26 THE SEA. 



waters at the mouth of the James River,, she was, as might be expected with her flat, 

 barge-like bottom, a bad sea-boat, and was afterwards lost. Her ports had to be closed 

 and caulked, being only five feet above the water, and she was therefore unable to 

 work her guns at sea. Her constructor had neglected Sir Walter Raleigh's advice to 

 Prince Henry touching the model of a ship, "that her ports be so laid, as that she 

 may carry out her guns all weathers." She plunged heavily completely submerging her 

 pilot-house at times, the 'sea washing over and into her turret. The heavy shocks and 

 jars of the armour, as it came down, upon the waves, made her leaky, and she went to 

 the bottom in spite of pumps capable of throwing 2,000 gallons a minute, which were 

 in good order and working incessantly. 



Since the conclusion of the American war, the ironclad question has assumed serious 

 aspects, and many facts could be cited to show that they have not by any means always 

 confirmed the first impressions of their strength and invulnerability. Two recent cases 

 will be fresh in the memories of our readers. The first is the recent engagement 

 off Peru between the Peruvian ironclad turret-ship Ilnascar and the British unarmonred 

 men-of-war Shah and Amethyst. With the political aspect of the affair we have nothing, 

 of course, to do, in our present work. It was really a question between the guns 

 quite as much as between the vessels. The Hnascar is only a moderately-strong armoured 

 vessel, her plates being the same thickness as those of the earliest English ironclad, the 

 Warrior, and her armament is two 300-pounders in her turret, and three shell-guns. 

 On the other hand, the Shah, the principal one of the two British vessels, is only a large 

 iron vessel sheathed in wood, and not armoured at all ; but she carries, besides smaller 

 guns, a formidable armament in the shape of two 12-ton and sixteen C^-ton guns. An 

 eyewitness of the engagement states* that, after three hours' firing, at a distance of 

 from 400 to 3,000 yards, the only damage inflicted by the opposing vessels was a hole in 

 the Huascar's side, made by a shell, the bursting of which killed one man. "One 9-in. shot 

 (from a 12-ton gun) also penetrated three inches into the turret without effecting any material 

 damage. There were nearly 100 dents of various depths in the plates, but none of sufficient 

 depth to materially injure them. The upper works boats, and everything destructible 

 by shell were, of course, destroyed. Her colours were also shot down." According to theory, 

 the Shah's two larger guns should have penetrated the Hnascar' s sides when fired at upwards 

 of 3,000 yards' distance. The facts are very different, doubtless because the shots struck 

 the armour obliquely, at any angles but right ones. The Hnascar was admirably handled 

 and manoeuvred, but her gunnery was so indifferent that none of the shots even struck 

 the Shah, except to cut away a couple of ropes, and the latter kept up so hot a 

 fire of shells that the crew of the former were completely demoralised, and the 

 officers had to train and fire the guns. She eventually escaped to Iquique, under cover of 

 a pitchy-dark night. The same correspondent admits, however, that the Shah, although 

 a magnificent vessel, is not fitted for the South American station, since Peru has three 

 ironclads, Chili two, and Brazil and the River Plate Republics several, against which no 

 ordinary English man-of-war could cope, were the former properly handled. 



* Vide the Times, 17th July, 1877. 



