Pacific.

Australia.

E. Indies.

N. America.

Channel.

S. E. America.

Mediterranean.

2

1

2

3

3

2

1

1

:

should be kept ready at home and at certain stations abroad within reach of the telegraph, and thence despatched to the place where a naval force might be required. Flying squadrons under the British flag should occasionally visit every sea. If a question were raised as to the means by which officers and men would be trained when the small vessels were reduced, the answer was that there was little to stimulate energy, no emulation, and but limited opportunity for gaining professional knowledge in scattered vessels of inferior type. The instruction of the Navy would be best carried on in flying squadrons, in training squadrons, and by an annual mobilisation, such as the present Board of Admiralty had twice carried out to the great advantage of the service. He should be glad to learn that the Admiralty had resolved on some revision of the programme of building now before Parliament. It would be satisfactory to receive the announcement that those fast cruisers were about to be ordered Sir Arthur which Sir Arthur Hood was so desirous to lay down.

How train ing could

be best carried out.

Hood.

As an immediate practical step he would urge that our naval requirements abroad should be specially considered at the Foreign and Colonial Offices. As a result of such an examination he looked for the gradual withdrawal of some 30 or 40 small craft. With Estimates framed in anticipation of peace we must look for the means of strengthening our position not so much to an increase of expenditure as to efficient administration. He submitted the case, which he had endeavoured to state as clearly and plainly as he could, with confidence to the deliberate consideration of the Government.

:

A continuous belt

general in French battle ships.

Italian ships have

no armour belts.

Germany.

United
States.

V.

Recent Shipbuilding and Dockyard
Administration.

Paper read by Lord Brassey, K.C.B,, at the Royal United Service
Institution, Friday, February 22, 1889, Admiral the Right
Honourable the Earl of Clanwilliam, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., Member
of Council, in the Chair.

HAVING dealt with the amount of building required in the Navy, in an
address recently delivered at the Mansion House, I propose to-day to
treat of our shipbuilding with reference to types, and to close with
some remarks bearing on the efficiency of our dockyard administra-
tion. I am fully sensible that the undertaking is hazardous. I am
encouraged to persevere by the controversies of the experts. It may
be that a mere layman, after calmly hearing both sides, may reach
conclusions not unworthy the consideration of those who, if they
know more, are perhaps less able to be impartial.

I commence my task with a brief review of recent shipbuilding abroad and at home. Having traced the direction which contrivance and invention have lately taken, we may perhaps find some indications to guide us in our programme of shipbuilding for the near future.

First, let us review the ships building abroad. In the class of battle-ships, France has adhered chiefly to a type much admired in our own Navy. The French ships are defended by a continuous belt, and they have the advantage of a high freeboard. In our ships the heavy guns are better protected, and recently we have established a decided superiority in speed. The Italian constructors, while building vessels of the largest dimensions as yet accepted, have thrown off belts, preferring other methods of protection for the vitals of ships. In armaments, and in armour for the protection of guns, in speed, and coal endurance, their ships are matchless. The Germans are imitators rather than pioneers in matters of construction. The United States, after a long pause, are adding to their Fleet several ships, in which are combined the best features of recent construction

elsewhere. The Russians are throwing their main efforts into turretships heavily armoured and armed.

Admiral class and

cruisers.

Neither abroad nor at home are the constructors allowed to pursue their way unchallenged by criticism. In England, among ships of the belted recent construction, the Admiral class and the belted cruisers are the types which have been most criticized. These classes are so numerously represented in the Navy that it would be little short of a national disaster if we were driven to regard them as absolute failures.

class.

White's

Hood.

Of the Admiral class we have built six, and they have cost nearly Admiral four and a half millions sterling. Sir Edward Reed would remove the Admirals from our list of battle-ships on the ground of deficiency of protection at the water-line. Admiral Hood and Mr. White, in their evidence before the Select Committee on our Navy Estimates, refused to concur in this condemnation. Referring to the risks of the loss of stability by the penetration of the unarmoured sides near the water-line, Mr. White told the Committee that the Admiral Mr. class would fight with risks of the same kind as the ships with evidence. narrow belts of foreign navies. His views were confirmed by Admiral Hood, who said that, for the fighting purposes of a ship Admiral under the usual conditions as he found them at sea, his experience led him to the opinion that it was not of vital importance whether the upper edge of the belt was flush with the water or 18 inches above the water-line. Whilst expressing a favourable opinion generally of the Admiral class, Admiral Hood had considered it desirable to give more protection to the Nile and Trafalgar class, for Nile and the designs of which he was personally responsible. In these two ships the 20-inch steel-faced armour is reinforced by inner armour with a strong system of girder work. The armour is not only thicker, but it extends over an area of side considerably larger than in the case of the Admiral class. It is important to take note of the sacrifices required to secure this increased amount of armour. The tonnage has been raised from 10,600 to 12,000 tons, and the cost. from £729,000 for each ship to £854,000. An addition of 1400 tons to the displacement, and an increased expenditure of £125,000, is the price which it has been necessary to pay for the additional defensive power of the Nile class. There has been no development of offensive power in the later ships. In point of speed and coal endurance, the Nile and Trafalgar are somewhat inferior to the Admiral class, although their armament is approximately the same.

A general summary of the fighting efficiency of the Admiral class was given by Mr. White, in answer to a question put by Mr. Maclean,

Trafalgar.