The Admiralty has been severely condemned by Sir Edward Reed for the expenditure of three and a half millions on the Orlando class. The position of the armour belt is the ground of condemnation. The Admiralty witnesses were closely examined by the Committee on the Navy Estimates as to their opinion of the value of the ships of the Orlando class. Neither Sir Arthur Hood, nor Sir Anthony Hoskins, nor Mr. White, concurred with Sir Edward Reed in attaching a vital importance to the position of the protective belt. The following reply was given to a question put to Sir Arthur Hood: "In your opinion is this vessel, with her altered condition, the armour being under water, still valuable as a fighting vessel ?-Most valuable. I may just as well explain to you the reason of the alteration. Although the ship was designed by another Board, naturally the present Board knew everything in connection with her. The real reason of that ship's armour being immersed is this: when the design was prepared by the constructor of that day, and put before the Board of Admiralty of that day to approve or disapprove, the quantity of coal that was shown in that design was 440 tons. The upper edge of the armour was shown as 18 inches above water, consequent upon that amount of coal being on board. But provision was made in the bunkers of that ship for holding 900 tons of coal. Nobody with any common sense, I should have thought, would have designed a ship which was to carry 900 tons of coal, and place her protection of armour as if she was to carry 440 tons. The consequence was, that when the ship was commissioned for foreign service she took 900 tons. That lowered her armour from 18 inches above water to the water's edge. Practically, in my opinion, it makes very little difference, in the actual protection of the ship at sea, whether the edge of the armour is 18 inches above water or not. If a ship was floating on glass it might make a difference, but not under usual conditions at sea." Sir Anthony Hoskins, being closely pressed by Sir Edward Reed, gave a similar opinion. Mr. White's evidence was in the same sense. In reply to the Chairman, he said: "My personal opinion about these ships is that the question of the relation of an armour-belt 5 feet wide to the water surface is not one of the first importance. These vessels, in my judgment, are comparable with vessels which are known as protected vessels. That has always been my opinion. In protected vessels of this size in our own and foreign navies there is no side armour, but the lower edge of the deck is from 4 to 5 feet under water when the ships are complete for sea, and the top of the deck is about a foot to 18 inches above water. "There is a hog-backed steel deck protecting the vitals of the ship? Yes. These ships, it appears to me, belong to the same category as protected vessels, and always have so belonged. "So far as the alteration in immersion by 7 inches goes, that is to say, with regard to the armament, and so forth, that has been caused by an absolute improvement of the offensive strength of the vessel ?-That is the case. These ships are not made deeper by ballast in their bottom, but by an addition to their live load, to their fighting qualities. As I explained to the Committee, the additions which I have classed under hull and armour are really largely consequent upon the alterations of armament. "And there has been no sacrifice of speed?-On the contrary, there has been an increase of speed, even with the heavier load of coal, which, after full consideration, the present Board of Admiralty decided should be carried. "So that your general estimate of these vessels is a high one for the purpose for which they were intended ?-It is. I have heard but one opinion from naval officers about these vessels regarded as cruisers, quite irrespective of the technical distinction between armoured and protected ships. That opinion has been without exception favourable. "But you regard them as properly coming within the category of protected ships, rather than of armoured battle-ships ?-They were never reckoned as battle-ships, but they were reckoned as armoured ships, and they were called belted or armoured cruisers. But it appears to me that they are, strictly speaking, to be compared with the cruiser classes which have protection to their vitals. It is a matter of opinion, and a matter of cost, whether that protection is to be obtained by side armour, such as these vessels have, or by a strongly curved deck, such as is given to most of the vessels. "I rather gather that your personal opinion is that the protection is more economically and better given by a horizontal steel cover than by the side armour ?-My personal opinion on this matter has been published again and again. I look upon the use of side armour, in the form of a belt of this narrowness, as not a very wise expenditure of money." The following table shows the principal points of difference between the Orlando as designed and as completed, and the authority for the variations: |