displacement or tonnage, in reality it was formed on a more scientific
basis. Admiral Sir George Elliot demonstrated, in 1867, that the real
basis was not a rule of size, but a _law of safety_, similar to that
which operates in the natural world; a law so important that it should
under no circumstances be disregarded. He showed that sailing ships
conformed to this law. He showed that the reduction of a vessel’s
size, for instance, endowed her with smaller draught and an increased
speed; that the dispensing with one quality automatically gave another
in compensation; and that thus the weakly armed vessel always possessed
the means, if not to fight, to escape from capture.[173]
With the coming of steam and armour, all this was changed. Size had
now no inherent disability; on the contrary, the larger the ship the
greater the horse-power which could be carried in her, the greater her
probable speed and sea endurance. The small ship had no advantages.
The old classification had clearly broken down. The first ironclads,
the _Warrior_ and her successors, although of frigate form, belonged
to no particular class; they were of a special type intended to cope
with the most powerful ships afloat or projected; and subsequent ships
were designed with the same end in view. These ships being faster as
well as more powerful than those of a smaller size, there was no object
in attempting to build others of a frigate class for the purpose of
outsailing them.
As material developed, and as the warship became more and more
obviously a compromise between conflicting qualities, differentiation
of types was once more seen to be necessary. Attempts were made to
classify on the bases of displacement, material, defensive and motive
power, service, system of armament. In the end British construction
divided itself into two categories: armoured and unarmoured vessels.
And each of these categories was subdivided into classes of ships
analogous to those of the old sailing ships.
But, during the transitional period 1860 to 1880, when armour and
iron ships, steam engines, rifled guns, and fish torpedoes, were all
in their infancy and subject to the most rapid development, no such
classification was recognized. The circumstances of the Crimean War,
with the adoption of armour and the sudden and enormous growth in the
unit of artillery force which took place soon afterwards, led to the
first differentiation of ironclads, into ocean-going and coast-defence
vessels. We have already noted this fact. We have seen how, especially
to the lesser Powers, the turreted monitor appeared to offer an
economical and effective form of naval force; and we have noted how, in
America, the evolution proceeded in the opposite direction, viz. from
coast-defence monitor to ocean-going turret ship. This differentiation
prevailed for many years. It prevailed even in the British navy, in
spite of its being in full opposition to the offensive principle on
which that navy had always based its policy.
Later, although convinced that in any war involving this country and
its colonies the chief combats must be fought in European waters, naval
opinion saw the necessity for a type of ship designed primarily for the
defence and attack of commerce: a speedy, lightly armed and protected
type capable of overhauling and injuring a weaker, or of escaping from
a more powerful enemy. The American War of ’62, in which no general sea
action was fought, gave the impulse to the construction of the type
which eventually became known as the _cruiser_. Vessels were built in
’63 expressly to overtake Confederate vessels and drive from the seas
the Southern mercantile marine. These vessels were to annihilate the
enemy’s commerce without being drawn themselves to take part in an
engagement, unless in very favourable circumstances. Several such ships
were built. The first, the _Idaho_, was a complete failure; the next
attempt was little more successful; and those subsequently constructed,
the _Wampanoag_ class, the finest ships of the type which existed at
the close of the war, which were designed for 17 knots and to carry
sixteen 10- or 11-inch smooth-bore cast-iron guns on the broadside and
a revolving 60-pounder rifle in the bows, suffered from miscalculations
in design and from the weakness peculiar to long and heavily weighted
timber-built ships. “These pioneers of the type,” says Brassey, “were
followed, both in England and in France, by vessels believed by the
builders of their respective countries to be better adapted for the
work for which they were designed.”
At first England and France had built and appropriated small ironclads
to this secondary service; in France the _Belliqueuse_, in England
the _Pallas_, were designed to this end. But in ’66 the first ship of
the cruiser type was built for the British navy: the _Inconstant_,
of Sir Edward Reed’s design, an iron-built, fine-lined vessel with a
speed of 16 knots and a large coal capacity. She was followed by the
corvettes _Active_ and _Volage_, and then, in ’73, by the _Shah_ and
_Raleigh_. Experience with the early cruisers showed the advantages
of large displacement. “The greater number of the American corvettes
had now been launched. A trial of one of them showed that the high
hopes which had been entertained of their performance were fallacious.
It now appeared no longer necessary that the English corvettes
should possess such extraordinary power and speed, qualities which
necessarily required very large displacements. The Admiralty, however,
still believing in the wisdom of the policy which they had previously
adopted, decided to follow a totally different course from that which
all other navies had been compelled by financial considerations to
follow. So far from diminishing the size of their ships, increased
displacement was given to the new designs.”[174] Full sail power was
still required, for the high-power steam engine used by the cruiser for
fighting purposes was most uneconomical. The _Raleigh_, for instance,
burned her six hundred tons of coal in less than 36 hours, at full
speed.
But after the _Raleigh_ came a slight reaction. With a view to economy
a smaller type of vessel was designed, the smallest possible vessel
which could be contrived which would possess a covered-in gun deck
in combination with other features considered essential in a frigate
class; the result was the _Boadicea_ or the _Bacchante_ class. In the
late ’seventies size again increased, and the _Iris_ and _Mercury_,
unsheathed vessels of steel, with coal-protection for their water-line
and extended watertight subdivision of the hull, were laid down.
From the unarmoured, unprotected cruiser was in time evolved, by the
competition of units, the armoured cruiser. Russia led the way. Her
_General-Admiral_, the first belted cruiser, was built to compete with
the _Raleigh_ and _Boadicea_. Then England designed the _Shannon_,
partially belted and with protective deck and coal protection, to
outmatch her. Eventually the cleavage came, and the cruisers were
themselves divided into two or more classes, in accordance with their
duties, size and fitness for the line of battle.
* * * * *
Of the development of torpedo craft this is not the place to write;
although the torpedo was fast growing in efficiency and importance, it
had not, before 1880, become the centre and cause of a special craft
and a special system for its employment in action. But after that
date the creation of torpedo flotillas began to exercise a marked and
continuous effect upon the evolution of the ironclad. The fish-torpedo,
improving at a phenomenal rate in the first years of its development,
and at first esteemed as of defensive value and as a counter to the
ram, became, after 1880, an offensive weapon of the first importance.
The ram, already suspected of being placed too high in popular
estimation, suffered a decline; the danger of its use in action was
emphasized by naval officers, whose opinion alone was decisive: its
use, as an eminent tactician explained, reduced the chances of battle
to a mere toss-up, since there was “only half a ship’s length between
ramming and being rammed.” The gun developed in power, in range, and
accuracy; but not (up to the end of the century) at so great a rate
as its rival, the torpedo. The steam engine affected all weapons
by its continuous development. It depressed the ram, enhanced the
importance of the gun, and endowed the torpedo with a large accession
of potential value in placing it, in its special fast sea-going craft,
within reach of the battleship; moreover, it enabled the cruiser to
regain its old supremacy of speed over the line-of-battle unit. Armour,
quick-firing guns, secondary armament, watertight construction, net
defence, all influenced the development of the various types. But it
was the torpedo, borne into action by the high-speed steam engine,
which had the greatest effect on naval types in the last two decades of
the century, and which at one time bid fair to cause a constructional
revolution as great as that of 1860. The torpedo, according to a
school of French enthusiasts, had destroyed the ironclad battleship
and dealt a heavy blow at English sea power by paving the way for an
inexpensive navy designed for a _guerre de course_. The ironclad was
dead, they cried, and might as well be placed in the Louvre museum
along with the old three-deckers! In Italy and Germany, too, the
logic of facts seemed to point to a vast depreciation in the power of
existing navies: the fate of the expensive ironclad seemed assured, in
the presence of small, fast, sea going torpedo-boats. Still, it was
noticed, England laid down battleships. True; this was quite in keeping
with her machiavellian policy. Had she not resisted--“not blindly, but
with a profound clairvoyance”--all the inventions of the century? Had
she not successfully baulked the development of Fulton’s mines, steam
navigation, the shell gun, and the ironclad itself? And, now that steam
had made the blockade impossible and the torpedo had attacked the
ironclad effectually, making sea-supremacy an empty term, could not
the British Empire be destroyed by taking the choice of weapons out of
England’s hands?
The prospect was alluring. Yet the ironclad survived the menace
and remained the standard unit of naval power. Expensive, designed
with several aims and essentially complex,--a compromise, like man
himself,--it could not be replaced by a number of small, cheap,
uni-functional vessels, each constructed for one sole and special
purpose, without loss of efficiency and concentration of power.
Nor could it be supplanted by a type which, like the sea-going
torpedo-boat, could only count on an ascendancy over it in certain
moments of its own choosing--for example, at night-time or in a fog. To
every novel species of attack the ironclad proved superior, calling to
its aid the appropriate defensive measures.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Sir Harry Nicolas: _History of the Royal Navy_.
[2] The greatest authoritative works on ancient and medieval shipping,
it should be mentioned, are the _Archéologie Navale_ and the _Glossaire
Nautique_ of M. Jal, published in 1840 and 1848 respectively.
[3] Corbett: _Drake and the Tudor Navy_.
[4] Corbett.
[5] Oppenheim.
[6] Corbett.
[7] Navy Records Soc.: Edited by Sir John Laughton.
[8] Cases were known where ships, unfit for sea, completed their voyage
in safety, to fall to pieces immediately on being taken into dock and
deprived of that continual support which they derived from the water
when afloat (_Charnock_).
[9] Chief-constructor D. W. Taylor, U.S.N.
[10] Creuze: _Shipbuilding_.
[11] Manwayring.
[12] Navy Records Soc.: 1918. _Edited by_ W. G. Perrin, Esq., O.B.E.
[13] Captain John Smith’s _Sea Man’s Grammar_ also appeared in the
early part of this century.
[14] Sir J. Knowles, F.R.S.
[15] Willett: _Memoirs on Naval Architecture_.
[16] It has been suggested that the restricted draught given to the
Dutch ships, owing to the shallowness of their coast waters, had the
result of necessitating a generous breadth, and therefore made them
generally stiffer than vessels of English construction.
[17] Derrick in his Memoirs refers to this ship us having been built of
burnt instead of kilned timber, and as having special arrangements for
circulating air in all its parts.
[18] Charnock.
[19] Colomb: _Sea Warfare_.
[20] Creuze: _Papers on Naval Architecture_.
[21] Even the scientific Sir William Petty cast a veil of mystery
over his processes. “I only affirm,” he writes, “that the perfection
of sailing lies in my principle, _finde it out who can!_” (See Pepys’
Diary for 31st July, 1663.)
[22] Creuze: _Shipbuilding, Encycl. Brit._, 7th Edition, 1841. It
should be mentioned that the work of Dr. Colin McLaurin, of Edinburgh,
in giving a mathematical solution for the angles at which a ship’s
sails should be set, had received considerable attention on the
Continent.
[23] See a paper by Mr. Johns, R.C.N.C., in _Trans. I.N.A._ 1910.
[24] Willett: _Memoirs on Naval Architecture_.
[25] At the beginning of the eighteenth century the English first
rates carried 100 guns. The second rate comprised two classes: (1) a
three-decker of 90; (2) a two-decker of 80. Ships of these rates were
few in number and very expensive. The bulk of our fleets consisted of
third rates: two-deckers of 70 guns in war and 62 in peace time and on
foreign stations (_Charnock_).
[26] Sir C. Knowles: _Observations on Shipbuilding_.
[27] _Letters of Sir Byam Martin_: N.R. Soc.
[28] Sir C. Knowles: _Observations on Shipbuilding_.
[29] In 1784 Thomas Gordon published a treatise entitled _Principles
of Naval Architecture_, drawing attention to the work of the French
scientists and advocating increased length and breadth, finer lines,
and a more systematic disposition of materials, for improving the
strength and seaworthiness of our royal ships. No notice was taken of
his communications to Lord Sandwich, but there is no evidence that his
predicted fate overtook him: “to be traduced as an innovator theorist,
and visionary projector, as has been the fate of most authors of useful
discoveries in modern times, particularly in Britain.”
“The bigotry of old practice,” recorded Mr. Willett in 1793, “opposes
everything that looks like innovation.”
[30] Fincham says their armament was established as, thirty 32-pounders
on the lower deck, thirty 24-pounders on the middle deck, thirty-two
18-pounders on the upper deck, and on the quarter-deck and forecastle
eighteen 12-pounders.
[31] James: _Naval History_.
[32] _Letters of Sir Byam Martin_: N.R. Soc.
[33] Sharp: _Memoirs of Rear-Admiral Sir W. Symonds_.
[34] Hannay: _Ships and Men_. This formula was known before, for
Bushnell mentions it in his _Compleat Shipwright_ of 1678.
[35] Sharp: _Memoirs of Admiral Sir W. Symonds_.
[36] E. J. Reed: _On the Modifications to Ships of the Royal Navy_.
[37] _Ibid._
[38] Lieut.-Col. H. W. L. Hime: _The Origin of Artillery_.
[39] In the _Histoire d’Artillerie_ of MM. Reinaud and Favé long
excerpts from Bacon are examined, from which it appears that he
suggested the use of gunpowder in military operations. Gibbon says:
“That extraordinary man, Friar Bacon, reveals two of the ingredients,
saltpetre and sulphur, and conceals the third in a sentence of
mysterious gibberish, as if he dreaded the consequences of his own
discovery.”
[40] Lieut. H. Brackenbury, R.A.: _Ancient Cannon in Europe_. Vol. IV
and V of Proc. R.A.I.
[41] Schmidt: _Armes à feu portatives_.
[42] Sir Harry Nicolas, in his _History of the Royal Navy_, attributes
the documents to the reign of Edward III: an error of more than seventy
years. The mistake is exposed by a writer in Vol. XXVI of _The English
Historical Review_, in an article on “Firearms in England in the
Fourteenth Century.” The writer also gives the English records relating
to the use of firearms at Cressy.
[43] Brackenbury.
[44] The secrecy of the early writers of Italy on gunnery and kindred
subjects has been remarked on by Maurice Cockle in his _Bibliography of
Military Books_. He attributes it to two motives: fear that the Infidel
(the Turk) might profit by the knowledge otherwise gained, and a desire
to keep the secrets of the craft in the hands of their countrymen,
whose knowledge and assistance the foreigner would then be forced to
purchase.
[45] _The Great Cannon of Muhammad II_: Brig.-Gen. J. H. Lefroy, R.A.,
F.R.S. Vol. VI of Proc. R.A.I.
[46] Ascribing the deliverance of Constantinople from the Saracens in
the two sieges of A.D. 668 and 716 to the novelty, the terrors, and
the real efficacy of Greek fire, Gibbon says: “The important secret
of compounding and directing this artificial flame was imparted by
Callinicus, a native of Heliopolis in Syria, who deserted from the
service of the caliph to that of the emperor. The skill of a chemist
and engineer was equivalent to the succour of fleets and armies.”
For the story of the manner in which its mystery was guarded at
Constantinople, of its theft by the Infidel, and of the use he made of
it against the Christian chivalry at the crusades, see Chapter LII of
_The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_.
[47] Grose: _Military Antiquities_.
[48] Hayley’s MSS.: quoted by M. A. Lower.
[49] Oppenheim.
[50] Oppenheim.
[51] Corned powder was graded in France in the year 1540 into three
sizes by means of sieves which varied with the types of guns for which
they were intended (see Hime: _Origin of Artillery_). By the end of the
century the manufacture had evidently improved in this country. “Some
do make excellent good corn powder, so fine, that the corns thereof are
like thime seed,” wrote Thos. Smith in his _Art of Gunnery_, A.D. 1600.
[52] Oppenheim.
[53] Bourne: _The Art of Shooting in Great Ordnance_, 1587.
[54] Sir J. K. Laughton: _Armada Papers, N.R.S._
[55] Smith demolished, to his own satisfaction, a theory current
that some molecular movement of the metal took place at the moment
of gunfire. “I asked the opinion of a soldier, who for a trespass
committed was enjoined to ride the canon, who confidently affirmed, he
could perceive no quivering of the metal of the piece, but that the air
which issued out of the mouth and touch-hole of the piece did somewhat
astonish and shake him.”
[56] The advantages of large calibres had been appreciated in the
previous century. Sir Richard Hawkins, in his _Observations_, printed
in 1593, compares the armament of his own ships with that of his
Spanish opponents, and says: “Although their artillery were larger,
weightier, and many more than ours, and in truth did pierce with
greater violence; yet ours being of greater bore, and carrying a
weightier and greater shot, was of more importance and of better effect
for sinking and spoiling.”
[57] Oppenheim.
[58] A significant view of the attitude of these professionals toward
any innovation in gunnery material is afforded by the entry of Mr.
Pepys in his diary for the 17th April, 1669.
[59] An anonymous writer in the _Pall Mall Gazette_.
[60] Le Sieur Malthus, gentil-homme Anglois, Commissaire Général des
Feux et Artifices de l’Artillerie de France, Capitaine General des
Sappes et Mines d’icelle & Ingeniéur és Armées du Roy, published his
_Pratique de la Guerre_ in 1668. This notable but almost-forgotten
artillerist introduced the use of mortars and bombs into France, in
1637. He was killed by a musket ball at the siege of Gravelines, as he
elevated himself above the rampart of a trench in order to watch the
effect of a bomb (St. Remy: _Mémoires_).
[61] This account is taken from _Historical Notes on Woolwich_, Lieut.
Grover, R.E. (Proc. R.A.I., Vol. VI).
[62] Le Blond: _Traité de l’Artillerie_, 1743.
[63] Lieut.-Gen. Sir William Congreve, Bart., was, as Captain Congreve,
appointed in 1783 to the control of the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich.
Sent in ’79 to Plymouth, to examine the gunpowders of H.M. ships in
consequence of the complaints of Admiral Barington, he found only
four serviceable barrels in the whole fleet. The gross frauds then
brought to light led to the formation of the Government establishment
at Waltham Abbey. His son was the inventor of the Congreve sight and
rocket.
[64] Gen. Sir Thomas Blomefield, Bart., who started his service
career as a midshipman, commanded a bomb vessel under Rodney at the
bombardment of Havre in 1759, and was present at Quiberon. After varied
service abroad he was appointed, in 1780, Inspector of Artillery and
of the Brass Foundry. “Never was the need of military supervision
over military manufactures more apparent than at this period. The
guns supplied to the naval and military forces had degenerated to the
lowest point in quality. Bursts were of frequent occurrence, and would
doubtless have been much more frequent if the roguery of contractors in
gunpowder had not kept pace with the roguery of contractors in guns....
From this period dates the high character of British cast iron and
brass ordnance.”
[65] Favé.
[66] The author of the _Études sur l’Artillerie_ places emphasis on
the importance of the substitution of cast iron for stone projectiles,
as augmenting the power of artillery. Stone balls broke to pieces on
impact with masonry, and were of small destructive power except when
in large mass, as projected from the largest bombards. He claims the
introduction of iron shot, the use of trunnions for elevating, and the
standardization of calibres, for the French artillery of Charles VIII,
who in 1495 descended on Italy.
[67] Favé.
[68] Lieut.-Col. Hime, R.A.: _The Progress of Field Artillery_.
[69] Owen: _Lectures on Artillery_.
[70] Whewell: _History of the Inductive Sciences_.
[71] _Encycl. Brit._, 11th Edition.
[72] This project, however, is mentioned of an engine called by him “a
semi-omnipotent engine,” the subject of the 98th invention: “an engine
so contrived, that working the _Primum mobile_ forward or backward,
upward or downward, circularly or cornerwise, to and fro, straight,
upright or downright, yet the pretended operation continueth and
advanceth, none of the motions above-mentioned hindering, much less
stopping the other.”
This engine is obviously not the same as that described as the
sixty-eighth invention.
[73] A well-known story, quoted at length in the Memoirs of Sir John
Barrow, connected de Caus with the Marquis of Worcester in dramatic
fashion. The Marquis was being conducted through the prison of the
Bicêtre in Paris when his attention was attracted by the screams of
an old madman who had made a wonderful discovery of the power of
steam, and who had so importuned Cardinal Richelieu that he had been
incarcerated as a nuisance.
“This person,” said the insolvent Lord Worcester after conversing with
him, “is no madman; and in my country, instead of shutting him up, they
would heap riches upon him. In this prison you have buried the greatest
genius of your age.”
The fable, and its exposure by a French writer, M. Figuier, are
described in Dirck’s book.
[74] Millington: _Natural Philosophy_.
[75] Sir E. D. Lawrence: _Steam in Relation to Cornwall_.
[76] Enouf: _Papin, sa vie et son œuvre_.
[77] On the evidence of a picture purporting to represent the first
Newcomen engine, in which mechanisms are shown for operating the cocks
automatically, an attempt has been made to prove that the manipulated
cocks were a figment and the story of Humphrey Potter a myth. The
iconoclast has not been successful. The evidence that the first engines
were hand-controlled is very general (see Galloway’s _Steam Engine and
Its Inventors_).
[78] At this time the corpuscular theory of heat still held the field.
“Caloric,” or the matter of heat, was supposed to be a substance which
could be imparted to or abstracted from a body, which had the property
of augmenting its bulk, but not its weight, by setting its particles at
a greater or less distance from one another.
[79] _Encycl. Brit._, Eleventh Edition.
[80] A text-book published a few years before Robins’ birth (Binnings’
_Light to the Art of Gunnery_, 1689) told how a certain profane and
godless gunner, Cornelius Slime, was carried off by the devil before
the eyes of the astonished onlookers!
[81] Whewell: _Hist. of the Inductive Sciences_.
[82] Dr. Halley: _Phil. Trans._, 1686.
[83] How strange and almost incredible this phenomenon appeared to
people long after Robins’ time, may be seen from the manner in which
Ezekiel Baker, one of the principal London gunmakers and the contractor
who supplied the rifles with which the Rifle Brigade was equipped in
the year 1800, poured gentle sarcasm on the account of this experiment.
In his book on _Rifle Guns_, published in 1825, he can only assign the
cause of the deflection to “some peculiar enchantment in the air.”
“Or,” he continues, “with all my practice I have yet much to learn in
guns, and the effects of powder and wind upon the ball in its flight.”
[84] Of the superstitious awe with which an iron field-piece was
regarded by the highlanders in ’45, and of its small material value in
the field, a note will be found in the appendices to Scott’s _Waverley_.
[85] Mr. Patrick Miller, who is mentioned in a later chapter as
builder of the first successful steam-propelled vessel, was also an
enthusiastic artillerist. In a memorandum to the Select Committee of
the House of Commons, appointed in 1824 to consider the claims of
various inventors of steam-vessels, a Mr. Taylor gave the following
evidence: “I found him (Mr. Miller) a gentleman of great patriotism,
generosity, and philanthropy; and at the same time of a very
speculative turn of mind. Before I knew him (1785) he had gone through
a very long and expensive course of experiments upon artillery of which
the carronade was the result.”
[86] On April 20th, 1669, Mr. Pepys recorded in his diary a
visit to “the Old Artillery-ground near the Spitalfields” to see
a new gun “which, from the shortness and bigness, they do call
Punchinello.” Tried against a gun of double its own length, weight,
and powder-charge, Punchinello shot truer to a mark and was easier
to manage and had no greater recoil--to the great regret of the old
gunners and officers of the ordnance that were there.
The gallant inventor offered Mr. Pepys a share in the profits; there
seemed great promise that the king would favour it for naval use.
“And,” adds Pepys, “no doubt but it will be of profit to merchantmen
and others to have guns of the same form at half the charge.”
[87] James: _Naval History_.
[88] The carrying of _sham_ guns among their armament was not unknown
in the case of vessels which boasted a reputation for their superior
speed and sailing qualities (vide _Bentham Papers_).
[89] Captain Simmons, R.A.
[90] The carriage thus formed out of a baulk or trunk appears to have
been known as a trunk carriage. Norton describes the cannon-periers as
being mounted on “trunk carriages provided with four trucks.”
[91] Oppenheim.
[92] It was evidently a practice at this period to vary the diameter
of the trucks to suit the ship’s structure and the height of the
gun-ports. “Be careful,” says Bourne in 1587, “that the trucks be not
too high, for if the trucks be too high, then it will keep the carriage
that it will not go close against the ship’s side.... And the truck
being very high, it is not a small thing under a truck that will stay
it, etc. etc. And also, if that the truck be too high, it will cause
the piece to have the greater reverse or recoil. Therefore, the lower
that the trucks be, it is the better.”
Bourne also mentions, in the same book, the _Art of Shooting in Great
Ordnance_, as a curious invention of a “high Dutchman” a gun mounting
so devised as to allow the piece to rotate through 180° about its
trunnions for loading.
[93] Manwayring: _Sea-Man’s Dictionary_.
[94] Oppenheim.
[95] Hutchinson: _Naval Architecture_.
[96] In the margin of the copy of _The Art of Gunnery_, Thos. Smith,
A.D. 1600, in the library of the R.U.S.I. in Whitehall, is the
following note, written in legible seventeenth-century script: “Some
make a device to discharge at a distance by a long string, fixed to a
device like a cock for a gun with a flint or like a musket cock with a
match.”
In the same work are instructions as to firing in a wind, when the
train of powder might be blown from the vent before the linstock could
be applied. The gunner was to form a clay rampart, a sort of tinker’s
dam, on the metal of the piece on the windward side of the touch-hole.
[97] On this Sir John Laughton remarked: “The exercise, so born,
continued as long as the old men-of-war and the old guns--‘Ships
passing on opposite tacks; three rounds of quick firing’” (_Barham
Papers_, N.R. Soc.).
[98] A form of sight for use with ordnance was described by Nathaniel
Nye, in his _Art of Gunnery_, of 1674. It consisted of a lute-string
and a movable bead, with a scale opposite the latter graduated in
degrees and inches.
[99] In Lloyd and Hadcock’s _Artillery_ an extract from a letter
written in 1801 by Lord Nelson relative to a proposal to use gun-sights
at sea is given. The letter is unfavourable to the invention on the
ground that, as ships should always be at such close quarters with
their enemies that missing becomes impossible, such appliances would be
superfluous. But in this connection the observation is made that, with
the degree of accuracy of guns up to the nineteenth century a rough
“line of metal” aim was probably all that was justified, in the matter
of sighting. In other words, with one element of the system (the gun)
so very inaccurate, nothing was to be gained by increasing the accuracy
of another element (the sight) to a disproportionate degree. With
increasing accuracy of the gun, increasing accuracy of sight was called
for.
[100] In Vol. IV of the _Proceedings of the Royal Artillery
Institution_, in an article by General Lefroy, an order is quoted
showing that trials were made of firing shells horizontally by the
Royal Artillery in Canada in 1776. The author also shows that the
trials made by the French in 1784-6 were brought to the notice of Lord
Nelson.
In Vol. V is the following extract: “Experiments were made on
Acton Common in 1760, to fire coehorn and royal shells from 12-and
24-pounders, in order to be applied to the sea service; but as the
shells were found frequently to burst in the guns, it was thought too
hazardous to introduce them on board ships of war.”
[101] The first public demonstration was given by Lieut. Shrapnel,
R.A., before the G.O.C., Gibraltar, in the year 1787.
[102] Simmons: _Effect of Heavy Ordnance_, 1837.
[103] James: _Naval History_.
[104] A short review of both books is given in the _Papers on Naval
Architecture_, edited by Morgan and Creuze, 1829.
[105] See Hugo’s _Toilers of the Sea_.
[106] “As for guns,” wrote Fuller in his _Worthies of England_,
comparing the relative merits of the inventions of printing and
gunpowder, “it cannot be denied, that though most behold them as
instruments of cruelty; partly, because subjecting valour to chance;
partly, because guns give no quarter (which the sword sometimes doth);
yet it will appear that, since their invention, Victory hath not stood
so long a neuter, and hath been determined with the loss of fewer
lives.”
[107] At a later date this reduction in number of types of ordnance was
extended to cover land artillery. In ’62 the French brought down the
number of different calibres to four: one for the field, one for the
siege, and two (the 30-and 50-pounders) for the navy.
[108] Dahlgren: _Shells and Shell-Guns_, 1856.
[109] By this time Denmark, Holland, Russia and Sweden had all
recognized the possibilities of shell guns, and had adopted them in
greater or less degree. By this time, too, France actually possessed
more steam war-vessels than we had ourselves.
[110] Simmons: _Effects of Heavy Ordnance_.
[111] The crossbow was looked upon as a weapon unworthy of a brave
man; a prejudice which afterwards prevailed with respect to fire-arms
(Hallam: _Middle Ages_).
[112] The Hon. T. F. Fremantle: _The Book of the Rifle_.
[113] _Le Développement des Armes à Feu_, 1870.
[114] In this aspect of the origin of the grooves there is a curious
analogy between the rifle-barrel and the drill used in machine tools.
In the primitive drill the shank is appreciably less in diameter than
the hole cut by the drill, so that the drillings can easily work their
way out of the hole. When, however, it was desired to make the shank
almost of the same diameter as the hole, so as to form a guide, it was
necessary to flute it with two grooves or more to allow the drillings
to get away. In the course of its evolution these grooves became spiral.
[115] Quoted in _The Book of the Rifle_ from Schmidt’s _Armes à Feu
Portatives_, 1889.
[116] Delvigne: _Notice historique des armes rayées_.
[117] Beaufoy: _Scloppetaria_.
[118] A paragraph in Beaufoy’s _Scloppetaria_ (1808) shows the complete
misconception under which its author laboured as to the function of
rifling. Just as the air turns a windmill or a shuttlecock (he says),
so, after an indented ball quits its rifled barrel the air, forced
spirally along its grooves, will cause the ball to turn. In short, he
regarded the spiral grooves of a barrel as being of no further utility,
with respect to the generating of the rotary motion, than as an easy
way of giving the ball the requisite indentations.
[119] Fremantle: _The Book of the Rifle_.
[120] Captain A. Walker: _The Rifle_, 1864.
[121] At the beginning of the century Ezekiel Baker had noted that “a
wadding in the shape of an acorn cup placed on the powder, and the ball
put on the top of the cup, will expand the cup and fill the bore--and
of course the windage will be much diminished.”
[122] Mention must be made of an important prior development of the
elongated bullet which had been carried out by General Jacob in India,
quite independently of French research. General Jacob conducted, in an
altogether scientific manner, experiments the successful results of
which were communicated by him to the home government on more than one
occasion. The importance of his discoveries remained unrecognized, and
the value of his improvements was lost to this country.
[123] In military circles the possibilities of the invasion of this
country had for some time been under discussion, in view of the
increasingly aggressive temper of the French. Interest in national
defence became general with the warning letter of the Duke of
Wellington which appeared in _The Times_ on the 9th January, 1847. In
’51 was held the Great Exhibition, and for a time opinion was less
agitated. The Exhibition, it was thought and hoped by numbers of
people, would inaugurate the millennium.
[124] This advantage of the rifled gun hod been fully appreciated
by Captain Norton. As early as 1832 he had conducted trials with
one-pounder rifled cannon, to confirm his belief that the projectile
would maintain its rotation during flight and hit the target
point-first (_Journal of R.U.S.I._, 1837).
[125] Commander R. A. E. Scott, R.N.: _Journal of R.U.S.I._, Vol. VI,
1862.
[126] Tennant: _The Story of the Guns_. This book gives in detail the
controversy which arose between the advocates of the Armstrong and the
Whitworth systems.
[127] _Edinburgh Review_, 1859. Quoted by Sir E. Tennant.
[128] The sudden and extraordinary development of rifled ordnance
which now took place had a revolutionary effect not only on naval
architecture and gunnery but on land fortification. In ’59 Sir William
Armstrong, giving evidence before a committee appointed by the War
Secretary, stated that he could attain with a specially constructed
gun a range of five miles. The statement made a sensation; for in the
presence of such a gun most of the existing defences of our dockyards
and depots were almost useless. A Commission on National Defence
was formed. It reported that new fortifications were necessary for
our principal arsenals, the fleet alone being insufficient for the
defence of ports. “The introduction of steam,” stated the report, “may
operate to our disadvantage in diminishing to some extent the value of
superior seamanship; the practice of firing shells horizontally, and
the enormous extent to which the power and accuracy of aim of artillery
have been increased, lead to the conclusion that after an action even
a victorious fleet would be more seriously crippled and therefore a
longer time unfit for service.” Thus the command of the Channel might
be temporarily lost. As steam facilitated invasion, the immediate
fortification of vital points on the South Coast was considered
necessary. In short, faith in the mobile fleet was temporarily
abandoned.
The recommendations of the Commission were carried out almost in their
entirety. In the case of Portsmouth, for instance, the reinforcement of
the Hilsea Lines, decided on only two years previously, was suspended
in favour of a defence of far greater radius--a circle of forts some of
which were designed to prevent an enemy from gaining possession, from
the land side, of Portsdown Hill, a ridge less than five miles from the
Dockyard and therefore a position from which, with the new artillery,
the Dockyard could be bombarded. A similar girdle of defences was given
to Plymouth.
[129] Commander R. A. E. Scott, R.N.
[130] Lloyd and Hadcock.
[131] Woodcroft: _Steam Navigation_, 1848.
[132] de la Roncière: _La Marine Française_.
[133] Woodcroft: _Steam Navigation_.
[134] Rigaud: _Early Proposals for Steam Navigation_.
[135] Enouf: Papin; _Sa Vie et Son Œuvre_.
[136] Quoted in Fincham’s _Naval Architecture_.
[137] Mr. Taylor’s evidence to Select Committee, 1824. Quoted in
Woodcroft’s _Steam Navigation_.
[138] Miller is said to have approached the Admiralty twice upon the
subject, and certainly he was keenly interested in naval affairs. A
generous tribute has been paid him by a friend whose name is honoured
in our naval annals: “I was unwearied,” says John Clerk of Eldin in
the preface of his Essay on Naval Tactics, published in 1804, “in
my attention to the many valuable experiments of the ingenious and
liberal-minded Mr. Patrick Miller of Dalswinton; to whom, whether in
shipbuilding or in constructing artillery, both musketry and great
guns, his country is more indebted than has hitherto been properly
acknowledged.”
[139] Dickinson: _Robert Fulton, Engineer and Artist_.
[140] Colden: _Life of Fulton_.
[141] _M. Marestier’s Report on Steam Navigation in the U.S.A._ (Morgan
and Creuze, 1826).
[142] _Fraser’s Magazine_, 1848.
[143] In his book _On Naval Warfare with Steam_, published thirty
years later, Sir Howard Douglas set out more clearly the case for
the strenuous development of steam navigation by this country, and
exposed one of the chief flaws in M. Paixhans’ argument. At that date
it was still the all-but-universal opinion in foreign countries that
the introduction of steam had rendered superiority in seamanship
of comparatively little importance in naval warfare. Sir Howard
Douglas showed that English superiority had spread to machine design,
construction and manipulation, and that if this country chose to exert
itself it could maintain its lead.
It is curious to note that not one of these three writers emphasises
the main disability under which France has actually suffered, viz. the
unsuitability of French coal as warship fuel and the distance of her
iron and coal mines from her chief shipbuilding centres.
[144] Briggs: _Naval Administrations_.
[145] A steam paddle-boat, named the _Lord Melville_ in honour of the
descendant of Charlotte Dundas, was then plying regularly between
London Bridge and Calais.
[146] _Memoirs of Sir John Barrow, Bart._
[147] Williams: _Life of Sir Charles Napier_.
[148] In 1835 a new department, of Royal Naval Engineers, was formed:
to consist of technically trained men to manage the machinery of steam
vessels. A uniform button was designed for them, and they were given
the rank of Warrant Officers. Up to this time the machinery had been
in charge of men who, for the most part, were “mere labourers”; and,
commanding officers being ignorant of mechanical engineering, extensive
fraud and waste had been practised, especially in connection with the
refitting of vessels by contractors (Otway: _Steam Navigation_).
[149] Reed: _On the Modifications to H.M. Ships in the XIXth century_.
[150] The strategic value of steam power in warfare was first
demonstrated by Lord John Hay in ’30. In the operations on the North
Coast of Spain “the opportune arrival of a reinforcement of fifteen
hundred fresh troops from Santander, by one steamer alone, despatched
the previous day from San Sebastian, a distance of a hundred miles,
for that express purpose, gave a decisive and important turn to the
transactions of that day” (Otway: _Steam Navigation_).
[151] Fincham.
[152] The author of this work, M. Paucton, in addition to discussing
the possibility of replacing the oar by the screw, threw out the
suggestion of its use for aerial flight. “Je sçais qu’on ne peut guère
manquer de faire rire, en voulant donner des aîles à un homme. Je sçais
que plusieurs personnes, qui out osé prendre l’effor dans les airs,
n’ont pas eu un meilleur succès que l’imprudent Icare.” Nevertheless,
it is incontestable that a man can lift more than his weight. And if he
were to employ his full force on a machine which could act on air as
does the screw, it would lift him by its aid through the air as it will
propel him through the water.
M. Paucton hastened to calm the incredulous reader by assuring him with
an affectation of levity that he was not really serious. “Il est permis
de s’égayer quelquefois.”
[153] A full account of these is given in Bourne’s _Treatise on the
Screw Propeller_.
[154] Weale: _Papers on Engineering_.
[155] The _Archimedes_, with a 3-foot stroke engine which worked at
27 strokes per minute, was run against the _Widgeon_, the fastest
paddlewheel steamer on the Dover station. Two points of importance
were noted by the Admiralty representatives with reference to the
propelling machinery of the _Archimedes_: the objectionable noise made
by the spur-wheels, and their liability to damage and derangement. As,
however, Mr. Smith proposed to obviate this objection “by substituting
spiral gearing in lieu of the cogs” the representatives did not lay
stress on these disadvantages.
[156] A similar paradox was accidentally revealed in the case of the
paddlewheel. It was at first thought that, the broader the floats the
greater would be the pull. A certain steam vessel, however, being found
to have too much beam to allow her to pass into a lock, was altered by
having her floats and paddle-boxes made narrower. It was found that her
speed had thereby been improved (Otway).
[157] Note sur l’État des Forces Navales de la France, 1844.
[158] Parliamentary Report on Screw Propulsion in H.M. Navy, 1850.
[159] Sir Howard Douglas was instrumental in bringing to the notice
of the Government the aggressive aims implied by the _Enquête
Parlementaire_: His notes were printed confidentially in ’53 at the
press of the Foreign Office. Vide his _Defence of England_, published
in 1860.
[160] _The Navies of the World._ Hans Busk, M.A., 1859.
[161] The details of these trials against iron plate will be found in
Sir Howard Douglas’ _Naval Gunnery_, third and subsequent editions.
[162] The rapid construction of over two hundred gunboats and
their steam machinery revealed the enormous industrial capacity of
this country, and constituted a feat of which the whole nation was
rightly proud. For instance of successful organization, Messrs. Penn
of Greenwich contracted to build eighty sets of main engines in
three months--a proposition ridiculed as impossible. By the rapid
distribution of duplicate patterns throughout the country the resources
of all the greatest firms were utilized, and the contract was fulfilled
almost to the day!
Some seven or eight years later, when the building of ironclads was
being debated in parliament, the government was able to recall this
achievement as an argument for not building too many ships of a new and
probably transitional type. If we liked, it was said, we could soon
produce a fleet of ironclads far greater than all the other Powers of
Europe besides.
[163] J. Scott Russell: _The Fleet of the Future: Iron or Wood?_ 1861.
[164] Reed: _Our Ironclad Ships_.
[165] Boynton: _The Navies of England, France, America, and Russia._
New York, ’65.
[166] Colomb: _Memoirs of Sir Cooper Key_.
[167] Colomb: _Memoirs of Sir Cooper Key_.
[168] In parenthesis, for she is of no special interest as a type, we
may note here the _Temeraire_, built at Chatham and completed in 1877:
a compromise between the central-battery and the turret ship. Generally
like the _Alexandra_ in disposition of armament, she carried in
addition, in order to give all-round fire, two open barbettes, one at
each end of the upper deck, each containing a 25-ton gun hydraulically
operated.
[169] The freedom of the _Royal Sovereign’s_ turrets from any liability
to jam was demonstrated at Portsmouth by subjecting them to the impact
of projectiles fired from the 12-ton guns of the _Bellerophon_.
[170] Colomb: _Memoirs of Sir Cooper Key_.
[171] Hitherto the torpedo had been used in warfare only in the form
of a stationary mine, or motion had been given to it either by letting
it drift on a tide or by attaching it rigidly to the bow of a vessel.
After the American Civil War, in which conflict three-fourths of the
ships disabled or destroyed were so disposed of by torpedoes, efforts
were made to give motion to it, either by towing or by self-propulsion.
In ’69 Commander Harvey, R.N., brought to the notice of the Admiralty
his invention of a torpedo or sea kite which was so shaped that, when
launched from the deck of a steamer and towed by a wire, it diverged
from the steamer’s track and stood away at an angle of 45°. It could be
exploded either electrically or by contact. The possibilities of this
weapon were illustrated in a volume published in ’71, one picture of
which showed luridly “an ironclad fleet surprised at sea by a squadron
of torpedo craft armed with Harvey’s sea torpedoes.”
The towed torpedo was overshadowed by the fish or self-propelled
torpedo. In ’70 Mr. Whitehead came to England and, prosecuting
experiments under the eyes of naval officers, with a 16-inch torpedo
successfully sank an old corvette anchored in the Medway at 136 yards’
range. The result was the purchase by the Admiralty of his secret and
sole rights. In ’77 the first torpedo-boat was ordered.
[172] Colomb: _Attack and Defence of Fleets_.
[173] Vice-Admiral Sir G. Elliot: _On the Classification of Ships of
War_.
[174] Brassey: _The British Navy_.
INDEX
_Active_, the, 298
_Agamemnon_, the, 288
_Ajax_, the, 288
_Alarm_, the, 44
_Alecto_, the, 239
_Alexandra_, the, 274
Anderson, Robert, 167
Anson, Lord, 43, 121, 151
Archimedes, 95, 115, 234
_Archimedes_, the, 238
_Argyle_, the, 225
Armada, the Spanish, 9, 77, 79
Armstrong, Lord, 200
Armstrong gun, the, 201, 255, 268
Atwood, 40
_Audacious_, the, 274
Bacon, Lord, 34, 93, 96
Bacon, Roger, 62
Baker, Ezekiel, 119, 189
Baker, James, 15
Baker, Matthew, 15
Balchen, Admiral, 147
Barnaby, Sir N., 50, 283, 289
Barrow, Sir J., 98, 229
Battery, central, ships, 270
Bawd, Peter, 72
Beaufoy, Colonel, 40
Beaufoy, Corporal, 190
Belleisle, siege of, 83
_Bellerophon_, the, 272
Bentham, Sir S., 55, 136, 162
Berghen-op-Zoom, siege of, 120
Bernouilli, Daniel, 37, 216
Bernouilli, John, 37, 115
Berthold the Friar, 62
_Birkenhead_, the, 257
Blake, 42
Blomefield, General, 85
Board of Ordnance, 145
Bold, Charles the, 87
Bonaparte, 165
Borda, the Chevalier, 37
Bossut, Abbé, 38
Bouguer, 37, 216
Boulton, 108, 222
Bourne, Robert, 143, 212
Boyle, 96
Boynton, 267
Brackenbury, General, 62
Bramah, 222, 234
Bridgewater, the Duke of, 218
Briggs, Sir J., 228
Broke, Sir P., 154
Brown Bess, rifle, 192
Brown, Commander, 235
Brunel, 228, 238, 277
Brunswick, rifle, 190
Buckhurst, Lord, 79
Burrell, Andrew, 23
Bushnell, 213
Busk, Hans, 184, 244
Byng, Admiral, 42
Cabots, the, 5
_Caiman_, the, 293
_Caledonia_, the, 49, 226
_Captain_, the, 280
Caus, Solomon, 95-98
Cawley, 103
_Cerberus_, the, 282
Chads, Captain, 249
Chapman, 39, 149
Charles I, King, 23
Charles II, King, 29, 96
Charles V, Emperor, 88
_Charlotte Dundas_, the, 219
Charterhouse, garden, 119
Chatfield, 59
_Chesapeake_, the, 156
Chinese gunboats, 291
Clerk of Eldin, 219
_Clermont_, the, 223
Cloyne, Bishop of, 116
Cockle, Maurice, 65
_Collingwood_, the, 292
Colomb, Admiral, 264, 287
_Colossus_, the, 288
Columbus, 5
_Comet_, the, 225, 229
_Commerce de Marseille_, the, 46
Compass, discovery of, 3
Condorcet, 38
_Congo_, the, 238
_Congress_, the, 263
Congreve, General, 85
Congreve, Sir W., 85, 91, 147, 158
_Conqueror_, the, 288
Consort, Prince, 277
Constantinople, siege of, 66
Corbett, Sir Julian, 1, 6, 7, 8, 9
_Couronne_, the, 254
Cowper Coles, Captain, 276
Creuze, Augustin, 59, 256
Cruiser, type, 298
Cumberland, Earl of, 20
_Curaçoa_, the, 230
Dahlgren, 139, 234, 261
_Dandolo_, the, 285
_Dauntless_, the, 242
Deane, Sir A., 28
Delvigne, 187, 194
_Demologos_, the, 225
Denny, Messrs., 226
Derrick, 28, 31
Desaguliers, Dr., 101
Desblancs, 217
_Devastation_, the, 281
Dirck, 98
_Doncaster_, the, 229
Douglas, Sir C., 151
Douglas, Sir H., 86, 173, 228, 257, 261
_Dreadnought_, the, 283
Duckworth, Sir J., 67
_Duilio_, the, 285
_Duke_, the, 130, 152
Dundas, Lord, 218
Dunkirk privateers, 23
Dupuy de Lôme, 253
Dutch ships, characteristics of, 27
_Dwarf_, the, 243
Elliot, Admiral, 246
Enfield rifle, 197
_Enterprise_, the, 273
Ericsson, 236
_Essex_, the, 137
Euler, 37, 216
_Excellent_, the, 158
_Ferdinand Max_, the, 263
Fincham, 1, 48, 53, 233
Finsbury Field, 82
Fitch, 220
Forbin, Count, 40
_Formidable_, the, 134, 153
Fortifications, land, 204
Fournier, Abbé, 144
Frederick the Great, 90
Fremantle, Hon. T. F., 184
Frigate, origin of, 23
Froissart, 64
Froude, 286
Fuller, 27, 171
Fulton, 221
Furring of ships, 17
_Galatea_, the, 229
Galileo, 95, 116
Galleasse, 4, 211
Galleon, 4, 7
Galley, 2, 71, 210
Gama, Vasco di, 5
Garoy, Blasco de, 212
Gautier, 216
Genoese, the, 4
Gibbon, 66, 69
Gibraltar, siege of, 250
Girdling of ships, 29
_Glatton_, the, 135, 282
_Gloire_, the, 205, 253
Gordon, Thomas, 48
_Grace à Dieu_, the, 76
_Great Britain_, the, 238
_Great Eastern_, the, 258
Greek fire, 61
Greener, 193
Gribeauval, 90
Gunpowder, 3, 70, 76, 99
Gustavus Adolphus, 90
Haddock, Sir R., 29
Halley, 117
Hampton Roads, battle of, 262
Hannay, 57
Hardy, Sir T. M., 159, 230
Harvey torpedo, 291
_Harwich_, the, 31
Hastings, Captain, 174
Hastings, Sir T., 248
Hautefeuille, J. de, 99
Hawke, Admiral, 43, 122, 151
Hawkins, Sir J., 8
Hawkins, Sir R., 9, 80
Hay, Lord John, 232
_Hébé_, the, 134
Henri II, King, 75, 89
Henry VIII, King, 6, 72
Henry, Prince, 19
_Hercules_, the, 273
Hero of Alexandria, 94
_Hibernia_, the, 48
Hime, Colonel, 61, 77
Hogue, battle of La, 32
Honourable Artillery Co., 82
Horse artillery, 91
Hoste, 37
_Hotspur_, the, 282, 287
Howard, Lord, 9, 77
Hugo, Victor, 147
Hulls, Jonathan, 215
Hutton, 122, 129, 132
Huyghens, 37, 96, 99
_Impérieuse_, the, 295
_Inconstant_, the, 298
India, East, Company, 45, 135
_Inflexible_, the, 285
Inman, Dr., 57
_Invincible_, the, 44
_Iron Duke_, the, 274
_Italia_, the, 289
Jacob, General, 196
Jal, 5
James I, King, 15
James II, King, 33
James, the historian, 49, 132
Joinville, Prince de, 240
Jouffroi, 217
Juan, Don G., 37
Kaltoff, Caspar, 97
Kempenfelt, Captain, 123
Keppel, Lord, 48
Key, Admiral Cooper, 268
Keyham, 254
Kinburn, 251
Knowles, Sir C., 45, 46
Krupp, 208
Kuper, Admiral, 206
_Lady Nancy_, the, 276
Laird, Messrs., 252, 280
Laputa, 34
Laughton, Sir J. K., 1, 9, 77, 153
Lepanto, battle of, 72, 78
_Lepanto_, the, 289
Lefroy, General, 67
Leibnitz, 214
Leipsic lexicon, 244
Lissa, battle of, 263
Livingstone, 222
Louis XI, King, 87
_Magenta_, the, 272
Malthus, 82
Manby, Aaron, 255
Manwayring, Sir H., 13, 143
Marestier, 224
_Mars_, the, 121
Marshall gun carriage, 158
Marsilly gun carriage, 158
_Mary Rose_, the, 74
Massé, Colonel, 86
Maudsley, Messrs., 285
_Maure_, the, 41
McLaurin, Colin, 39
_Medea_, the, 230
Melville, General, 127
Melville, Lord, 228
Mercier, Captain, 163
_Merrimac_, the, 262
Metacentre, discovery of, 37
Middleton, Sir C., 46, 123
Miller, Patrick, 127, 217
Minié, rifle, 195
_Minotaur_, the, 265
_Monarch_, the, 279
_Monitor_, the, 262
_Monkey_, the, 229
Monro, Colonel, 173
Mons Meg, 65
Moore, Sir Jonas, 98, 143
Moorfields, 82
Moorsom, Captain, 261, 266
Morland, Sir S., 29, 99
Muller, 84, 88
Murray, Mungo, 39
_Nancy Dawson_, the, 58
Napier, Sir C., 230, 233, 241, 255, 266
Napoleon III, 75, 87, 199, 250
Navarino, battle of, 156
Nelson, 45, 154, 269
_Nemesis_, the, 255
Newcomen, 102-106
Newton, 35, 96, 117, 214
Nicolas, Sir H., 3, 63
Noble, Captain, 207
Noel, Commander, 264, 289
Normans as shipbuilders, 5
Norton, Captain, 193, 199
Norton, Robert, 76, 78, 142
Nye, Nathaniel, 98
Oak, English, 27
_Odin_, the, 233
Oppenheim, 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 73, 75, 77, 81
_Orient_, the, 164
Otway, Commander, 110, 231
_Pacificateur_, the, 172, 248
Paixhans, 166, 227
Pakington, Sir J., 258
_Pallas_, the, 279
Palliser, Major, 205
Papin, 102, 213
Pardies, 36
Pascal, 95
Peake, Sir H., 56
Pechell, Captain, 157
Peel, 257
_Pembroke_, the, 41
_Penelope_, the, 233
Penn, Messrs., 253
Pennington, Sir J., 23
Pepys, 27, 33, 81, 96, 130
Perrin, 15
Pett, Peter, 23
Pett, Phineas, 15, 18
Petty, Sir W., 35
_Phœbe_, the, 138
_Phœnix_, the, 26, 175
Pickard, 108, 217
Pitt, 49
Plat, Sir H., 186
Point-blank defined, 114
Porta, della, 95
Potter, Humphrey, 105
Prevesa, battle of, 72
_Prince Albert_, the, 278
_Prince Royal_, the, 19
_Princessa_, the, 43
Proof of guns, 81
Punchinello, 130
_Rainbow_, the, 134
Raleigh, Sir W., 16, 24, 79
_Raleigh_, the, 298
Ram tactics, 263, 290
Ramelli, 212
_Rattler_, the, 239
_Ré d’Italia_, the, 263
Reed, Sir E., 59, 274, 279
Richelieu, 24, 212
Riders in ships, 11
_Rob Roy_, the, 226
Robins, Benjamin, 112-124, 129, 187
Robison, 106
Rodney, 134, 153
_Rolf Krake_, the, 277
Romme, 38
Roncière, de la, 212
Ross, Sir J., 227
_Royal George_, the, 43, 83
_Royal Katherine_, the, 35
Royal Society, foundation of, 96
_Royal Sovereign_, the, 278
_Royal William_, the, 28
_Ruby_, the, 249
Rumsey, 220
_Rupert_, the, 288
Rupert, Prince, 214
Russell, Scott, 252, 257, 264
Samuda, Messrs., 278
Sartorius, Admiral, 261
_Savannah_, the, 226
Savery, 100, 215
Schalk, 83
Scharnhorst, 88
Schmidt, 184
Scloppetaria, 184
Scott, Commander, 200
_Scourge of Malice_, the, 20
Seppings, Sir R., 46, 51
Sewell, 39
_Shah_, the, 298
_Shannon_, the, 154, 299
Sheathing, introduction of, 18
Sheerness, 254
Shish, 29, 35
Shovell, Admiral, 81
Shrapnel, Lieutenant, 91, 163
_Sidon_, the, 233
Simmons, Captain, 164, 176
_Simoon_, the, 249
Sinope, battle of, 162, 249
Slingsby, Sir R., 145
Smith, Pettit, 236
Snodgrass, 47
_Solferino_, the, 272
_Sovereign of the Seas_, the, 24
Spitalfields, 81, 130
_Sprightly_, the, 229
Stanhope, Lord, 221, 228
Stevinus, 95
Stockton, Captain, 237
_Stromboli_, the, 276
_Sultan_, the, 273
Surveyors, abilities of, 55
Sussex, iron mines, 69, 78
Sutherland, T., 35
Sveaborg, bombardment of, 252
Symington, 218
Symonds, Admiral, 57
Tactics, 2, 8, 30, 33, 77, 131, 153, 210, 263
Tartaglia, 89, 116
Taylor, 218
Tegetthof, Admiral, 263
_Temeraire_, the, 275
Tennant, Sir E., 200
_Terrible_, the, 233
_Thames_, the, 225
“Thieves, Forty,” the, 56
Thouvenin, Colonel, 195
_Thunderer_, the, 283
Torelli, 212
Torpedo, evolution of, 291
Torricelli, 95
Touchard, Admiral, 264
_Trades Increase_, the, 21
Trafalgar, battle of, 45, 49, 53, 269
Treuille de Beaulieu, 199
Trim, definition of, 13
Trinity House, 24
Trollope, Captain, 135
Tromp, 31
Trunnions, evolution of, 86
Truss frames, 52
Tunnage, 5, 49, 56
Turgot, 38
Turret, the evolution of, 271, 275
Types, differentiation of, 296
Upnor Castle, 81
_Vanguard_, the, 274
Vauban, Marshal, 160
Ventilation, study of, 44
_Victory_, the, 45, 53, 147
Villani, 64
Vincennes, 194, 250
_Volage_, the, 298
Walker, Captain, 193
Wallis, 35, 96
Walter, 120
Waltham Abbey, 85
_Warrior_, the, 205, 260
_Warspite_, the, 295
Watt, 93, 105-110, 217
Waymouth, Captain, 17
Wellington, 240
_Whelps_, the, 23
Whitehead, 292
Whitworth, Sir J., 197
Willett, 43, 48
Woodcraft, 212
Woolwich, 82
Worcester, Marquis of, 93, 97, 213
Wynter, Sir R., 145
Zöllner, 184
Transcriber’s Notes
Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.
Archaic spellings have not been changed; the spelling of non-English
words has not been changed.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced
quotation marks retained.
Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences of
inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed.
Pages with Plate-illustrations included printer’s information regarding
the pages the plates should face. That information has been removed in
this eBook, as those illustrations are positioned as close as possible
to those pages.
The spelling and grammar of French text has been reproduced here as it
was printed in the original book.
The publication information of a few citations was italicized, but as
that is not the style in most of the book, those words and dates are
shown here unitalicized.
Footnotes, originally at the bottoms of pages, have been collected and
placed just before the Index of this eBook.
Index not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page references.
Page 5: “tunnage” was printed that way and is in the Index, but the
other pages to which the Index entry refers spell the word as “tonnage”.
Page 23: “remonstance” was printed that way.
Page 47: “to their rates, And” was printed that way.
Page 72: “the King’s feedmen” was printed that way, probably should be
“freedmen”.
Page 265: “Give her the stem” was printed that way.