongly,
+are deemed to be for the public’s ultimate welfare on
+shore, are a terrible menace to naval efficiency. Things
+are indeed bettering in this respect, but still somewhat
+slowly.</p>
+
+<p>After the Great Mutiny of 1797 the pay of the men
+was approximately trebled. Although “extras” have
+since been added, the normal pay has remained to all
+intents and purposes stationary, while if qualifications<span class="pagenum" id="Page_257">257</span>
+be taken into account it has actually decreased, since
+the “ordinary” of to-day is called on to do just about
+what the “able seamen” of a hundred odd years had
+to do.</p>
+
+<p>The respective rates<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">45</a> <span class="locked">are:—</span></p>
+
+<table id="t257" class="tbdr">
+<tr class="thead">
+  <td class="tdc"></td>
+  <td class="tdc">1797 per week.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">1914 per week (minimum).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Ordinary seamen</td>
+  <td class="tdc">6/6</td>
+  <td class="tdc fs1">8/9</td>
+</tr>
+<tr class="tlast">
+  <td class="tdl">Able seamen</td>
+  <td class="tdc">8/4</td>
+  <td class="tdc">11/8</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Since the cost of living has certainly gone up at
+least twenty per cent. in the interim, and since the
+normal increase is undoubtedly under that, a <i>prima facie</i>
+case is certainly made out for those who contend that
+the British sailor is, if anything, worse paid than he was
+a hundred years ago.</p>
+
+<p>The board and lodging which he obtains of course
+adds to the actual total; but the fact remains that the
+board and lodging labourer of to-day, who takes no risks
+of his life, is now as much ahead of the sailor as he was
+behind him in 1797. And “uniform” means a heavy
+extra expense for clothing.</p>
+
+<p>In 1912 the men of the Navy definitely asked for a
+twenty per cent. increase of pay. It amounted to nothing
+but an adjustment of 1797 conditions to modern ones.
+They did not obtain it—unasked for off-chances of
+“Democracy on the Quarter Deck” were given instead.
+Later on a 3d. a day concession was made to able seamen
+after the completion of six years’ more service.</p>
+
+<p>There at the moment the question remains. It has
+to a certain extent been obscured by question of naval
+punishments; about which a good deal of nonsense has<span class="pagenum" id="Page_258">258</span>
+been written by people who in some cases should know
+better.</p>
+
+<p>Naval punishments are severe; but discipline
+necessitates punishments, and these have been regularly
+toned down to the spirit of the age. The real and
+genuine grievances of to-day are almost identical with
+the genuine grievances of which the “prime seamen”
+complained in 1797:—pay, leave, and the treatment of
+men who happen to come into the hands of the ship’s
+medical staff through no fault of their own.</p>
+
+<p>In 1912 a Commission was enquiring into punishments,
+and further reductions in them to suit modern
+ideas resulted; but it is by no means certain that any
+advantage in efficiency will be acquired therefrom.
+Naval Discipline—no matter how harsh—is a tricky
+thing to tamper with. The highest possible ideal of
+Discipline was reached by the Japanese, who, previous
+to the war with Russia, ran their Navy on “the honour
+of the flag” lines; and presumably had some similar
+system in the Army. In what is certainly the most
+patriotic land of our era this succeeded in peace time.
+Yet in the attacks on Port Arthur, when a great assault
+was made, when the time came to cease bombarding the
+hostile position, the guns were turned on the possible
+line of retreat, ensuring that for a man to retire was
+more dangerous to him than to go forward. In the case
+of the Japanese it was perhaps an unnecessary precaution,
+but it was borrowed from old-time precautionary usage
+in Europe.</p>
+
+<p>Every system of discipline is based on the fact that
+either sooner or later there will be some man who will
+be frightened enough to turn tail, and lead others to
+follow his example, unless there is something still worse<span class="pagenum" id="Page_259">259</span>
+to stop him. On this foundation stone the most
+seemingly trivial items of discipline are based.</p>
+
+<p>No normal man, <i>when it comes to the point</i>, cares to
+risk his life or limbs. Here and there an individual of
+the “don’t care” order is to be found; but generally
+speaking he is an anomaly. In the ordinary way the
+safest assumption is that he will think more of his skin
+than anything else—and on this theory all systems of
+discipline are founded. All rely on the ultimate fact
+that “it is worse to go back than to go forward.” The
+curse of the present age is the semi-educated humanitarian
+who criticises the <i>means</i> (often crude enough)
+without taking the <i>end</i> into proper account. At the
+other extreme are those who, though familiar with the
+story of the Russian sentry regularly placed to protect
+a favourite flower which had died two hundred years
+before, understand that there is a <i>reason</i> for everything,
+but fail to realise fully that conditions change.</p>
+
+<p>Many works have been written on the tactical and
+strategical superiority of those who have led British
+Fleets to victory; but in the great majority of cases
+there is little to show that the majority of our admirals
+were really more clever than many of their opponents.
+He would be a bold man who set out to prove in black
+and white that Collingwood had more brain than
+Villeneuve, or would have done better than that unlucky
+admiral had they changed places with each other. Nor
+would he have much more luck in attempting to prove
+that at any era in history British sailors were really
+braver than French ones.</p>
+
+<p>In one critical period of English history Drake
+appeared—and the most lasting sign of “how he did it”
+was “spit and polish”! In another dark time came<span class="pagenum" id="Page_260">260</span>
+St. Vincent—and his sign manual was “tailoring” and
+“routine.” In yet another critical hour came Nelson
+who supplied enthusiasm by his care for the health of
+his men. But it was Nelson who went out of his way to
+congratulate St. Vincent on hanging mutineers out of
+hand on a Sunday instead of keeping them till the
+Monday! These three great men knew what they relied
+upon.</p>
+
+<p>The real secret of British naval success has surely
+lain in the possession of naval architects able to create
+the kind of ship best calculated to stand hammering,
+and hard-hearted folk in authority who created a
+discipline which, however unreasonable some of it may
+now seem, has ever ensured victory.</p>
+
+<p>Superior British courage then, as now, was a
+pleasing topic for the music hall or its equivalent; but
+the real driving power of the British battle fleet in the
+past was “discipline.” Those who to-day would amend
+or alter even the most seemingly ridiculous anomalies of
+discipline will do well to ponder and walk warily, lest
+they upset greater things than they wot of—lest they
+damage the keystone embodied in the crude words of
+that unknown stoker who said: “It’s just this—do your
+blanky job.”</p>
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_261">261</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="WARSHIP_NICKNAMES">WARSHIP NICKNAMES<br>
+
+<span class="subhead">PAST AND PRESENT.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<table id="nicknames">
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Achilles</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">A-chilles, <i>also</i> The Chilly</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Aeolus</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Oily</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Anson</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Handsome</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Agamemnon</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Aggie, <i>also</i> Mother Weston</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Alexandra</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Alex</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Ajax</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Queen of Hearts</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Andromache</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Andrew Mark</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Apollo</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Pollie</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Ariadne</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Harry Agony, <i>also</i> Hairy Annie</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Bacchante</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Boozer, <i>also</i> Black Shanty</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Belleisle</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Belle-isle</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Bellerophon</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Bellyfull</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Black Prince</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">British Public</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Brilliant</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hair Wash</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Caesar</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Gripes</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Calliope</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Cally-ope</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Cambrian</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Taffy</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Camperdown</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Scamperdown</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Circe</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Sirse</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Collingwood</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Collywobbles</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Colossus</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Costly</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Conqueror</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Corncurer<span class="pagenum" id="Page_262">262</span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Cornwallis</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Colliwobbles</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Cumberland</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Cumbersome</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Curacoa</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Cocoa</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Curlew</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Curly</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Cyclops</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Sickly</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Daphne</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Duffer</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Devastation</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Devy</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Diana</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Die Anyhow</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Dido</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Diddler</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Donegal</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Don’t Again</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Duke of Wellington</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">The Dook</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Dreadnought</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Fearnought</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Endymion</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Andy Man</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Fantome</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Ghost</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Galatea</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Gal to Tea</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Gibraltar</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Gib</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Glory</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Ruddigore</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Gorgon</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Guzzler</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Grasshopper</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Grass Bug</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hannibal</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Annie Bell</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hawke</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Awkward</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hecate</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Tom Cat</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hercules</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Her-cules</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hermione</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hermy-one</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Highflyer</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Aeroplane</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hindustan</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Dusty One</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Hogue</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Road Hog</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Howe</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Anyhow</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Illustrious</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Lusty</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Immortalité</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Immortal Light, <i>also</i> Immorality</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Imperieuse</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Impy</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Indefatigable</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Antipon<span class="pagenum" id="Page_263">263</span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Iphigenia</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Silly Jane</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Isis</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Icy</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Jupiter</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jupes</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>King Alfred</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Alfie</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>King Edward</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Neddie, <i>also</i> King Ned</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Lancaster</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Lanky</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Leda</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Bleeder</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Lion</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Liar, <i>also</i> Lie On</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Magnificent</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Maggie</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Melpomene</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Melpo-mean</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Montagu</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Montie</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Narcissus</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Nasty Sister</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Niger</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Nigger</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Nile</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Jew</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Northampton</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Northo’, <i>also</i> Bradlaugh</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Northumberland</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Northo’</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Onyx</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Only One</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Pandora</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Paddler</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Penelope</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Penny Lope</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Perseus</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Percy</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Philomel</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Filly</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Polyphemus</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Polly</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Prince George</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">P.G.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Psyche</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Sue, <i>or</i> Sukey, <i>also</i> Sickly</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Queen Elizabeth</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Black Bess, <i>also</i> Bessie, <i>also</i> Lizzie</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Ramillies</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Mutton Chop</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Rattlesnake</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Ratto</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Repulse</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Beecham</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Resolution</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Reso</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Royal Sovereign</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Royal Quid</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Salamander</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Sally and her Ma</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Sanspareil</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">San Pan<span class="pagenum" id="Page_264">264</span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Scylla</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Silly</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Seagull</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Gull</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Sheldrake</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Shell Out</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>St. Vincent</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Saint</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Sutlej</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Suble J.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Tartar</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Emetic</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Téméraire</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Temmy</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Terrible</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Orrible</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Undaunted</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Dauntless</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Yarmouth</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">Lunatic</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Warspite</i></td>
+  <td class="tdl">War Spider</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><i>Note.</i>—From time to time Nicknames vary, as occasionally
+they are bestowed by other ships. This list is not quite complete
+on that account.</p>
+
+<div class="chapter footnotes">
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="FOOTNOTES">FOOTNOTES</h2>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">1</a> Most of the criticism past and present of the Barnaby era is rendered
+worthless by an ignoring of this report.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">2</a> This is instanced by the increasing ahead fire given to the broadside
+ironclads.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">3</a> <i>Our Ironclad Ships.</i></p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">4</a> In this connection see <i>Imperieuse</i> and <i>Warspite</i> later on.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">5</a> <i>Naval Developments of the Century</i>, by Sir N. Barnaby, pp. 163–164.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">6</a> Re-designed to give extra protection.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">7</a> <i>See</i> Reed Era.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">8</a> In the Chili-Peruvian War—as late as 1879–81—a torpedo fired from the
+<i>Huascar</i> did this.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">9</a> The full report is to be found in Part IV of <i>Brassey’s Naval Annual</i>,
+1888–9.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">10</a> It is worthy of note that these ships were abnormally “over-gunned”
+according to the ideas which were then in official favour, and which, later on,
+came more into favour still. The same applies to the <i>Arethusa</i> class.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">11</a> It is interesting to note that the Laird firm, who built the <i>Rattlesnake</i>,
+which was easily the fastest of her class, made her engines considerably
+heavier than Admiralty specifications. For this they were fined £1,000,
+which sum, however, was remitted after the brilliant success of the ship in the
+manœuvres above referred to.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">12</a> Mr. W.&nbsp;T. Stead, who edited the <i>Pall Matt Gazette</i> at that time, intimated
+some twenty years later that Lord Fisher was behind him in commencing
+the agitation. Lord Charles Beresford, then in political life, brought the
+Bill forward.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">13</a> In 1899 the <i>Blake</i> was re-boilered. The ships remained upon the effective list
+till 1906, when they were converted into sea-going depot ships for destroyers,
+most of their guns being removed. They now carry each 670 tons of coal
+of their own, and 470 tons stowed in one cwt. bags for use by destroyers.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">14</a> This ship very greatly exceeded her nominal displacement of 14,200 tons.
+She was actually 15,400 tons. The essentially White ships were, on the other
+hand, of about their nominal displacement. Of the <i>Hood</i> it may further be
+added that she was greatly inferior to the others as a sea-boat—a serious
+set-off against her superior big gun protection.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">15</a> 4 <i>Astræas</i> = 8—6in., 16—4.7. 5 <i>Apollos</i> = 10—6in., 15—4.7</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">16</a> The <i>Lynch</i> and <i>Condell</i> (launched 1890) sank the Chilian <i>Blanco Encalada</i>
+in 1891; the <i>G. Sampaio</i> (1893) the Brazilian <i>Aquidaban</i> in 1894.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">17</a> In 1894 the <i>Thunderer</i> had her upper works painted in black and white
+chequers, like the old three-deckers of the Nelson era. Ships with the top of
+their upper works yellow were also not uncommon.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">18</a> About 1902–3 four additional casemates for 6-inch guns were added on
+top of the four amidship casemates.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">19</a> The large tube Yarrow, now so general, did not appear till at a later date.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">20</a> Comparatively recently a ship—best left unnamed—made wonderful
+speed. With a new Engineer Commander she suddenly lost 25 per cent.
+of her horse-power. The newcomer was rather inexperienced in the type,
+and closely followed Admiralty regulations. Presently the ship recovered
+her power—he had given up following the book! It is only fair to say
+that the restrictive regulations of the Admiralty were mostly forced upon
+them by people ashore, who probably had not even a nodding acquaintance
+with the engine-room of a warship, or warship requirements.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">21</a> This idea was borrowed from the Continent. Germany had long
+adopted batteries, and nearly every other nation had followed suit.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">22</a> Also under Naval Defence Act an additional sum of £10,000,000, spread
+over seven years.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">23</a> The <i>Nelsons</i> were delayed in completion, as the 12-inch guns made
+for them were appropriated for the <i>Dreadnought</i>, in order to ensure rapid
+completion of that ship.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">24</a> To some extent this is probably true of slower firing of larger guns.
+The only warships with single 12-inch—the Italian <i>Victor Emanuele</i> class—have
+generally achieved almost as many hits at target practice as the <i>Brine</i>,
+with two pairs of 12-inch. Improved mountings have since appeared,
+but certain advantages still seem inevitable to the single gun. Its disadvantage
+lies, of course, in much extra weight, and to-day in the space
+question also.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">25</a> Armament recently altered to 9—4 inch.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">26</a> They had a bow tube besides broadside tubes. This bow tube was soon
+done away with and a couple of 6-pounders substituted.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">27</a> The vessels of the <i>Amalfi</i> class designed by Col. Cuniberti in 1899 were
+of 8,000 tons displacement; they were to have been armed with twelve
+203-m/m (8-inch), twelve 76-m/m (12-pounders), and twelve 47-m/m (3-pounders).
+The armour belt was 152-m/m (6-inches) thick, as also was the
+armour of the battery and of the turrets. The engines were to be 19,000
+H.P., and the speed with 15,000 H.P. was to be 22 knots.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">28</a> The <i>Vittorio Emanuele</i> proved a most successful ship, answering all
+expectations of her. One of her chief novelties was the employment of a
+special girder construction, and the scientific reduction of all superfluous
+weights upon a scale never before attempted. Though apparently lightly
+built the ship was found to be abnormally strong.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="label">29</a> The false impression that a British battleship could be built in about a
+third of the time that German ships take to construct had far more to do
+with subsequent shipbuilding reductions than any deliberate ignoring of
+naval needs, such as those responsible were accused of.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="label">30</a> They first appeared, as already recorded, in British cruisers of the
+<i>Minotaur</i> class. Their safety record is to be found in the survival of the
+<i>Pallada</i> at Port Arthur; their inconvenience in the fact that in the <i>Neptune</i>
+they were abandoned.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="label">31</a> These were announced as intended to carry four 12-inch and eight
+10-inch, besides smaller guns. The 10-inch proved later on to be mythical.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="label">32</a> American scientific gunnery rather post-dates the <i>South Carolina</i> design.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="label">33</a> It should be remembered that alterations were made in the <i>Invincible</i>
+class in the course of construction, and this probably helped to swell the cost.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="label">34</a> In the Chinese ships <i>Ting Yuen</i> and <i>Chen Yuen</i>, built in Germany in 1882
+with big guns <i>en échelon</i>, the former had the port big guns foremost, the
+latter the starboard ones—presumably an appreciation of and an attempt
+to overcome the inherent defect of the échelon system—the two ships being
+intended to fight in company, and so have one of the two always in the
+best fighting position were the enemy anywhere on the beam or quarter.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="label">35</a> The torpedo, for example, may possibly bring about something of the
+sort by a state of speed and accuracy which leads to heavy or anticipated
+heavy long-range losses from it in fleet actions. To offer only one-fifth or so
+of the target would then be a serious consideration.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="label">36</a> This is rumoured to have been abandoned for oil fuel.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="label">37</a> Something of the same kind was also observed about 1870 or earlier,
+when a Whitworth gun punched through a 6-inch iron plate!</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="label">38</a> Since these words were written the <i>Lusitania</i> has been torpedoed. I
+see no reason whatever to alter the original thesis.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="label">39</a> Dean Swift in “Gulliver’s Travels” described almost exactly the moons
+of Mars long before their existence was ever suspected.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="label">40</a> Of these, the third in either case was built or put together in Australia.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="label">41</a> Now renamed <i>Zelandia</i>.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="label">42</a> In May, 1912, the <i>New Zealand</i> was definitely handed over to the British
+Navy. The <i>Australia</i> still remains a Commonwealth ship.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="label">43</a> See Vol. I., Chap. III. No less a man than Sir Francis Drake appears
+to have invented “spit and polish.”</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="label">44</a> See Vol. I., page 194.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="label">45</a> The minimum is given in each case.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_265">265</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="Index">Index.</h2>
+
+<div class="index">
+<ul class="index">
+<li class="ifrst">Aboukir, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_152">152</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Abuses, Naval, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Acquitaine, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Admiral Bacon’s Theory, <a class="v2" href="#Page_204">204</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Admiral Hopkins—Earliest Advocate of Centre-Line in England, <a class="v2" href="#Page_179">179</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Aerial Bombs First Provided Against, <a class="v2" href="#Page_173">173</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Aerial Dreadnoughts, <a class="v2" href="#Page_171">171</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Aerial Experiments in Austria, <a class="v2" href="#Page_228">228</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Aerial Guns, <a class="v2" href="#Page_226">226</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Aeroplanes for Naval Purposes, <a class="v2" href="#Page_226">226</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Agreement with the Colonies, Naval, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Aircraft, Possibilities of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_95">95</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Aircraft, Potentialities in, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_228">228</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Alexander, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_162">162</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Alexandria, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Alfred the Great, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_1">1</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_14">14</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Alfred, King, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_60">60</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Algiers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">All-Big-Gun Ship Arguments, <a class="v2" href="#Page_143">143</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Alterations to “Lion,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_185">185</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Alternative “Dreadnought” Ideal, <a class="v2" href="#Page_165">165</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Alva, Duke of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_48">48</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">American Colonies Revolution, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_124">124</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">American Frigates, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_189">189</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Americanising of British Naval Designs, <a class="v2" href="#Page_176">176</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">American Monitors and Conning Towers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">American Monitors, limitations of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_292">292</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">American Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_189">189</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">American War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_189">189</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Amiens, Peace of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Anson, Commodore, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_109">109</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Answer” British, to frégates blindées, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_249">249</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Antigua, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Antwerp, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Appreciation of Barnaby, <a class="v2" href="#Page_49">49</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Arch Duke Charles, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_98">98</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Archers, English, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_27">27</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armada, Defeat of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_57">57</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armada, Delayed, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_48">48</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armada, Force of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_49">49</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_266">266</span>Armada, Indifferent Gunnery of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_50">50</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armada, Real History of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_57">57</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armament, Ratio of Size, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_95">95</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armed Neutrality, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armour, <a class="v2" href="#Page_204">204</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armoured Cruisers Re-appear, <a class="v2" href="#Page_101">101</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armour Experiments at Woolwich, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armoured Forecastles, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_284">284</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armoured Scouts, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armstrong and Percussion Shell, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_227">227</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Army of Invasion,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_170">170</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Articles of War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Artificial Ventilation, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Armstrong, Guns of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_241">241</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Artillery, Superior, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_229">229</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Assize of Arms, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Athelston, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Australia, Navy of, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Auxiliary Navies, <a class="v2" href="#Page_231">231</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Battle of Trafalgar, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Belle Island Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_122">122</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Berwick Captured by French (1795), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_138">138</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Blockade, Scientific, First Instituted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_120">120</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Blockade Work, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_165">165</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bomb Dropping, <a class="v2" href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_228">228</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bombs from Airships, <a class="v2" href="#Page_228">228</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bomb Vessels Introduced, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_87">87</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bonaparte (see <a href="#Napoleon">Napoleon</a>), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_230">230</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bordelais Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_158">158</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Boscawen, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_120">120</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Boswell, Invention of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bounty, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_200">200</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bounty, Given by Henry VII, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_36">36</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bounty to Seamen, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bourbon, Isle of, Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Box-Battery Ironclads, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_318">318</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Brading, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Breaking the Line, First Attempt at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Breaking the Line by Rodney, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Breastwork Monitors, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_292">292</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_307">307</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Breech Blocks, Elementary, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_320">320</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Breechloaders, Armstrongs, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_320">320</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Brest, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_157">157</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Brest, Cornwallis off, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bridport, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_139">139</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Brig Sloop of 18 Guns, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_178">178</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British Battle Fleet, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British Defects in the Crimean War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British Empire, an English-Speaking Confederation, <a class="v2" href="#Page_241">241</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British Flag, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British and French Ideals, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_249">249</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British v. French Ships Discussed in Parliament, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British Guns, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British Merchant Ships Trade with Russia During War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_186">186</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British Methods of Warfare, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British Navy, Birth of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British Squadron, Defeat of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_186">186</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">British Tactics, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_267">267</span>Broadside Ironclads, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Broke, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_189">189</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Brown, Samuel, Invents a Propeller (1825), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_216">216</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bruat, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Brueys, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_152">152</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bruix, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Buckingham, Duke of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bullivant Torpedo Defence, <a class="v2" href="#Page_53">53</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Burchett, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_92">92</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Burgoyne, Alan H., <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Burgoyne, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_288">288</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Bushnell, David, and his Submarine, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_124">124</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Busk, Hans, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Busses, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Byng, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_99">99</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Byng, Shot, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_116">116</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Cadiz, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cadiz, Collingwood off, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_175">175</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Calais, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_27">27</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Colder, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Calcutta, Recapture of (1757), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_119">119</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Calypso, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Campaign of Trafalgar (Corbett), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_170">170</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Camperdown, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_150">150</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Canada Acquired by England, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_123">123</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Canadian Dockyards, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Canadian Navy, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cannon, Early, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cannon, First use of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Canute, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cape St. Vincent, Battle of (1759), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Capital Ship” Adjusts Itself, <a class="v2" href="#Page_218">218</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Capital Ship, Galley Replaced by Galleon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_27">27</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cape La Hogue, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_90">90</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Capraja, “Queen Charlotte” blown up off (1880), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_160">160</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Captain,” Nelson in, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_142">142</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Carronades, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Carronades, Part of Armament, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cartagena, Vernon Fails at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_109">109</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Catapults, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_15">15</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Catherine the Great, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cayenne Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_184">184</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cellular Construction, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_267">267</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Central Africa, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Central Battery Ironclads, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_292">292</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Centre-line, System, <a class="v2" href="#Page_179">179</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cerberus, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cette, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Chads, Captain and Gunnery Experiments, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_220">220</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Chads, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_223">223</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Chagres Bombarded, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_109">109</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Channel Policed, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Channel Protected by Merchants, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Chappel, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_215">215</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Charles I, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Charles II, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_81">81</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Charles, Prince, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Charring, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Charter of Ethelred, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Chartres, Duke of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_126">126</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Chateau, Renault, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_96">96</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Chatham, Earl of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Christian VII, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cinque Ports, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_22">22</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cinque Ports Established, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_268">268</span>Civil War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Claxton, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_215">215</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Clive, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_119">119</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Clothing, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Clydebank, <a class="v2" href="#Page_188">188</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Coal, Larger Store of, Affects</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Construction, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Coal Stores, <a class="v2" href="#Page_185">185</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Coastals,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_199">199</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Coastal Destroyers,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_199">199</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Coast Defence Ironclads, <a class="v2" href="#Page_199">199</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Coat of Mail Idea, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_249">249</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cockpit, Horrors of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_204">204</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cochrane, Lord, and Fire Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cochrane Opposes Vote of Thanks to Lord Gambier, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Code of Naval Discipline, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Colonials and Local Defence, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Colour Experiments, <a class="v2" href="#Page_89">89</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Command of the Sea (First Appearance of), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Commerce Defence, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Commission, Report of (1806), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_187">187</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Compass, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Coles, Captain Cowper, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Coles, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_280">280</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Coles, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_275">275</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Coles, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_284">284</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Collingwood Incompetent, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_202">202</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Collingwood, Resignation of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_148">148</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Colomb, Admiral, Quoted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_53">53</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Communication Tube, First for</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Conning Tower, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_318">318</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Conflict Between Steam and Gas Engines, <a class="v2" href="#Page_201">201</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Congreve Rocket, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_236">236</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Conning Towers in American Monitors, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Constantinople Bombarded, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_179">179</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Continuous Service, <a class="v2" href="#Page_251">251</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Contractors, Unscrupulous, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Contemporary Art, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_195">195</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Contraband of War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Contract-Built Ships First Advocated, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_280">280</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Controller of the Navy and Constructor, Disputes Between, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Converted Ironclads, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Convoys, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_92">92</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cook, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_115">115</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Copper Bottoms, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_123">123</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Copper Bottoms, Rapid Deterioration of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Copenhagen, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cornwall, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_108">108</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cornwallis off Brest, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cornwallis, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_139">139</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Corsairs, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_91">91</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_102">102</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cost per Gun for Sailing Man-of-War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_238">238</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cost per Gun for Steamers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_238">238</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cotton, Sir Charles, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_184">184</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Crimean War, British Defects in, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Crimean War, the British Navy in: Little Better than a Paper Force, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_228">228</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cromwell, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cronstadt, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_226">226</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cross Raiding, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cruisers of the Super-Dreadnought Era, <a class="v2" href="#Page_188">188</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Crusaders, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Conditional” Ships, <a class="v2" href="#Page_174">174</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_269">269</span>Cost of Oak, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cost per Gun for Early Ironclads, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_238">238</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cumberland, Inventor of Stoving, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cuniberti, <a class="v2" href="#Page_179">179</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cuniberti’s Conception of All Big-Gun ships, <a class="v2" href="#Page_139">139</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Curtis, Captain of the Fleet, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_136">136</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Curtiss Aeroplane, <a class="v2" href="#Page_226">226</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Curtiss Turbines, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Cutting Out Expeditions Instituted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Daedalus, <a class="v2" href="#Page_221">221</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Dandy” Captains, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_195">195</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Dandy” Sailors, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_195">195</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Danes, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_1">1</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Danish Fleet Surrendered, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_162">162</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Danish Ships Hired, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Darien, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_108">108</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dawkins, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_299">299</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dean, Sir Anthony, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_94">94</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dean, Sir John, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_94">94</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Decline of the Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_43">43</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">De Conflans, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Defects of the échelon System, <a class="v2" href="#Page_179">179</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Defects of the “Royal Sovereigns,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_69">69</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">De la Clue, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_120">120</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Delegates of Mutineers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_147">147</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Democracy on the Quarter Deck,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_257">257</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">De Pontis, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_102">102</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">De Witt, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_79">79</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Deptford Yard, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">De Ruyter, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_85">85</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">D’Estaing, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_126">126</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">D’Estrees, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_85">85</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Descharges, Inventor of Portholes, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Destroyer Attack Bound to Succeed, <a class="v2" href="#Page_195">195</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Destroyers in the Dreadnought Era, <a class="v2" href="#Page_199">199</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">De Tourville, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_90">90</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Devastation idea evolved, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Devonport Yard, <a class="v2" href="#Page_191">191</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dibden (ref.), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Diesel Engine, <a class="v2" href="#Page_201">201</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dirigibles, <a class="v2" href="#Page_222">222</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Discipline, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_20">20</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_258">258</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Discipline, Jervis Idea of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Discipline, Lack of, in time of Charles I, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_66">66</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Disputes Between the Controller of the Navy and Constructor, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Doctors, Naval, <a class="v2" href="#Page_256">256</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dominion of Canada, <a class="v2" href="#Page_234">234</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">D’Orvilliers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_125">125</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Double Bottoms, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_267">267</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dover, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Downs, Battle in (1639), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_76">76</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Drake, Character of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_48">48</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Drake, Sir Francis, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_47">47</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Drake, Methods of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_48">48</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_259">259</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dreadnought (analogy), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dreadnought, first idea of, <a class="v2" href="#Page_164">164</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dromons, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dropping Bombs, <a class="v2" href="#Page_226">226</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dry Dock, First, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dubourdieu, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_186">186</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_270">270</span>Du Casse, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_97">97</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ducas, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Duchess of Bedford and Uniform, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_194">194</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ducking, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Duckworth, Sir John, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_179">179</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Duguay-Trouin, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_92">92</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dumanoir, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Duncan, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_147">147</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dundonald, Earl of (Cochrane), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_216">216</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dutch Fleet Captured by Anglo-Russian Force, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_159">159</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dutch War, First, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dutch War, Second, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_81">81</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Dutch War, Third, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_83">83</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Eagle attacked by Submarine, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_124">124</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Earliest Advocate of the centre-line in England, Admiral Hopkins, <a class="v2" href="#Page_179">179</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Early Aerial Ideas, <a class="v2" href="#Page_218">218</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Early Wire Guns, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_247">247</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Economists Limit Lint and Sponges, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_207">207</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Economists on Shore, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Economy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_36">36</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Economy in Construction, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_97">97</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Edgar, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Edmund, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Edward I, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_22">22</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Edward II, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_23">23</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Edward III, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_23">23</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Edward IV, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Edward the Confessor, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Effects of Shell Fire, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Egyptian Government, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Electro, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Elementary Quickfirers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_243">243</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Elizabeth, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Elizabeth, First Acts of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_44">44</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Elizabethan Fleet, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Elphinstone, Captain in Russian Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Elswick, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_227">227</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">End-on Fire, <a class="v2" href="#Page_176">176</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">End-on Idea, <a class="v2" href="#Page_179">179</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">End of the White Era, <a class="v2" href="#Page_116">116</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Engineer Agitation, <a class="v2" href="#Page_247">247</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Engines of “Glatton” built in Royal Dockyard, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_311">311</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">England, Austria, and Sweden at war, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Equal Efficiency,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_215">215</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ericsson, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ericsson Patents Propeller (1836), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_216">216</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Espagnols-sur-Mer, Les, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ethelred’s Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Excellence of the “Warrior” Class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_121">121</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Experiments, Gunnery, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Experiments to Improve Sailing Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_211">211</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Explosion” Vessels, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_182">182</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Eustace the Monk, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_21">21</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Feeding of Men During Great War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_200">200</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ferrol, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_96">96</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Fight—Shannon (British) v. Chesapeake (U.S.), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_189">189</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Finisterre, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Finisterre, Rodney off, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_127">127</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Fire, Raking, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_211">211</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Fire Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_54">54</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_84">84</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_182">182</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Fire Ships, Decline of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_131">131</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Fireworks, Use of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">First English Over-Sea Voyage, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">First of June, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_271">271</span>First Ship of Royal Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Fisher, Admiral Lord, <a class="v2" href="#Page_247">247</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Flag, Neutral, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Fleet Decoyed Away, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Fleet Saved by a Military Officer, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Fleet of Richard I, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Floating Batteries, First Use of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_130">130</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Florida Acquired by England, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_123">123</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Flotilla, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Flotilla Invasion, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_166">166</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Flushing Blockaded, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Food, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_254">254</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Forecastle, Armoured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_284">284</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Forecastles on Turret Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_284">284</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Fort, S. Phillip, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_116">116</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Frames, Trussed, Introduced, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_210">210</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">France, Why Beaten in Great War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">France, War with, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_113">113</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Frégates Blindées, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_247">247</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_250">250</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">French Fleet in Crimean War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_230">230</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">French and British Ideals, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_253">253</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">French Warships, Superb Qualities of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_92">92</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">French Fleet Superior to British, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_193">193</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">French Floating Batteries, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">French Revolution, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Freya, Danish Frigate, Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_159">159</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Frisians, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Fulton” Driven by steam Paddle, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_193">193</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Future Fights, <a class="v2" href="#Page_215">215</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">“Galatea” Fitted with Paddles, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_213">213</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Galleon as Dreadnought of the 14th Century, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_27">27</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Galley, Replaced as Capital Ship, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_27">27</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gambier, Admiral, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_179">179</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gambier, Lack of Energy of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_182">182</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gambier, Lord, Acquitted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gambier, Lord, Vote of Thanks to Opposed by Cochrane, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gambling, Punishment for, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ganteaume, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ganteaume, Admiral Escapes from Rochefort, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_181">181</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Garay, Inventor of Steamship, (1543), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_214">214</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Genereux Captured by Nelson, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_160">160</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Genius of Famous Admirals, <a class="v2" href="#Page_216">216</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Genoa, Hotham’s Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_138">138</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gentlemen Adventurers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_45">45</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">George I, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_104">104</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">George II, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">George II and Institution of Uniform, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_194">194</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">German Seamen, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Germans Agitate for British Naval Efficiency, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Germany, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Germany (analogy), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Germany, Guns from, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_43">43</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_272">272</span>Gibraltar, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_130">130</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gibraltar, Nelson at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Glasgow, “Black Prince,” Built at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_250">250</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Globe Circumnavigated by Drake, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_45">45</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Godwin, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_9">9</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Good Hope, Cape Dutch Squadron Captured at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Graham, Sir James, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_236">236</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Grasse, De, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Greek Fire, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_15">15</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_243">243</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guadaloup Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_137">137</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guarda-Costas, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_108">108</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guerre de Course, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_102">102</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guichen, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guillaume Tell Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gunners, Training of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_241">241</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gunnery, Enemy’s Inefficiency of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_176">176</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gunnery Errors, <a class="v2" href="#Page_179">179</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Gunnery Experiments, <a class="v2" href="#Page_231">231</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guns Against Aircraft, <a class="v2" href="#Page_226">226</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guns, British, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guns in the Reed Era, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_319">319</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guns in Submarine, <a class="v2" href="#Page_212">212</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guns of the Watts Era, <a class="v2" href="#Page_202">202</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guns, Pivot, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guns, Rapid Fire, Development of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_227">227</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Guns, Turkish Monster, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_179">179</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Hales, Dr., Ventilation System of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_115">115</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hamelin, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hampden, John, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hanniken, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_28">28</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hardcastle Torpedo, <a class="v2" href="#Page_204">204</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hardy, Sir Charles, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_127">127</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Harvey-Nickel Armour Introduced, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hawkins, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_46">46</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hawthorn, <a class="v2" href="#Page_188">188</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Heavier than Air,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_221">221</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Heavy Rolling of the “Orion,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_183">183</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Henry II, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Henry III, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_20">20</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Henry IV, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Henry V, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Henry VII, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Henry VIII, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Hermione,” Mutiny in, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_145">145</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hickley, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_299">299</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hire of Danish Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hired Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_28">28</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_36">36</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Holy Land, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hood, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_130">130</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_137">137</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hopkins, Admiral, Ideas of, <a class="v2" href="#Page_134">134</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Horsey, Admiral de, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hoste, Captain William, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_186">186</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hotham, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_138">138</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Howard, Sir Edward, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Howe, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_134">134</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hubert de Burgh, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_20">20</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hurrying Ships, <a class="v2" href="#Page_185">185</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Hyeres, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_138">138</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Icarus, <a class="v2" href="#Page_218">218</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Imperial British Fleet, <a class="v2" href="#Page_241">241</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Imperial Needs, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Impressment, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Increased Gun-Power, <a class="v2" href="#Page_203">203</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Increased Smashing Power of Projectiles, <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Indecisiveness in British Operations, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_137">137</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_273">273</span>Indies, Spanish Wealth from, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_47">47</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Inexperienced Officers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Inflexible” at the Nore Mutiny, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_147">147</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Inman, Dr., <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_187">187</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Inscription, Maritime, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Instructors, Spanish, in English Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_42">42</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Insular Spirit,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_82">82</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Insurance, <a class="v2" href="#Page_206">206</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Internal Armour, <a class="v2" href="#Page_206">206</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Introduction of Steam, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_214">214</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Introduction of 13.5-inch Gun, <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Invasion, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Invasion, Nelson’s Schemes Against, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Invasion of England, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_47">47</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_119">119</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Invasion Projected by French, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_91">91</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ironclads, Converted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ironclads, The First British, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_249">249</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ironclad Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_229">229</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Iron for Shipbuilding Instead of Oak, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Iron-plated Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Iron Ships Condemned (1850), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_223">223</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Iron Steamer Existed in 1821, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Island Empires, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_6">6</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Jacobite Element in the Fleet, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_88">88</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Jacobite Rising, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_105">105</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">James I, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">James II, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_86">86</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">James Watt, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_236">236</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Jarrow, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Java, Isle of, Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_187">187</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Jean Bart, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_92">92</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Jervis, Sir John, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Jews, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_209">209</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">John, King, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_60">60</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Juan, Fernandez, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_110">110</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Julius Cæsar, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_1">1</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Junction of the Fleets, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_98">98</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">“Kamptulicon,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Keel-Hauling, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Keeping the Air,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_227">227</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Keith, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Keppel, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_125">125</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Killala Bay, French Expedition to, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_151">151</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Kinburn Bombarded, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_248">248</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Kipling (ref.), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Kronstadt, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_162">162</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Kronstadt, Anglo-Danish Demonstration at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Krupp Fire, Shell, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_244">244</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">La Gallisonnier, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_116">116</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Labour” and the Navy, <a class="v2" href="#Page_207">207</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lagane, <a class="v2" href="#Page_204">204</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Laird, Messrs., of Birkenhead, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_284">284</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_288">288</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Laird, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_186">186</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lalande de Joinville, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lancaster Guns, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_227">227</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Lancaster,” The, at Camperdown, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_150">150</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Landsmen,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_252">252</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">La Rochelle, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">La Rochelle, Expedition to, in time of Charles I, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_66">66</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Last Word,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_274">274</span>Latouche-Treville, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Laughton, Professor, Quoted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_50">50</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Laughton’s, Professor, Summary, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_176">176</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Laws of Oberon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Leake, Sir John, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_101">101</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Leave, <a class="v2" href="#Page_254">254</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Legends of Floating Rocks, <a class="v2" href="#Page_218">218</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Leissegues, Vice-Admiral, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Louisbourg Invested (1758), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_119">119</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Lighter than Air,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_221">221</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Linois, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Liquid Fire, Norton’s, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_243">243</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lisbon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_102">102</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lissa, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_186">186</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_300">300</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Little Englanders, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lloyd, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Loading, Greater Rapidity in, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">London, Citizens of, Fit out Fleet Against Spain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_48">48</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">London, Dutch Guns heard in, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_83">83</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Longridge, C.&nbsp;
+ E., <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_244">244</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lord Charles Beresford, <a class="v2" href="#Page_195">195</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lord of the Sea, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_22">22</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lorient, French Squadron, break-out of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_188">188</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lorient, Partial Battle of (1795), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_139">139</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Loss of the “Victoria,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_39">39</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Louis Napoleon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_230">230</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lower Deck, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_97">97</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Lowestoft, <a class="v2" href="#Page_207">207</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Machine of Meerlers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_90">90</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Macintosh, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_226">226</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Maderia Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Maintenance Allowance Increased, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_182">182</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Malaga, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_101">101</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Mallett, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_244">244</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Malta, Russian Designs on, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_159">159</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Malta Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_160">160</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Malta Starved into Surrender, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_160">160</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Marines, Objection to New Scheme, of the, <a class="v2" href="#Page_251">251</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Marryat, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_212">212</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Martinique, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_137">137</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Masefield, John, Quoted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_204">204</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Mastless Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_292">292</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Masts, Tripod, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_287">287</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Mauritius Attacked, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Medal, Tempus, Charles I, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_74">74</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Medine Sidonia, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_53">53</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Mediterranean, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Mediterranean, English Fleet First Stationed, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_91">91</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Meerlers, Machine Ships of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_90">90</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Meerlers “Smoak-boat,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_90">90</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Memoirs of Torrington, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_100">100</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Men Wanting, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Men, Lack of Training of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_236">236</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Messing, <a class="v2" href="#Page_254">254</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Messing in Tudor Times, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_43">43</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Methods of Drake, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_45">45</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Military Officer Saves Fleet, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Military Warfare, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Milne, Admiral, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_288">288</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Mines Appear, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_226">226</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Mines, Russian, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_226">226</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Minorca, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_119">119</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_275">275</span>Moderate Dimensions, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Modern Protective Decks Introduced, <a class="v2" href="#Page_85">85</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Modern Variant of “Case Shot,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_195">195</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Monk, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_76">76</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Monitor and Merrimac, Fight between, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_275">275</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Montgolfier, <a class="v2" href="#Page_221">221</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Motor-Destroyers, <a class="v2" href="#Page_201">201</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Mounting of Small Guns Between the échelon Turrets done away with, <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Murder, Punishment for, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Mutiny at Spithead, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_145">145</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_200">200</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Mutiny, The Great, <a class="v2" href="#Page_255">255</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Muzzle Loaders, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_320">320</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Nachimoff, Admiral (Russian), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_223">223</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Napier, Admiral Sir Charles, K.C.B., <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_235">235</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><a id="Napoleon"></a>Napoleon, at Toulon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_133">133</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Napoleon, Deportation of, to Elba, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_193">193</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Napoleon, Deportation of, to St. Helena, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_193">193</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Napoleon, Emperor, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_164">164</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Napoleon, First Consul, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_159">159</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_188">188</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Napoleon and Nelson, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Napoleon, Re-appearance of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_193">193</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Napoleon, Renovates his Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_181">181</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Napoleon and “Sea Power,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">National Interests, <a class="v2" href="#Page_206">206</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Abuses, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Aeroplanes, <a class="v2" href="#Page_225">225</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Agreement with the Colonies, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Aviation, <a class="v2" href="#Page_222">222</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Defence Act, <a class="v2" href="#Page_63">63</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Defence Act Cruisers, <a class="v2" href="#Page_71">71</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Commission, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_81">81</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Regulations of John, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Pay in Great War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_209">209</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Scare of 1887–89, <a class="v2" href="#Page_61">61</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval Punishments, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_20">20</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Naval War, The Next, <a class="v2" href="#Page_265">265</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Navarino, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_213">213</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Navy of Canute, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Navy, Non-Existence of, in Early Times, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_19">19</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_97">97</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_162">162</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_260">260</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson (analogy), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_42">42</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson at Gibraltar, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson at Toulon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_133">133</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson in the “Agamemnon,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_138">138</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson in the Mediterranean, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_157">157</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson (ref.), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson at Cadiz, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_149">149</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson, First Appearance of (1780), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson, Costume of Men, in Era of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_196">196</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson Defeated at Santa Cruz, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_150">150</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson, Drawing Away of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson Institutes Theatricals, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_200">200</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson, Last Order of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson’s Limitations, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_276">276</span>Nelson Mortally Wounded, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_176">176</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson and Mutineers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_151">151</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nelson’s Schemes of Invasion, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_162">162</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Neutral Flag, Property Under, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Neutrality, Armed, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">New Forest, Oak Plantations, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">New Scheme, The, <a class="v2" href="#Page_247">247</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Newfoundland Naval Reserve, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">New Zealand and the British Fleet, <a class="v2" href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">New Zealand’s Interest in the Imperial Navy, <a class="v2" href="#Page_234">234</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nore, Mutiny at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Norman Invasion, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_9">9</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Normans, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_21">21</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Norris, Sir John, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_105">105</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Norton’s Liquid Fire, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_243">243</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">North Foreland, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_82">82</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nova Scotia, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Nile, Battle of (analogy), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_42">42</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">North and South Nigeria, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Numbers Only Can Annihilate,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_215">215</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Oak Plantations, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Oberon, Laws of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ocean-going Destroyers, <a class="v2" href="#Page_199">199</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Odessa Bombarded, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_224">224</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Odin, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_216">216</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Officering the Fleet, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_115">115</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Officers, Inexperience of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Officers’ Wine for Wounded, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_207">207</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ogle, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_109">109</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Oil Fuel, <a class="v2" href="#Page_200">200</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Original Conception of the Dreadnought Era, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ormonde, Duke of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_96">96</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ornamental Work Reduced, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_97">97</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ostend Attacked, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_82">82</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ostend Captured (1706), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Paddle Experiments, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_212">212</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Paddles, “Galatea” Fitted with, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_213">213</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Paddle Recognised as a Source of Danger (1825), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_216">216</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Paddle Wheels Exposed, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_216">216</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Paint on Warships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Paixham, General, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_223">223</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Palmer’s, <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Parma, Duke of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_49">49</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Parker, Sir Hyde, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Parliament Discusses French v. British Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_137">137</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Parliamentarians, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_74">74</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Parson’s Turbine, <a class="v2" href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_200">200</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Paul, Russia, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_159">159</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pay (1653), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pay, Modern, <a class="v2" href="#Page_257">257</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Payta Captured by Captain Anson, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_111">111</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Peace of Amiens, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_86">86</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pembroke, Earl of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Penelope” Fitted with Engines, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_216">216</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Penelope Frigate attacks Guillaume Tell, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_160">160</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pennington, Sir John, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pensions for Wounds, Time of John, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pepys, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_79">79</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Period of Broadside Ironclads Ends, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Personality, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_97">97</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_277">277</span>Peterborough, Earl of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Peter the Great, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_95">95</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Phineas Petts, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_80">80</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Phœnicians, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_1">1</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pierola, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pigot, Captain of “Hermione,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_151">151</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pigtail, Origin of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_197">197</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pinnaces, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Piracy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_43">43</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_44">44</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Piracy, English Acts of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_22">22</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pirates, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pitt and Sea Power, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pivot Guns, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pizarro, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_110">110</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Plymouth Hoe, Drake on, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_50">50</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Plymouth, Mutiny at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Plymouth Sacked, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_23">23</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Policing the Channel, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Politics and Admirals, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_130">130</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pomone, French Frigate, Captured (1794), <span class="v2">135</span>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Portholes, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_49">49</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Portsmouth, Review at (1512), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Portsmouth Sacked, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Portsmouth Yard, <a class="v2" href="#Page_191">191</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Possibility of Airships in the Future, <a class="v2" href="#Page_226">226</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Possibility of Dreadnoughts Considered, <a class="v2" href="#Page_145">145</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Present Stage of Aerial Progress, <a class="v2" href="#Page_229">229</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Press Gang, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_199">199</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_200">200</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Presumed End of Ironclads, <a class="v2" href="#Page_47">47</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Prime Seamen, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_115">115</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_196">196</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_251">251</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Prince Charles, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_74">74</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Prince of Hesse, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_99">99</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Private Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_36">36</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Privateering, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_43">43</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_91">91</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_111">111</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Privateers Attack Henry IV, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Privateers, French, Activity of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_189">189</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Private Yards, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Progress Nullified During the Last Twenty Years, <a class="v2" href="#Page_203">203</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Progressive Naval Ideas, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Promotion on the Lower Deck, <a class="v2" href="#Page_252">252</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Protection of Boats in Action, <a class="v2" href="#Page_184">184</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Providence and the Armada, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_53">53</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Provisioning of Ships Under John, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Punishments, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Punishments (Modern), <a class="v2" href="#Page_259">259</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pursers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Pym, Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Quebec, Abortive Attack on, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_104">104</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Queen Anne, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_95">95</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Queensland, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Quiberon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Quick Firers, Elementary, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_243">243</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Quick Lime, Use of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_21">21</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Raking Fire, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_211">211</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Raleigh, Sir Walter, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_60">60</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ram Tactics, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_300">300</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ramming, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_17">17</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rapidity in Loading, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rates in English Navy, Time of Queen Anne, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_95">95</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rating, New, of Ships Introduced (1817), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_211">211</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Re-construction Never Pay,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_312">312</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_278">278</span>Reed, Sir E.&nbsp;
+ J., <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_266">266</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Reed, Sir E.&nbsp;
+ J., Anticipates Torpedoes, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_268">268</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Reed Broadside Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_283">283</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Reed Ideals in the White Era, <a class="v2" href="#Page_115">115</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Reed, Sir E.&nbsp;
+ J., Turret Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_292">292</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Regular Stores Instituted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Repairs, Cost of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Reserve Ships, Speedy Equipment of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Restoration, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_81">81</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Retirement of Sir W. White, <a class="v2" href="#Page_113">113</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Richard I, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Richard II, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Richard III, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_60">60</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Right Ahead Fire, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rigging, Firing at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Right of Search, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_159">159</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Robinson, Commander, on Causes of Mutiny, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Robinson, Commander, R.N., Quoted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_194">194</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rocket, Congreve, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_236">236</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rodjestvensky (analogy), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_53">53</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rodney, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_127">127</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rogerswick, Harbour of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rogues in Authority, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rolling of the “Orion,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_183">183</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Romans in Britain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_1">1</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Rooke, Sir George, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_96">96</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Routine, <a class="v2" href="#Page_260">260</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Row Boats, <a class="v2" href="#Page_222">222</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Royal Indian Marine, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Royal Naval College Established, Portsmouth, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_187">187</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Royal Navy, Birth of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Royal Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Royal Yachts, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Ruinous Competition in Naval Armaments,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_206">206</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Russel, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_90">90</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_91">91</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Russell, John Scott, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_249">249</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Russia, War with (1720), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_106">106</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Russian Mines, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_226">226</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Russian Navy Established by England, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_95">95</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Russo-Japanese War, <a class="v2" href="#Page_205">205</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ryswick, Peace of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_92">92</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Samaurez, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Samaurez in the Baltic, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">San Domingo, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_178">178</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sandwich, Earl of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_84">84</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Saints, Battle of the, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">San Juan Nicaragua, Nelson at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Santa Croix, Capture of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Santa Cruz, Marquis of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_49">49</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Santissima Trinidad (130), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_145">145</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Saxon Fleet, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Saxons, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_1">1</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Scantlings, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Scarcity of Oak, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Scouts” Appear, <a class="v2" href="#Page_127">127</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Scrapping,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_311">311</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Scheldt, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">School of Naval Architecture, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_187">187</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Scotts, <a class="v2" href="#Page_186">186</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Scott Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sea-Fights with the Danes, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_2">2</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Seamen, Bounty to, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Seamen, Foreign, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_235">235</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Seamen, German, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_279">279</span>Sea-Going Masted Turret Ship, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_276">276</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sea-Going Qualities of Barnaby Ships, <a class="v2" href="#Page_59">59</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Seamen, Improved, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_44">44</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sea Kings, Elizabethan, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_47">47</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Seamanship, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sea Power and Napoleon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sea Regiment, The, <a class="v2" href="#Page_251">251</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Search, Right of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_159">159</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sebastopol Attacked, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_224">224</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sebastopol, Siege of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_224">224</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Semenoff, Captain (quoted), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_243">243</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Semi-Dreadnoughts,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_127">127</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Senegal Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_184">184</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Senyavin in the Mediterranean, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_181">181</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Senyavin, Ships of, Restored, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_186">186</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Serpents, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_15">15</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Seymour, Sir Hamilton, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_235">235</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Shah and Huascar Action, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Shell Guns, Adopted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_220">220</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Shell, Percussion, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_227">227</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Shell, Thermite, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_244">244</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sheerness, Dutch at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_83">83</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ships, Engaging exactly End-on, <a class="v2" href="#Page_179">179</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ships, Iron-plated, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ships, Ironclad, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_239">239</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ships of King Alfred, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst"><i>SHIPS MENTIONED BY NAME.</i></li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Aboukir, <a class="v2" href="#Page_101">101</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Abyssinia, <a class="v2" href="#Page_231">231</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Acheron class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_200">200</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Achilles, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Acorn class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_200">200</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Active, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Admiral class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_47">47</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Adventure, <a class="v2" href="#Page_127">127</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Aeolus, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Africa, <a class="v2" href="#Page_108">108</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Agamemnon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_133">133</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_138">138</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Agincourt, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_279">279</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Ajax, <a class="v2" href="#Page_186">186</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Aki, <a class="v2" href="#Page_146">146</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Alarm, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Albemarle, <a class="v2" href="#Page_105">105</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Albion, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Alexandra, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_277">277</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_318">318</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Amphitrite, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Amethyst, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Antrim, <a class="v2" href="#Page_109">109</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Amokoura, <a class="v2" href="#Page_234">234</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Amphion, <a class="v2" href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Andromache, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Andromeda, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Anna Pink (1740), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_111">111</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Antelope, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Apollo class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Aquidaban, <a class="v2" href="#Page_77">77</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Archer, <a class="v2" href="#Page_201">201</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Argonaut, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Arethusa, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Ariadne, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Argyll, <a class="v2" href="#Page_109">109</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Assaye, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Astraeas, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Atalanta, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_187">187</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Attack, <a class="v2" href="#Page_200">200</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Attentive, <a class="v2" href="#Page_127">127</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Audacious, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_277">277</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_295">295</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Audacious (1794), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_134">134</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_295">295</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_186">186</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Aurora, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Australia, <a class="v2" href="#Page_174">174</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Bacchante, <a class="v2" href="#Page_101">101</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Badere Zaffer (Turkish), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_280">280</span> Bahama (Spanish), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Baluch, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Barfluer, <a class="v2" href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_70">70</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Beagle class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_200">200</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Bellerophon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_266">266</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_279">279</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_169">169</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Belleisle, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Bellona, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Berwick, <a class="v2" href="#Page_106">106</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Birmingham, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Black Prince, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_250">250</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_35">35</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Blake, <a class="v2" href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_63">63</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Blanco Encalada (Chilian), <a class="v2" href="#Page_77">77</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Blanche, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Blenheim, <a class="v2" href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_63">63</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Blonde, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Boadicea, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Bonaventure, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Boomerang, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Brilliant, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Britannia (1688), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_87">87</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Britannia, <a class="v2" href="#Page_108">108</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Brisbane, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Bulwark, <a class="v2" href="#Page_102">102</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Cæsar, <a class="v2" href="#Page_87">87</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Caledonia, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_181">181</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Calypso, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Cambrian, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Camperdown, <a class="v2" href="#Page_39">39</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Canopus, ex-Franklin (French prize), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_150">150</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Canopus, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_100">100</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Carnarvon, <a class="v2" href="#Page_109">109</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Captain, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_283">283</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Captain, Loss of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_291">291</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Centurion (1740), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_112">112</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Centurion (1891), <a class="v2" href="#Page_81">81</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Cerebus (Australian), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_292">292</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Charybdis, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Chatham, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Chen Yuen (Chinese), <a class="v2" href="#Page_180">180</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Chicago (U.S.), <a class="v2" href="#Page_43">43</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Circe, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Cog, Thomas, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_28">28</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Commonwealth, <a class="v2" href="#Page_108">108</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Conqueror, <a class="v2" href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_174">174</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Cornwall, <a class="v2" href="#Page_106">106</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Cornwallis, <a class="v2" href="#Page_105">105</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">County class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_105">105</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Crescent, <a class="v2" href="#Page_71">71</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Cressy, <a class="v2" href="#Page_101">101</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Cumberland, <a class="v2" href="#Page_106">106</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Cyclops, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_242">242</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Dalhousie, <a class="v2" href="#Page_231">231</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Dartmouth, <a class="v2" href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Dauntless, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Defence, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Devastation (1870), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_248">248</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_312">312</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Devonshires, <a class="v2" href="#Page_109">109</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Diadem, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Diana, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_212">212</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Dominion, <a class="v2" href="#Page_108">108</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Donegal, <a class="v2" href="#Page_106">106</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Drake, <a class="v2" href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_106">106</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Dreadnought (old), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_292">292</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_317">317</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Dreadnought (1908), <a class="v2" href="#Page_164">164</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Dublin, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Dufferin, <a class="v2" href="#Page_231">231</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Duncans, <a class="v2" href="#Page_105">105</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Edgar, <a class="v2" href="#Page_71">71</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Elphinstone, <a class="v2" href="#Page_231">231</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Endymion, <a class="v2" href="#Page_71">71</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Entrepennant (French), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_187">187</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Erebus, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Essex, <a class="v2" href="#Page_106">106</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Etna, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Europa, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Euryalus, <a class="v2" href="#Page_101">101</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_281">281</span>  Exmouth, <a class="v2" href="#Page_105">105</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Fearless, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Flora, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Formidable, <a class="v2" href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_102">102</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Foresight, <a class="v2" href="#Page_129">129</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Forth, <a class="v2" href="#Page_48">48</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Forward, <a class="v2" href="#Page_129">129</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Foudroyant, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_140">140</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_160">160</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Franklin (French prize), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_150">150</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Fulton, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_190">190</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Galatea, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Gayundah, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Gazelle, <a class="v2" href="#Page_78">78</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Gibraltar, <a class="v2" href="#Page_71">71</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Glasgow, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Glatton (1795), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_140">140</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Glatton, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Gleaner, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Glory, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Gloucester (1740), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_112">112</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Gloucester, <a class="v2" href="#Page_204">204</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Goliath, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Good Hope, <a class="v2" href="#Page_103">103</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Gorgon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Gossamer, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Grace de Dieu, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Grafton, <a class="v2" href="#Page_71">71</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Great Harry, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Ghurka, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Hampshire, <a class="v2" href="#Page_109">109</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hannibal, <a class="v2" href="#Page_87">87</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hardinge, <a class="v2" href="#Page_231">231</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Havock, <a class="v2" href="#Page_129">129</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hawke, <a class="v2" href="#Page_71">71</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hebe, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hecate, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hector, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hela (German), <a class="v2" href="#Page_78">78</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Henri IV (French), <a class="v2" href="#Page_204">204</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hercules, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_279">279</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_283">283</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_288">288</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_295">295</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hermione, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hero, <a class="v2" href="#Page_59">59</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hibernia, <a class="v2" href="#Page_108">108</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hindustan, <a class="v2" href="#Page_108">108</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Holland, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_218">218</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hood, <a class="v2" href="#Page_68">68</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hornet, <a class="v2" href="#Page_129">129</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hotspur (British), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Huascar (Peruvian), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Hydra, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Immortalitie, <a class="v2" href="#Page_43">43</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Inflexible, <a class="v2" href="#Page_52">52</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Intrepid, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Imperieuse, <a class="v2" href="#Page_43">43</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Iphigenia, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Iron Duke, <a class="v2" href="#Page_187">187</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Illustrious, <a class="v2" href="#Page_87">87</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Implacable, <a class="v2" href="#Page_100">100</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Inconstant, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Indefatigable, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_100">100</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Independencia, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_280">280</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Invincible, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_295">295</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_319">319</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_183">183</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Iphigenia, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Irresistible, <a class="v2" href="#Page_100">100</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Italia (Italian), <a class="v2" href="#Page_63">63</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Jupiter, <a class="v2" href="#Page_87">87</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Kahren, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Karrahatta, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Katoomba, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Kent, <a class="v2" href="#Page_106">106</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">King Alfred, <a class="v2" href="#Page_103">103</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">King Edward VII class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">King George V, <a class="v2" href="#Page_186">186</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Lady Nancy (Gun raft), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">La Forte (French), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">La Gloire (French), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Lancaster, <a class="v2" href="#Page_106">106</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Latona, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_282">282</span>  Lave La, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_248">248</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Lavinia, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Leander, <a class="v2" href="#Page_47">47</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Lepanto (Italian), <a class="v2" href="#Page_63">63</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Leviathan, <a class="v2" href="#Page_103">103</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">L’Hercule (French), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Liberté class (French), <a class="v2" href="#Page_82">82</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Lion, The (1800), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_160">160</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Lively, frégate, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Liverpool, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">London, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_107">107</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Lord Clyde, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Lord Nelson, <a class="v2" href="#Page_133">133</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Lord Warden (British), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_288">288</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Lorne, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_212">212</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Lynch, <a class="v2" href="#Page_78">78</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Magdala class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Magnificent, <a class="v2" href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_88">88</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Maharatta, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Majestic, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_236">236</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_86">86</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Marengo (French), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Marlborough, <a class="v2" href="#Page_187">187</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Mars, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_87">87</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Melampus, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Melbourne, <a class="v2" href="#Page_234">234</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Melpomene, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Merrimac, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_190">190</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Mersey, <a class="v2" href="#Page_48">48</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Meteor, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Mildura, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Minotaur, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Monarch, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_280">280</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_283">283</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_284">284</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Monarch, <a class="v2" href="#Page_183">183</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Montagu, <a class="v2" href="#Page_105">105</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Naiad, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Narcissus, <a class="v2" href="#Page_43">43</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Neptune (1797), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_151">151</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Newcastle, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">New Zealand, <a class="v2" href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_108">108</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Nile, <a class="v2" href="#Page_44">44</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Niobe, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_234">234</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Northbrook, <a class="v2" href="#Page_231">231</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Northumberland, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_59">59</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Nottingham, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Oberon, <a class="v2" href="#Page_53">53</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Ocean, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Olympic, <a class="v2" href="#Page_71">71</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Orion, <a class="v2" href="#Page_183">183</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Orlando, <a class="v2" href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_63">63</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Pallas class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Paluma, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Pandora, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Pathan, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Pathfinder, <a class="v2" href="#Page_127">127</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Pearl (1740), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_112">112</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Pelican, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_45">45</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Pelorus, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Penelope, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_279">279</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Persian, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Phaeton, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Phœbe, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Philomel, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Pique, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Plassy, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Polyphemus, <a class="v2" href="#Page_64">64</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Powerful, <a class="v2" href="#Page_89">89</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Prince Albert, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_275">275</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_134">134</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Prince Consort, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_261">261</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Prince George, <a class="v2" href="#Page_87">87</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Prince of Wales, <a class="v2" href="#Page_107">107</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Prince Regent, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_236">236</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Prince Royal, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_174">174</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Princessa (Spanish), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Protector, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Psyche, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Queen, <a class="v2" href="#Page_107">107</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_283">283</span>  Queen Charlotte, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Queen Mary, <a class="v2" href="#Page_186">186</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Rainbow, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_234">234</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Rajput, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Raleigh, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Ram, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_300">300</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Rattler, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Rattlesnake class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Re d’Italia, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_300">300</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Regent, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Renard, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Renown, <a class="v2" href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_81">81</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Republique (French), <a class="v2" href="#Page_82">82</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Repulse, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Resistance, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_255">255</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Retribution, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Revolutionaire (French), (1794), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_134">134</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_158">158</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Ringarooma, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">“River” class destroyers, <a class="v2" href="#Page_131">131</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Rossiya (Russian), <a class="v2" href="#Page_89">89</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Royal Alfred, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Royal Arthur, <a class="v2" href="#Page_71">71</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Royal George, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Royal James, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_84">84</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Royal Oak, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Royal Sovereign, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_275">275</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_284">284</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_198">198</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Royal Sovereign (1657), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Royal Sovereign (1795), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_139">139</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Royal Sovereigns, (old), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_81">81</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Roxburgh, <a class="v2" href="#Page_109">109</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Rupert reconstructed, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_311">311</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Rurik (Russian), <a class="v2" href="#Page_89">89</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Russell, <a class="v2" href="#Page_105">105</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Salamander, <a class="v2" href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sampaio, <a class="v2" href="#Page_78">78</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">San Ildefonso (Spanish), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sappho, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Satsuma (Japanese), <a class="v2" href="#Page_146">146</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Scorpion, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_287">287</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Scylla, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sea Gull, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_93">93</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sea-horse, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sentinel, <a class="v2" href="#Page_129">129</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Severn, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_112">112</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_48">48</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Shah, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sharpshooter class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sheldrake, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_93">93</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sikh, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sirius, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Skipjack, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Skirmisher, <a class="v2" href="#Page_127">127</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Southampton, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sovereign, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Spanker, floating battery, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_188">188</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Spanker, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_93">93</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Spartan, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Spartiate, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Speedwell, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Speedy, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_93">93</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">St. George, <a class="v2" href="#Page_71">71</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Suffolk, <a class="v2" href="#Page_106">106</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sultan, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_304">304</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_313">313</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_318">318</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sutlej, <a class="v2" href="#Page_101">101</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Swift, <a class="v2" href="#Page_200">200</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Swiftsure, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_295">295</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sybil, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Sydney, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Talbot, <a class="v2" href="#Page_89">89</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Tauranga, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Terpsichore, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Terrible, <a class="v2" href="#Page_89">89</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Terror, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Thames, <a class="v2" href="#Page_48">48</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Thetis, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Thunder, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_284">284</span>  Thunderer, <a class="v2" href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Thunderbolt, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_50">50</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Tiger, <a class="v2" href="#Page_188">188</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Ting Yuen (Chinese), <a class="v2" href="#Page_180">180</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Tonnant (French), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_248">248</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">“Town” class cruisers, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Trafalgar, <a class="v2" href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_64">64</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Transports, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_22">22</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">“Tribals,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_199">199</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Tribune, <a class="v2" href="#Page_72">72</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Triumph, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_58">58</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_295">295</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Trusty, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Tryal (1740), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_111">111</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Tsarevitch (Russian), <a class="v2" href="#Page_204">204</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Undaunted, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Valiant, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Vanguard, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_268">268</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_295">295</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_169">169</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Venerable, <a class="v2" href="#Page_102">102</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Vengeance, <a class="v2" href="#Page_99">99</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Vernon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Victoria, <a class="v2" href="#Page_48">48</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Victoria (Colonial), <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Victorious, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_189">189</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_87">87</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Victory, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Viper, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_276">276</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Vixen, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_276">276</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Von der Tann (German), <a class="v2" href="#Page_180">180</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Wager (1740), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_111">111</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Wallaroo, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_256">256</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Wampanoag (U.S.), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_320">320</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_233">233</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Warrior, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_267">267</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Warspite, <a class="v2" href="#Page_195">195</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Waterwitch, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_276">276</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Weymouth class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Whiting, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Wizard, <a class="v2" href="#Page_76">76</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Wsewolod (Russian), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Yarmouth, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="isub1 tpad">Zealous, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="isub1">Zelandia, <a class="v2" href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_234">234</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Ship Money, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_7">7</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ships, Short, handy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_264">264</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Shipwrights’ Company Established, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Short Service System, <a class="v2" href="#Page_253">253</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Shovell, Sir Cloudesley, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_98">98</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sidon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_216">216</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Simoon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_223">223</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sinope, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_224">224</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Syracuse, Neutrality of, Disregarded by Nelson, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_152">152</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sir Charles Napier, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_213">213</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Sirius” and “Magicienne” Aground, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sir W. White’s Views on the “Sovereigns,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_65">65</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Slop Chest,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_195">195</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sluys, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_24">24</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Small Cruisers and First Cost, <a class="v2" href="#Page_75">75</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Small German Protected Cruisers, <a class="v2" href="#Page_197">197</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Smith, Sir Sidney, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Smoak-Boat” of Meerlers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_90">90</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sole Bay, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_85">85</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Solid Bulkhead, <a class="v2" href="#Page_204">204</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Suffren, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Southampton Sacked, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_23">23</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">South Australia, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Southsea Beach, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_175">175</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sovereignty of the British Seas, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_16">16</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sovereignty of the Seas upheld by Cromwell, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Spain, First War with, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_28">28</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Spain, Operations against, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_45">45</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Spanish Instructors in English Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_43">43</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_285">285</span>Spanish Wars (Succession), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_95">95</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Spanish Treasure Ship Captured by Captain Anson, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_111">111</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Spanish Treasure Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_158">158</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Specialisation in Elizabethan Times, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_46">46</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Speed in the “Drake” class, <a class="v2" href="#Page_103">103</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Spit and Polish,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_242">242</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Spithead Mutiny, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_202">202</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Spragge, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_85">85</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">St. Andre, Jean Bon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_134">134</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">St. Bride’s Day Massacre, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">St. Lucia Captured (1794), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_137">137</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">St. Malo, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_90">90</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_119">119</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">St. Thomas Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">St. Vincent, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_145">145</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">St. Vincent, Cape, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_145">145</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Steam Ships Anticipated, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_212">212</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Steam Tugs added to Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_213">213</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Steam Vessel, The First, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_215">215</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Steam Vessels, Auxiliary, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Steam Warships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_215">215</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Steering Gear Unprotected, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sterns made Circular, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_211">211</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Stewart Kings and the Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_87">87</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Stones from Aloft, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_27">27</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Stores regularly Instituted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Stour, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_2">2</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Stoving, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Strachan, Rear Admiral Sir E., <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sub-divisions, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_271">271</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Submarine, Americans refuse to officially sanction, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_190">190</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Submarine Battleship may appear, <a class="v2" href="#Page_215">215</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Submarine, First, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Submarine, First appearance of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_190">190</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Submarine, First use of, in War, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_125">125</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Submarine, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_228">228</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_208">208</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Submarines, a Danger to Big Ships, <a class="v2" href="#Page_194">194</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Submarines and Harbour Defence, <a class="v2" href="#Page_208">208</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Succession, War of the Spanish, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_95">95</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Super-Dreadnoughts, <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Super-heated Steam, <a class="v2" href="#Page_201">201</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Superior Artillery, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Supply of Oak, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Surgeons, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_207">207</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_257">257</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sveaborg, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_235">235</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Swain, King of Denmark, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_8">8</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sweden becomes French Ally, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_186">186</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sweden, War with (1715), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_105">105</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sweden, Peace with, Declared (1812), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_188">188</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Swedish Fleet, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_162">162</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Sweeps superseded by Paddles, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_213">213</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Tactics, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_60">60</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tactics at Trafalgar, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_176">176</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tactics, Early, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_28">28</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tactics, English, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_230">230</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tactics, First appearance of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_21">21</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tagus Blockaded, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_181">181</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Tailoring,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_260">260</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tarpaulin Seamen, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_115">115</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tegethoff at Lissa (analogy), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_100">100</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_286">286</span>Tercera, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_48">48</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Teignmouth Attacked, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_89">89</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Texel, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_84">84</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Thames Iron Works, Blackwall, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_250">250</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Thames, Project to Block, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_84">84</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The Australian Navy, <a class="v2" href="#Page_237">237</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The “Battle of the Boilers,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_93">93</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The Cape, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_176">176</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The Coming of the Torpedo, <a class="v2" href="#Page_51">51</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The “Dreadnought” Commenced, <a class="v2" href="#Page_149">149</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The Duties of Naval Airships, <a class="v2" href="#Page_227">227</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The Earliest Naval Manœuvres, <a class="v2" href="#Page_54">54</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The “Échelon” System Resurrected, <a class="v2" href="#Page_179">179</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The First British Ironclads, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_249">249</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Theft, Punishment for, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The Future of Submarines, <a class="v2" href="#Page_215">215</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“The Offensive,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The Origin of “Dreadnoughts,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_137">137</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">The Periscope, <a class="v2" href="#Page_208">208</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“The Torpedo Boat, the Answer to the Torpedo Boat,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_212">212</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“The Trafalgar of the Air,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_228">228</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Thermite Shell, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_244">244</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Theseus,” Nelson’s Ship at Santa Croix, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_150">150</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Thieving Pursers,” <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Thompson, Messrs, of Clydebank, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_304">304</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Thornycroft, <a class="v2" href="#Page_201">201</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Three Days’ Battle, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_76">76</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Three-Masters, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Thurot, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ticklers, <a class="v2" href="#Page_253">253</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tiddy, Mr. David, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_299">299</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tilset, Peace of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Timber, Boiling, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Timber, Supply of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_132">132</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tiptoft, Sir Robert, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_22">22</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Torpedo (analogy), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Torpedo Boat, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_120">120</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_199">199</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Torpedoes anticipated by Reed, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_268">268</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Torpedo, First use of, from Big Ship in Action, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Torpedo Gun-Boats, <a class="v2" href="#Page_77">77</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Torpedo, The, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_228">228</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Torpedoes, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Torpedo Progress, <a class="v2" href="#Page_203">203</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Torrington, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_88">88</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Toulon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Toulon Abandoned, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_133">133</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Toulon, Attack on Defeated (1707), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Toulon, Royalists at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_133">133</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Toulouse, Comte de, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_98">98</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Trafalgar, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Trafalgar, First Battle deliberately fought under White Ensign, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_210">210</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Trafalgar, Losses to the Allied Fleets at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Trafalgar Made a Certainty, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_166">166</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Trafalgar, Tactics at, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_175">175</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Training, Lack of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Training of Gunners, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_241">241</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Treadwell, Professor Daniel, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_244">244</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_287">287</span>Treasure Ships Captured (Spanish), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_158">158</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Trident,” First Iron Warship, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Trinidad, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_214">214</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tripod Masts, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_287">287</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_186">186</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Troubridge, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_152">152</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Trousers, Ample, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_196">196</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tsushima, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_244">244</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tudor Navy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Tumble Home Sides, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Turbines Introduced for Big Ships, <a class="v2" href="#Page_155">155</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Turning Circles, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Turkish Monster Guns, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_179">179</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Turret Craze, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_275">275</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Turret on Rollers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_275">275</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Turret Ships, Idea of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_275">275</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Turret Ship, Sea-Going Masted, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_276">276</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Turret Ship Controversy, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_292">292</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Turret Ships, Panic About, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_292">292</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Twelve-Inch “A,” <a class="v2" href="#Page_175">175</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Two-Power Standard, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_96">96</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_131">131</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Under-Water Protection, <a class="v2" href="#Page_204">204</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Uniform, Anson’s Use of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_113">113</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Uniform, <a class="v2" href="#Page_25">25</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Uniform Badge of Pressed Men and Jail Birds, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_195">195</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Uniform, Description of First, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_194">194</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Uniform, First Use of, for Officers, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_194">194</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Union Flag Altered, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_209">209</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Union Jack, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_209">209</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">United Provinces, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_63">63</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Unprotected Steering Gear, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Unscrupulous Contractors, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_65">65</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ushant, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_125">125</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">U.S. Monitors, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_285">285</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Vaisseaux Blindées, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_248">248</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Van Drebel, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Vanguard,” The, Nelson in, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_152">152</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Van Tromp, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_76">76</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_84">84</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Venetian Frigates Captured, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_187">187</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“Vengeur” Sunk (1795), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_136">136</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ventilation, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_115">115</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Ventilation, Artificial, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Vernon, Admiral, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_108">108</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_109">109</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Versailles, Treaty of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_130">130</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Vickers, Lts., <a class="v2" href="#Page_192">192</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Villaret-Joyeuse, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_134">134</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_139">139</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Villeneuve, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Villeneuve Appointed, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Villeneuve Gets Out of Toulon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Villeneuve Returns to Toulon, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_172">172</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Victualling, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Walpole, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_107">107</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">War, Contraband of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_161">161</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">“War Scare” with Germany in 1911, <a class="v2" href="#Page_185">185</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Wars of the Roses, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Warwick, Earl of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>, v. i;
+  <a class="v2" href="#Page_198">198</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Warry (Early Idea of Quick Firer), <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_242">242</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Walcheren Expedition, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Watts, Isaac, Sir, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Waterloo, Battle of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_193">193</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Weather Gauge, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_21">21</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Western Australia, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">West Indies, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Whitehead, <a class="v2" href="#Page_204">204</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">White, of Cowes, <a class="v2" href="#Page_232">232</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_288">288</span>Whitworth, Works of, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_239">239</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Who First Adopted Cuniberti Ideas?, <a class="v2" href="#Page_159">159</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Why France was Beaten, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Willaumez, Leaves Brest, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_182">182</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Willaumez, Rear Admiral, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Willaumez Blockaded in Basque Roads, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_182">182</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Will Dreadnoughts Die Out?, <a class="v2" href="#Page_195">195</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">William of Orange, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_88">88</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">William the Conqueror, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Wire Guns, Early, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_247">247</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Wolfe, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_122">122</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Wood-Copper Sheathing Re-introduced, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_295">295</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Woolwich, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">World Circumnavigated by Drake, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_45">45</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Yarmouth Ships, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_22">22</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Yarrow Boilers, <a class="v2" href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a class="v2" href="#Page_196">196</a>, v. ii</li>
+
+<li class="indx">York, New, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="ifrst">Zarate, Don Francisco de, <a class="v1" href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/75616/75616-h/75616-h.htm#Page_46">46</a>, v. i</li>
+
+<li class="indx">Zeppelin Type (Dirigible), <a class="v2" href="#Page_227">227</a>, v. ii</li>
+</ul>
+</div></div>
+
+<p class="p2 center">THE END.</p>
+
+<p class="p2 center">
+<span class="smcap">Netherwood, Dalton &amp; Co., Rashcliffe, Huddersfield.</span>
+</p>
+
+<div class="chapter transnote">
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="Transcribers_Notes">Transcriber’s Notes</h2>
+
+<p>Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made
+consistent when a predominant preference was found
+in the original book; otherwise they were not changed.</p>
+
+<p>Simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced
+quotation marks were remedied when the change was
+obvious, and otherwise left unbalanced.</p>
+
+<p>Armament and other sizes and quantities were printed in
+inconsistent ways.</p>
+
+<p>Illustrations in this eBook have been positioned
+between paragraphs and outside quotations. In versions
+of this eBook that support hyperlinks, the page
+references in the List of Illustrations lead to the
+corresponding illustrations.</p>
+
+<p>Footnotes, originally at the bottoms of the pages that referenced them,
+have been collected, sequentially renumbered, and placed near the end of
+the book, just before the index.</p>
+
+<p>In the original two-volume set, the index for both volumes was
+printed at the end of the second volume. The Transcriber has copied
+that index to the first volume. In versions of this ebook that support
+hyperlinks, both copies of the index link to pages in both volumes, by
+referencing the Project Gutenberg copy of the other volume. Those links
+to the other volume are double-underlined, and generally will work only
+within a Browser.</p>
+
+<p>Many alphebetization errors in the index were
+remedied, but some may remain. Page references in
+the index were checked automatically, but some may
+be incorrect.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Page_28">Page 28</a>: The table contains an asterisk for which
+there is no matching footnote.
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75617 ***</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+
diff --git a/75617-h/images/cover.jpg b/75617-h/images/cover.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f4513a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/cover.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_001.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_001.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..82ff0b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_001.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_003.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_003.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7908fda
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_003.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_007.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_007.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..edf713c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_007.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_011.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_011.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f61377d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_011.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_017.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_017.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..324f816
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_017.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_021.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_021.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6341ec2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_021.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_029.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_029.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..714d5a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_029.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_033.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_033.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5838293
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_033.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_037.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_037.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7e2b3e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_037.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_041.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_041.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..edbd507
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_041.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_045.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_045.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..59d09eb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_045.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_055.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_055.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9af0e74
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_055.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_073.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_073.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cae1082
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_073.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_079.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_079.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3b18e20
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_079.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_083.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_083.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9984380
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_083.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_091.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_091.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..67ba77c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_091.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_095.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_095.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a2efec5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_095.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_111.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_111.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..595e46f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_111.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_119.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_119.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..641295d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_119.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_123.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_123.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..033bb5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_123.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_135.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_135.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..499d11e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_135.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_147.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_147.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8d4c8bb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_147.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_151.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_151.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5c8789e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_151.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_157.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_157.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ec1cf18
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_157.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_161.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_161.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..eec8edf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_161.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_167.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_167.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8a81626
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_167.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_171.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_171.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fac7be1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_171.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_177.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_177.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cc310e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_177.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_181.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_181.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6859e51
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_181.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_189.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_189.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0472c55
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_189.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_209.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_209.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e7b8f51
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_209.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_213.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_213.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e5268f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_213.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_219.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_219.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5ce50fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_219.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_223.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_223.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..eba3c38
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_223.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_235.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_235.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b0ce58d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_235.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_243.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_243.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..832b3ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_243.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_246.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_246.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3a60907
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_246.jpg
diff --git a/75617-h/images/i_249.jpg b/75617-h/images/i_249.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..193938e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/75617-h/images/i_249.jpg
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a252326
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #75617 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75617)