370 



GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 



the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. Half the rations 

 were lost through the break-down of transport. 



The Navy. The ironclad navy in September, 

 1884, comprised 3 iron and 3 steel frigates of 

 over 10,000 tons, 2 of the latter under construc- 

 tion, 8 iron frigates of over 8,000 tons and 2 of 

 steel under construction, 12 iron, 2 steel, and 

 2 wooden frigates of over 6,000 tons, and 4 

 smaller iron broadside vessels ; 2 iron turret- 

 ships of over 10,000 tons, 6 of iron and 2 of 

 steel of from 8,000 to 10,000 tons, and 10 of 

 less capacity ; and 2 iron and 2 steel rams of 

 special construction. There were besides 11 

 armed vessels of antiquated design and 5 more 

 stationed in India and the colonies. The navy 

 contained altogether 73 ironclads, 309 steam- 

 ers, and 147 sail-ships and pontons. The total 

 number in commission was 247, of which 133 

 were stationed in British waters, 23 in the 

 Mediterranean, 19 in China, 19 on the east and 

 west coasts of America, 4 in Brazil, 10 in In- 

 dia and East Africa, 9 in South and West Af- 

 rica, and 9 in Australia. Of the 28 ironclads 

 of over 6,000 tons 6 formed the Channel squad- 

 ron, 6 were in the first reserve, 6 were in the 

 Mediterranean squadron, 4 were distributed in 

 America, China, and Australia. The Inflexi- 

 ble has 24 inches of armor at the water-line, 

 the Ajax, Agamemnon, Colossus, Edinburgh, 

 Collingwood, Rodney, Howe, Camperdown, 

 Benbow, and Anson 18 inches. 



While Lord Northbrook was still in Egypt, 

 an alarm was raised by the newspapers as to 

 the naval strength of England, as compared es- 

 pecially with the French navy. The subject 

 was taken up by naval critics and the opposi- 

 tion politicians, and soon became a matter of 

 discussion in Parliament and a cause of public 

 disquietude. The alarmists pointed out that 

 in recent years the expenditure on the English 

 navy had not been proportionate to the growth 

 of the national wealth and commerce. The 

 development of the naval armaments of France 

 and some other Continental nations was rela- 

 tively much more rapid, their expenditure being 

 a third more than twenty -five years ago, while 

 England spends no more on her navy than she 

 did at that period. The aggregate displace- 

 ment of the armored ships of all classes in the 

 British navy, old and new, completed and unfin- 

 ished, is 437,210 tons, which is nearly equaled 

 by the French navy with a displacement of 

 425,000 tons, while the Italian navy is meas- 

 ured by a displacement of 127,000 tons, the 

 Russian by one of 105,000 tons, the German 

 by one of 10i,000 tons, and the Austrian by 

 one of 60,400 tons. Sir E. J. Reed contended 

 that the French ships of the first class are in- 

 dividually superior to the English because they 

 have a complete belt of armor, while the Eng- 

 lish vessels have side-armor for only about one 

 third of their length and a bomb-proof deck 

 from stem to stern six or seven feet below the 

 water. Above this the cells and cork cham- 

 bers are exposed, except amidships. He would 

 reckon only half the tonnage of such ships as 



armored tonnage. In the matter of guns the 

 French were greatly superior to the English, 

 who clung to muzzle-loaders after they were 

 abandoned by the other naval powers, but the 

 new type of breech-loader with which the 

 English navy is being armed is said to be bet- 

 ter than the French. In torpedo-boats and tor- 

 pedoes England was also behind some of the 

 Continental powers. The Conservatives could 

 not make the question the subject of a party 

 attack because naval construction has proceed- 

 ed faster under the present than under the late 

 administration, though expenditure for repairs 

 had been much less. Lord Northbrook, in 

 comparing the English with the French fleet, 

 stated tli at England had ready for present ac- 

 tion 30 ships of modern types, with a displace- 

 ment of 210,430 tons, while France had 19, of 

 127,828 tons ; and that of obsolete types there 

 were 16 English ships, of 115,520 tons, to 12 

 French, of 53,066. The greater activity of the 

 French in naval construction was explained by 

 the circumstance that they had adhered to the 

 system of iron-plated wooden vessels while 

 England was providing herself with a fleet of 

 armored iron vessels, and were in consequence 

 now obliged to build their navy over again. 

 The impression which prevailed as the outcome 

 of the controversy was that the English navy 

 was still considerably stronger than the French, 

 but not more than equal to the French in com- 

 bination with the Italian or the German. There 

 was a general demand that the navy should be 

 strengthened so as to be able to cope with 

 such combinations of naval powers as there 

 was any likelihood of being formed against 

 England. When the panic was started, the 

 Liberal politicians treated it with contempt; 

 yet in the autumn session the Government 

 yielded to the clamor, and, notwithstanding 

 the gloomy financial outlook, asked for an 

 additional sum of 5,525,000 for the navy, to 

 be distributed over five years. Of this, 3,- 

 100,000 was for new ships, 1,600,000 for 

 guns, and 825,000 for the fortification of Eng- 

 lish coaling-stations. The new vessels include 

 4 ironclads of over 10,000 tons of the Con- 

 queror type, with 18-inch armor, two 110-ton 

 guns in turrets, an 18-ton gun in the stern, 

 12 6-inch guns in a steel casemate, and with a 

 speed of 15 knots ; 2 rams of 3,000 tons dis- 

 placement of the Polyphemus type ; 5 belted 

 cruisers, of 5,000 tons each, steaming 17 knots 

 an hour; 10 scouts or torpedo cruisers, of 

 1,500 tons each; and 30 first-class torpedo- 

 boats. The present Government had already 

 increased the expenditure for naval construc- 

 tion from 3,124,000 in 1880-'81 to 3,891,000 

 in 1884-'85, and the rate of construction from 

 about 8,000 to 12,000 tons per annum. Includ- 

 ing the expenditure of the War Ministry for 

 naval guns, the increased expenditure was in the 

 neighborhood of 1,000,000 per annum. 



Finance. The total receipts and disburse- 

 ments for the past five financial years, ending 

 March 31, were as follow : 







