rather than of metacentric height which affects the safety. In one case the freeboard is only 4 feet from the water-line to the deck, and when that vessel is inclined over to the gunwale it is found that her stability very soon begins to diminish from that point; but if you have 3 feet more beyond that point, as in the spar-decked ship—that is, a 7-feet side-even with the same height of metacentre, that vessel as she becomes inclined down, her stability goes on increasing and she can incline to a much greater angle before she comes to her maximum stability. That shows the great desirability of encouraging vessels having greater freeboard. That is a question of greater importance than even a little increased breadth. I quite agree with the remarks of Mr. Duncan that we may go too far in increasing the breadth. It must be confessed that, as you have to carry all kinds of cargo, instead of going to great extremes with regard to breadth, it would be much better to regulate their stability to some extent according to the loading. I have said that in all sailing ships they are obliged to do so, and there is no greater difficulty, if the attention of the shipowners is drawn to the importance of it, in doing it in a steamer than in a sailing ship; and, no doubt, now that attention has been so thoroughly drawn to this matter, there will be greater attention paid to the loading than has been hitherto the case. With reference to what I have mentioned about dividing the double bottoms: it is frequently the case now that the tank is divided into two or three parts, so that you can fill the tank with 60 or 80 tons of water; and, therefore, you are enabled, if you fill the fore part, or the after part, to regulate the trim of the ship as well as to increase the stability to just the extent you require. I may say that the dividing of these double bottoms in that way has been done to some extent now, and, no doubt, that will be still further adopted. With regard to Captain Symington's remarks, as to the 18 orifices under water, it is very evident that these may constitute a source of danger unless they are carefully attended to, and nothing is so important, I think, as that the captain should have a detailed drawing of all the openings in his ship. I know that some owners of the present day insist on obtaining that, and I cannot understand how, as stated by the speakers, a builder of ships could refuse to supply the owner with such a very important drawing. We know in all sailing ships, where the keels used to have a camber for fear they might be strained in docking, we used to give a drawing of the curve of the keel; so in steamers, a drawing of all parts of the ship should be supplied to the captain for his information, and on it every pipe and opening in the ship should be represented. If I were an owner I should insist on that being done, and I should certainly look upon that as a very important matter. I think there is very little else for me to reply to. Mr. West made some remarks with regard to defective equipment. That is very important, but it is perfectly impossible to go into all these matters in a Paper of this size, although I should like to have had a little more time and space to consider them more fully.

INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS, THURSDAY MORNING, 18TH MARCH.

[The Right Hon. LORD HAMPTON, G.C.B., D.C.L., President, in the Chair.]

Ar the commencement of the Morning Sitting, the Scrutineers appointed to examine the Ballot Papers for the Election of the New Council presented the following Report:

RESULT OF SCRUTINY OF VOTING LISTS FOR MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

Having examined the Voting Papers and counted the Votes, we have to state that the following Gentlemen have been duly elected :

Eighty-nine Members' Voting Papers, and Forty Associates' Voting Papers were received.

Of these, Six Papers were disqualified on account of their non-compliance with the conditions laid down in the Rules of the Institution.

W. H. WHITE.

N. E. PORTER.

ON THE "NELSON" CLASS.

By N. BARNABY, Esq., C.B., Vice-President.

[Read at the Twenty-first Session of the Institution of Naval Architects, 18th March, 1880; the Right Hon. LORD HAMPTON, G.C.B., D.C.L., President, in the Chair.]

[Before commencing my Paper, I must apologise first of all for its great brevity, and secondly, for the fact that it leaves things which need explanation unexplained. Those defects in the Paper are due to two causes; first, that there was a considerable difficulty in getting those trials of the Nelson to which I am about to refer, in order to compare them with those of the Northampton, a sister ship; and secondly, that before the result of the second trials were fairly in my hands I had to leave England, and I was obliged to send in my Paper before I left, as I was afraid I should not have been able to be back to read it. I hope that there is matter of sufficient interest in the trials of these two ships to form the subject of another Paper next year, in which I may be able, with the help of my colleagues, to explain what you will see at once still needs explanation. My object in reading the Paper has not been in the least to challenge any amount of admiration for the ship, nor to compare her favourably or otherwise with any other class, but has simply been, and is simply to lay before you the facts, so far as we have them, and to assure you that if we can, as I hope we may, get somewhat different results in the Northampton, we may be able not only to assure you of that, but to give you the reasons for it.]

IN a Table appended to this Paper I give particulars as to the two ships Nelson and Northampton, as they have been completed, including the trials of speed, and I place beside them corresponding particulars of two excellent ships of an earlier type, designed for similar work, the Iron Duke and the Bellerophon.

I regret to have to admit the fact that, while the Nelson is a 14-knot ship on the mile without the use of the steam blast, the sister ship, notwithstanding that the engines are the perfection of workmanship and material, is at present only a 134-knot ship with the steam blast.

The difference is apparently due mainly to the difference in the performance of the two types of engines, and particularly of the propellers, and partly to the fact that, from some unexplained cause, the Northampton always needs starboard helm to keep her on a straight course, and this checks her way. When the screws of the Northampton are altered, it will probably be possible to greatly reduce the difference between the two ships.

I may be permitted to add that the Northampton left Spithead for her station with 1,200 tons of coal in her bunkers, and with her gun-deck portsills 11 feet out of The Nelson will float under the same conditions about 5 inches lighter, and will thus have, with 1,200 tons of fuel, nearly a 12-feet height of port.

Public attention has been called to a discrepancy between the draught of water named when the ship was first designed and that at which she was completed, as though it were desirable to prefer strict adherence to a draught of water to the introduction of newly-devised sources of warlike efficiency.

The designer of the ship should be judged by the performance of the completed ship, and not by the strictness of the accordance between the weights he proposed to put in in 1874 and those which he was prepared to adopt at various stages up to the date of completion in 1879.

The real question concerning the "Nelson" Class is, now that they are completed, are they fit for their proposed service?

I shall be prepared to answer any questions concerning alleged discrepancies which may be thought interesting; but what most people will care about is, what services are the ships designed to perform, and what promise is there of due performance?

The ships may be looked at from two points of view. They may be regarded as armoured ships, having to meet armoured ships; or as protected cruisers.

The very first duty the Class is required to perform is to relieve the Bellerophon as the flag-ship on the North American Station. I am therefore almost called upon to compare the two ships, and I believe I am sufficiently alive to the good points in both to be able to compare them impartially, so far at least as they can be compared, without either having undergone the stress of war.

The two ships are fairly comparable, for they are about the same size, carry the same crew, and cost about the same money.

It is sometimes supposed that the Nelson is a type in which armour is greatly reduced in amount. This is not so. It is reduced in extent, but the average thickness is greater, and the total weight is greater in the Nelson than it is in the Bellerophon.

Covering in the entire battery of the Bellerophon with armour, and extending the armour to the extremities at the water line, makes it necessary to be content with an average thickness of the vertical armour throughout the ship of 5.28 inches; whereas in the Nelson the average thickness of the vertical armour is 7.28 inches.

So far, therefore, as there is an attempt to protect with armour, the average thickness of the protection will be nearly 38% more than that in the Bellerophon. I do not compare the squares of these thicknesses in the usual way, as representing the relative strengths, because, for the greater portion of the blows received from shells in action, the thinner armour will probably be impenetrable.

The armour is suppressed at the ends of the ship, and an under-water deck is substituted for it. Beneath this deck, aft, is situated the steering gear and the rudderhead, so that it is far more secure than it is in the Bellerophon, where it is all above water, concealed from view and protected by thin armour, as is usual in belted ships.

I do not attach special importance in this comparison to the twin screws of the Nelson against the single screw of the Bellerophon, although, I suppose, we are all agreed that in action the double propeller, the alternative mode of steering, and the power of turning without advancing, are of great value. This came out in a most marked manner in the combat between the Huascar and the Chilian ships of war.

The Bellerophon has greatly the advantage in the weight of the broadside fired from protected guns, and in the fact that, except at the ports, the battery walls are protected against the perforation of most shells, while the central part of the Nelson's armament is exposed to the entrance of any projectiles which could get through an inch plate. But the Nelson is much the more heavily-armed ship; the total weight of the armament being, Bellerophon 420 tons, Nelson 533 tons.

The

power of the Nelson in the right-ahead and right-astern attack, both offensively and defensively, is also greatly superior to that of earlier ships.

The Northampton carries comfortably two 60-feet torpedo boats of 16 knots speed, in addition to the service of boats required in a flag ship. The total weight of the boats carried is nearly 40 tons.

Regarding the class as designed for cruising, it is to be observed that, with 4,000 horses, say two-thirds power, the ship goes in smooth water 123 knots. With average coal she may therefore steam at an average ocean speed of 12 knots, with a consumption for all purposes of 100 tons per day. For twelve days at this speed the distance covered would be, without the use of sail, say 3,500 knots. With 2,300 horsepower she obtained in smooth water a speed of 10-537 knots, so that, with 60 tons per day, she should make a 10 knots average ocean speed, and should steam 5,000 knots.

I am fully sensible of the large consumption of fuel for a given speed as compared with the long narrow merchant ship, and of the corresponding loss in coal endurance; but it is always necessary to remember that the ship of war is endowed with a powerful rig, enabling her to cruise under sail for any length of time with no appreciable