NA TURE 



"^n 



THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1877 



THE ''INFLEXIBLE" 



ON July 12 last we explained the Inflexible case at 

 some length to our readers on the ground that there 

 might be seen in it the beginning of a system which not 

 only involved the safety of the four large and costly ships 

 then commenced or contemplated, but which " having 

 received countenance and sanction in the highest quarters 

 in this country, may not improbably become extended 

 over the navies of the world." A week later we considered 

 the Parliamentary Papers on the subject, and came to 

 the conclusion that the Inflexible was not a safe ship for 

 battle, and that the objections brought against her had 

 been much too lightly treated. Now that the Report of 

 the Admiralty Committee is before us we are able — not- 

 withstanding much that appears in it — to point our 

 readers to it as a full and complete justification of the 

 course we and others then pursued, for that Report con- 

 cludes with these words : — '"' We therefore desire to bring 

 under the very serious consideration of their Lordships 

 the necessity, before proceeding with the construction of 

 more vessels of the type of the Inflexible, of thoroughly 

 investigating whether by more beam their safety may not 

 be largely increased without impairing their speed and 

 efficiency." As this appeal "to the very serious con- 

 sideration of their Lordship's " in arrest of the construc- 

 tion of other ships of the type closely follows a paragraph 

 in which the Committee show the very great advantages 

 of an alteration in the form and proportions of the 

 Inflexible s citadel (without increase of armour), it is not 

 conceivable that the Board of Admiralty will proceed 

 with the other vessels of the type, and it is absolutely 

 certain that no more ships possessing the defects of which 

 we complained in July will be laid down. The great 

 object which we set before ourselves, therefore, is already 

 accomplished, and the extension of a dangerous system 

 of design throughout our own navy, and the navies of the 

 world, has been effectually arrested. As we know that 

 the case of the Ajax and Agamemnon was actually before 

 the Committee, and as their Report makes no exception 

 of them in their appeal to the Admiralty to stop further 

 proceedings, it is to be inferred, we presume, that the 

 beam of these two ships will have to be increased in 

 accordance with the Committee's views. With these 

 results before them all those who took part in bringing 

 about this inquiry may, we think, be congratulated on the 

 success and value of their labours. 



There only remains the Inflexible herself to consider in 

 the light of the Committee's Report ; and in discussing 

 this part of the subject we must not forget that no incon- 

 siderable portion of the report, and especially the aspect 

 which its opening pages presents, has been greatly in- 

 fluenced by the form of the Admiralty reference. We 

 take leave to say that the first of the questions put by the 

 Admiralty to the Committee has little or nothing to do 

 with the subject. We do not remember that even Mr. 

 Reed, who has most strongly condemned the Inflexible's 

 design ever contended that " the blowing out of the whole 

 of the stores and cork by shell-fire " would occur very 

 early in an engagement ; and if he had, the elicitation of 

 Vol, XVII.— No. 425 



a contrary opinion from the Committee would have no 

 serious bearing upon the subject, simply because experi- 

 ment, and experiment alone, can determine the degree 

 and rapidity of the injury to which thin iron chambers 

 filled with cork are liable. Mere opinions, in the absence 

 of experiments, are comparatively valueless in such a 

 case. But what we should have thought was absolutely 

 self-evident, even without any experiment, is that shell- 

 fire from modern ordnance would certainly blow cork 

 packing out of thin iron chambers at some rate or other ; 

 and yet, strange to say, this is what the Committee appear 

 to doubt, and even to deny, for they say that in their opinion 

 that which may "ht fairly assumed to represent the 

 greatest amount of damage the ship would be likely to 

 suffer in any action " is the condition in which, although 

 the unprotected ends are completely riddled and water- 

 logged, the cork and stores remain in place, and add to 

 the buoyancy. It is fair to assume, then, according to 

 the Committee, that in no naval action will the cork be 

 blown out of place by shell-fire, and this in face of the 

 fact that when an experiment was actually tried at Ports- 

 mouth the contrary result was experienced. It is of the 

 utmost importance to note carefully that it is only by 

 making the above extraordinary assumption — an assump- 

 tion which we believe will not meet with the concurrence 

 of scientific artillerists and seamen— that the Committee 

 are able to oppose in any degree the opinions of the 

 ship's danger which we and others expressed in the 

 autumn. It is on this assumption that they rest their 

 opinion that '' the unprotected ends are as well able as 

 the armoured citadel to bear the part assigned to them," 

 and that therefore " a just balance has been maintained 

 in the design." It unfortunately is made perfectly clear 

 afterwards by the Committee that the " part assigned to 

 them " is to hold the citadel and the rest of the ship 

 upright, and it is clear that they cannot be presumed fit 

 to perform this part if shell-fire can blow out the cork 

 This is the weak point — we venture to think the danger- 

 ously and even fatally weak point — of the Committee's 

 Report, and one which the common sense and observa- 

 tion of men will prevent them from assenting to, and 

 consequently the Inflexible's safety is so ill-assured that 

 we doubt if responsible persons will sanction the com- 

 pletion of such a ship. 



The committee have fallen, as it appears to us, into a 

 grave inconsistency, likewise, as regards the Inflexible 

 herself. They say, as we have seen, that the unprotected 

 ends are, as designed, well able to perform their part, and 

 well balanced with the citadel. In subsequent passages, 

 nevertheless, they go on to disclose and assert even more 

 serious defects in them than any of us adverse critics of 

 the ship have alleged, and to recommend an enormous 

 extension of the cork chambers. What is the meaning of 

 a scientific committee dealing with an extremely grave 

 public question in this way? Either the unarmoured 

 ends are well designed at present, or they are not ; if they 

 are, why alter them to the very large extent — far larger 

 than a cursory perusal of the report might lead readers 

 to expect, for the increase of cork chambers recommended 

 is enormous .'' If they are not, why has the contrary 

 statement been made and circulated ? The truth is tkey 

 have not been satisfactorily designed, as we shall presently 

 prove from the Committee's own report. But first let us 



I 



