I) I aa am 
261 
THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1882 
OUR NATIONAL DEFENCES 
HE inaugural address of the President of the Institu- 
tion of Civil Engineers, delivered last week, was of 
more than usual interest. Selecting as his subject our 
national defences, Sir William Armstrong was enabled by 
his great experience and world-wide reputation to give 
much greater weight to his opinions than any other 
engineer at the present day. The subject, too, is one to 
which attention can now be readily directed, as the public 
mind has of late been somewhat rudely awakened to the 
fact that our national armaments have not been making 
the same progress as those of certain foreign powers, and 
the comfortable belief that we were strong enough to 
withstand the attack of any possible combination of other 
nations has given place to a feeling of distrust in our 
Government establishments. There can be no doubt that 
the general public was not a little surprised to find that 
ironclads and heavy guns of a power at least equal to the 
best in our service were for sale ready made, so to say, in 
the shop-windows of some of our manufacturers, and had, 
on the alarm of war with Russia, to be hastily purchased 
by the Government to prevent their falling into the pos- - 
session of a hostile power. 
Sir William Armstrong first discusses the question of 
armour. The early ironclads, such as the Wavvrior, were 
plated throughout nearly their entire length with 44-inch 
armout ; aS guns were produced of greater penetration, 
the thickness of armour was increased and the protected 
area diminished until in all the latest ships it has come to 
be restricted only to the battery, all vital points of the 
machinery being placed out of harm’s way below the 
water-line. “Everything of importance that projectiles 
could destroy would be kept below water-level, and so far 
as artillery-fire was concerned, the ships would be secured 
against sinking by an under-water deck and ample division 
into compartments. Armour therefore seems gradually 
contracting to the vanishing point.” Sir William plainly 
considers that the days of armour-plating are numbered, 
and he strongly argues in favour of its abandonment at 
least in many types of ship. As the basis of his argument 
he takes the comparative cost of an unarmoured and an 
armoured vessel capable of carrying the same weight and 
number of guns, and states that three of the former could 
be constructed for one of the latter; which then, he asks, 
would be the better investment? In the first place the 
three unarmoured ships could have higher speed, and if 
their guns were capable of piercing the plating of the 
ironclad there can be no doubt that their numerical 
superiority would enable them to win an easy victory if 
the three were matched against the one. If the ironclad 
was impenetrable by the guns of her adversaries they 
could still, by their greater speed and handiness, be 
enabled to come to close quarters and attack to the 
greatest advantage with torpedo and by ramming, unless 
disabled by their opponent’s fire ; and this Sir William 
considers may be provided against without difficulty by 
means of an underwater deck, and by- placing all ma- 
chinery below the water level. It would still remain for 
the ironclad to strike a fatal blow, by means of torpedoes, 
VOL. xxv.—No. 638 
at any one of her adversaries who came to close quarters; 
but as the chances of this would be equal for either ship 
the advantage still remains with the larger number. We 
quite agree with Sir William Armstrong in his conclusion 
that light unarmoured ships of high speed, with every 
possible means of protection other than armour-plating, 
are what the country would most require in case of war, 
but they must be provided in sufficient numbers. 
In estimating from the basis of cost the proportionate 
number of armoured and unarmoured ships as one to 
three, we cannot but think that Sir William has over- 
looked the cost of repairs and of the maintenance and 
pay of the officers and crews; if this were taken into 
consideration, as well as the original outlay, the propor- 
tion would have to be reduced to something like two to 
one. In addition to the many advantages so ably 
pointed out by Sir William in favour of his policy, it 
should be borne in mind that an unarmoured vessel could 
always be brought up to date by the substitution of new 
engines and boilers and guns of an improved type, until 
fairly worn out, while an ironclad cannot be prevented 
from becoming obsolete a few years after completion. 
“Tt might perhaps be rash entirely to abandon armour 
so long as other nations continued to use it, because 
nothing but the experience of an actual war would remove 
all question as to its possible utility ; but, considering the 
indisputable value of a numerous fleet of swift and power- 
fully armed ships built with a view of obtaining the maxi- 
mum amount of unarmoured defence, and considering 
that such ships, unlike armour-clads, could never grow 
much out of date, it did seem expedient that the chief 
expenditure of this country should be upon ships of that 
description.” 
Sir William Armstrong then deals with the question of 
our mercantile marine being able to furnish a supply of 
vessels fit for conversion into cruisers, and says, “ Where 
are there to be found amongst trading or passenger 
steamers, vessels possessing a speed of sixteen knots with 
engines and boilers below water-levei, and having an 
under-water deck to save them from sinking when pene- 
trated at or below the water-line? From his own expe- 
rience he knew how difficult it was to adapt mercantile 
vessels to the purposes of war, and how unsatisfactory 
they were when the best had been made of them.”’ 
But if these vessels cannot be adapted for war purposes 
in case of need, why, it may be asked, should not specially 
designed and constructed cruisers be employed for mer- 
cantile purposes ? 
If a number were built by private firms, certain prefer- 
ences and advantages could be given to their employment 
in commerce ; for example, as giving mail contracts and 
the contracts for the conveyance of troops and Government 
materials in time of peace, only to those shipowners who 
kept in a serviceable condition in their carrying business 
a certain proportion of cruisers. A vessel of the cruiser 
type would of course labour under some disadvantages in 
competition with a ship built entirely for passenger and 
cargo purposes, but this would be compensated by the 
advantages given to her owners ; and to use for mercantile 
purposes a number of vessels specially built for the pro- 
tection of commerce in case of war must assuredly be 
more economical than to keep the same number laid up 
in port or cruising about the world for the sake of em- 
ploying their crews. In connection with this system we 
N 
