Effects of Shot on 5/8 Plates, similar to those of
the Warrior and Sister Ships.

Pl. 2.

Rear Admiral Chads stated in a letter to the author

that out of seventeen 32-pounder shot which struck

the iron butts at the distance of 450 Yards with
"charges varying from 2 to 10 lbs, sixteen were
"shivered to pieces on passing through the first side
"and became a cloud of langrage too numerous to

See Naval Gunnery 5th Edition Part 11. page 126.

"It will be observed that all descriptions of shot from the 10 inch "down to Grape have been used and all with similar destructive effect" See Report of 218 June 1850. in 737 of 1850. page 9.

737 of 1850) specially demanded for their own information, and containing a "conclusion" from unquestioned authority with respect to these holes and splinters, as truly applicable to the "Warrior" of to-day as to the "Simoom" of 1850: viz. that the large irregular holes would be most destructive;" and, in respect of the splintering from the plates,— that "I firmly believe men could not stand behind them."

The holes of the five larger shot are bordered with red.

The four smaller holes, 3 inches in diameter, and lettered with G, are of 32lbs. grape-shot, with a charge of 6lbs.

The range throughout was 450 yards.

Whether double thicknesses of plates, where they occur, are or are not penetrable by grape-shot of the same description as the above, or, indeed, by any other, is utterly unknown; for, amidst the many worse than useless experiments which have done nothing but perplex the last three years, not an ounce of powder has been wasted in ascertaining a matter so unimportant and inapplicable to the present time; but of this we may be quite sure, that the shell-proof power of plates, which undoubtedly existed in 1859, and alone justified, if anything could, their use in such ships as the "Warrior," exists as undoubtedly no longer; and the place in these Lectures has been now arrived at when it is necessary to point out that all the arguments used by me on the strength of Sir Howard Douglas's perfectly true "conclusion" that "plates are shell-proof," were applied only to circumstances occurring prior to 1859, and before any general introduction of rifled cannon had changed the form, and with it the important question of "penetration," from that of spherical shells, to that of conical ones. And here, again, not an ounce of precious powder has been wasted in informing us to what extent this change has deteriorated still further, that minimum of protection originally accorded to the two quarterlengths of the "Warrior's" battery. We know that in the rival "Warriors," if not throughout the entire Naval Service of our great Neighbour, the spherical has been replaced by the conical form of shot and shell; but in our sudden and absorbing interest in all matters concerning "thick plates, we seem altogether to have overlooked the fact that we have so constructed our own "Warriors" that their very existence in action, with all which composes and belongs to them, depends on the destructibility,—not of their "thick" plates, but of their thin ones. It may or may not be, for nobody in England knows any thing about it, that the conical shell, like the spherical, will be "broken up" against

the "Warrior's" plates, either of single or double thickness, and its powder, as before, be scattered to the winds outside; but from all that I have seen or heard of conical shell firing, I am led to believe that the shellproof qualities of those sides has, in reference to this change, entirely departed from them, or even if the conical shell be still liable to be broken by these plates at all, it may be so to that limited extent only which may still enable the charge to be exploded inside the ship.

Again, with respect to shot, will the plates "break up" those of conical form, as in 1850 they so inexorably did the sphericals? If not, how will this change affect the men and material within the two end divisions of the battery? Will there be a reduction of fatal splinters from the plates, so that "men" may now be expected "to stand behind them ?" or will the entry of whole shot, instead of splinters only, break up more of the inside material of the battery than before, such as gun-carriages, &c. and thus keep the question of splinters, and personal loss from them, very much as before? Is there in England neither gun, gunner, nor gunpowder; or is it true, as rumoured, that she has no "established" conical solid shot whatever as yet determined on, that questions so vital to her pet Champion should have to be so universally answered by a shrug and a "don't know"? But what I think we do know, is that, except as regards lodgment in her side, the "Warrior's" end batteries are as liable to combustion by the Martin shell as the batteries of any wooden ship. There is the very thickness of plate just sufficient to break the wall of the shell; and we may certainly conclude that the contents when thus freed will not, like the gunpowder charge of the spherical explosive shell, so obligingly remain outside; and when inside there is the broad spread of teak deck with its pitched seams for those fiery contents to take effect on; there is the 2-inch teak lining of the side which covers the iron frames; the light bulkheads of the after cabins; the mizen-mast; fore-mast; bowsprit; &c., all offering fuel to fire. But, above all, there is that 2-inch inner lining of wood, with its wooden bottom, or waterway, provided, as if purposely to receive the molten metal of the shell when first broken, and presenting the most convenient possible lodgment, short of a complete wooden side, which Mr. Martin himself could reasonably require for testing his power to burn a Ship of iron. Might it not also be remotely desirable to try if Mr. Martin's projectile will or will not distribute its liquid metal through ship-sides built of plates?

But this friendly lining offers a further service towards heightening, if possible, the more than contrast between the fighting capabilities of the respective divisions of this most unique of frigate batteries. It is fixed to the inner angles of the iron framing by nothing more substantial than wood screws of suitable size, so that to every sort of missile, except one, which may enter through these thin plates, it presents, as it were, in eager readiness, as much of its substance as the missile can conveniently use, from a whole plank to only a fragment of one, towards adding spinters of wood to those of iron. For this wood "lining" of the "Warrior's" main deck is not to be mistaken for the substantial timbering of the "Simoom's" iron side, which is described in the account of the No. 2 target of 1850, as "the inside timber of a frigate:" this "lining" is attached only to the interior edges of the framing, and leaves a 10-inch space between it and the ship's iron side: it does not therefore, and is not intended to, add to the strength

or resistance of the side, as the "Simoom's" timbering did, but is ornamental only, and its only appreciable use, besides that of fuel, is, as I have stated, to supply splinters of all sizes to missiles of all sorts except one. And the case of this only missile, which will not be able thus to use this lining, will perhaps furnish a more forcible illustration than all others I have specified, of the extent of personal protection provided for those who do not fight within the four privileged walls of the "Warrior's" central iron-cased box, but who must fight, so long as they are able-in those two extramural and unprivileged portions of the same deck; so that others may, by this illustration, judge whether I have or have not justly characterised the condition of these two portions, as "guaranteeing an amount of personal insecurity in action never before even contemplated in any Ship intended for serious War." When Mr. Whitworth places a small steel bolt instead of a leaden one over the ordinary charge of his ordinary rifle, an iron plate of an inch thick is no security against a fatal shot from a distance of 40 yards; and who will venture to say, much less to try, how few more grains of powder, if any, will be wanted in order to fire an equally fatal shot from the same distance, with the same weapon and bolt, through that fractional increased thickness which exists between a and plate of iron? Thus, a person standing half in and half out of one of those jealous little doors of separation, would be secured on the armoured side of the bulkhead from the fullest effort of the most powerful known artillery; but might be shot to death by a mere "small-arm" though that contiguous portion of the same side, which has thus been made but little less penetrable than if built of "papier maché " instead of iron at all. And if conditions of such extreme contrast in "efficient" and " deficient" protection between such large and vital portions of the same battery, in the same "floating fortress," when under the same fire, be indeed a necessity of Ironcased ships, I for one must believe that there could be no great risk in holding our hands, and buttoning our pockets, until some more venturesome and affluent Nation had first proved the difference between the real value and monstrous cost of such impossible and unheard-of incongruities.

So much then for the "physique" of this invention of the cross bulkheads, or "box-ends;" but before proceeding to bring its "morale" to test also, it may be well to try and examine if there be indeed any necessity for this invention at all; or rather, whether, by converting a mere ideal crotchet into an actual substance, those very conditions were not then first created, by appeal to which its "necessity" could alone be defended afterWARDS. It is claimed as a special proof of the "high science" displayed in the construction of the "Warrior," that the displacement given to the central box is such, that when the two separate ends, which alone make her a ship, are destroyed, the centre will still remain afloat with the wrecks attached to it; and for the first time in her English life, High Science has thus been employed by Naval Architecture to assist in making provision, not against any injury to, but for the certain destruction of, about 100 feet in length of each of the two ends of one of the largest and handsomest ships she ever saw built in this, or any other Country; the particular object being to save from "sinking" that which, but for this "highly scientific" display, ordinary mortals, ignorant of true "Naval Architecture" would have thought it most desirable to preserve from any approach towards a sinking