speed. Such a system, however, would not be likely to be adopted in Russia. Breastworks, open at the top, and guns firing en barbette, worked by hydraulic machinery, have met with much favour in that country. With such a system, and with the same number of guns, the protection of 14-knot vessels would be from 2 feet 3 inches in a smaller ship to 4 feet 6 inches of armour in the bigger one, as shown on the diagram (Plate II.) by figures enclosed in circles for distinction. Whether that, or the system of mounting guns adopted in building up the Cronstadt or Spithead armoured forts, be applied, in any case the number of guns which may be mounted on board large circular ships cannot be compared with any of the ships existing, or in course of construction in any country, and may only be paralleled with the ordnance mounted in the fixed forts. But fixed forts require immense foundations, which prove to be extremely costly, and, notwithstanding their cost, sometimes weak. Besides, some points along the coasts, known to be of great strategical importance, have been so far left unfortified, because of the impossibility or difficulty of building such foundations. Finally, fixed forts are disadvantageous, simply because they are fixed. Whilst circular ships may

be made not only as efficient for far less expense, but possessing the ability of moving, when necessary, with great speeds for long distances (ships above considered can steam a much greater distance than that between St. Petersburg and London, with their own coal), they may carry their destructive armaments to bear against the shores in the enemy's own waters, against any modern individual ship, or a fleet of such vessels

at sea.

guns.

I have been increasing, as the ships were growing bigger, only the number of To show how easily such ships can be protected with any thickness of armour, I shall have to quote the following-Admiral Popoff's own words:-" As the bottom is flat, the "increase of the immersion of the ship, by every two additional feet, gives power to แ carry three more inches of armour, either over the whole extent of the deck, or over แ the surface of the bottom." Therefore it may be seen that no form will lend itself more easily to the protection of the body of the ship against the fire of rifled mortars, or against the attack by fixed torpedoes.

I do not wish the proportions given with reference to the diagram to be accepted as perfectly precise, because in no case have I prepared an accurate design for every individual ship. But, as a large margin was allowed for other weights, I believe that still much greater offensive and defensive power than is shown on the diagram would be got out of each ship upon the dimensions considered.

Consequently, choosing out of an infinite variety of proportions which the diameter of the circular ships can bear to the draught, according to the given conditions, we can

G

obtain ships, carrying any number of the heaviest guns and armour of any thickness within the limits of practical necessity, and yet not exceeding the draught of ordinary ships.

Such circular ships will be more economical than the existing ones of ordinary shapes, because from the adjoining Table we can see that, even at the great speed, the ratio

is

which the cost of hull of these vessels bears to the cost of armour and guns carried very much less than in the case of ordinary ships, and also because the proportion of the engine power to the cost of guns and armour driven is also less. Therefore the circular form ensures the true economy. As another instance, I may mention the new design for a small unarmoured circular vessel able to carry two 41-ton guns, having the cost of hull and engines in proportion to each ton of weight of the guns less than in the ordinary unarmoured gunboats, carrying one less powerful gun.

But I should be unfaithful to the cause of "popoffkas" if I conclude this Paper without mentioning the following most important considerations:

It has been proved in practice that Mr. Reed's 300-feet ship can be propelled through water as fast as a less powerful 400-feet vessel, and it has also been proved by careful experiments that a ship whose length is three times the beam can be made to go as easy, even with less expenditure of power, than one having the length equal to four times the breadth; therefore we must conclude that extremely short and broad

vessels, approaching much more closely to the circular form than to the form of the present existing long ships-yet not quite circular-will do away with that increased part of the resistance which is due to the increased eddies appearing when a body of so comparatively abrupt an entrance and run as that shaped circular is driven through water. That has induced Admiral Popoff not to restrict his ships by the purely circular waterlines when higher speeds will be contemplated. Such moderate elongations of bow and stern, as were described by Mr. Reed, reducing the size of engines necessary to drive these ships, and consequently reducing their total displacement, and avoiding probably some other difficulties, arising, as Mr. Reed and Mr. Froude have suggested, out of the coincidence of period in ship and wave at high speeds, will promote the most economical propulsion at sea of the very heaviest guns protected by the very thickest

armour.

Such ships, then-I mean those with slightly elongated bow and stern—could no longer be called "circular ironclads," nor would the name of "cyclads," or any other such term, be any longer available, but that of "popoffkas," which name was graciously given to this class of vessels by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia.

DISCUSSION.

Mr. J. D'AGUILAR SAMUDA, M.P.: My Lord and Gentlemen, as to the Paper that is before us, I certainly am very glad to have the opportunity of expressing an opinion upon this matter, which has been rendered so interesting by the observations which have already fallen from Mr. Reed with reference to these vessels. But I would beg to say, that, with every disposition (which I am quite sure every Member of the Council and of the Institution has) to give the greatest praise which they possibly can to any subject so interesting and so novel, I think we should be wanting in candour, if we allowed a desire to give that praise to have any precedence over our convictions, when we feel we cannot reasonably or freely give it. With regard to this Paper, it appears to me that it may properly be divided into three distinct subjects: the first and most interesting one, which gives us a clear description of that which has been done with these vessels; the second, which I venture to think is a purely imaginative one, as to that which may be done, and which draws conclusions as to speeds to be obtained with these vessels-to which conclusions, I must say, I cannot find the smallest clue throughout the whole of the Paper justifying any such results being arrived at; and then the last of the three perfectly distinct matters which are put before us is (and it is a very remarkable one, as the Meeting will observe), that if the conclusions under the second head could be obtained, namely, that you could obtain a vessel to go 14 knots and to carry an unheard-of quantity of guns, and an unknown thickness of armour-something like upwards of 4 feet

is that which is named-one might have been content to have rested upon the acquirement of a vessel so totally superior to anything else that had ever been dreamt of. But then the third proposal ignores the second altogether, and goes on to urge that, with all the advantages that are to be got from circular ships, the right thing is to depart from and not produce circular ships, but to produce elongated ships. I really think that, in discussing this matter, as I hope and believe we all desire to discuss it in this Institution-first with regard to its truth, and next with regard to its being the foundation for future consideration in the development of this subject-we must look upon this matter in a less favourable way than that which the author of the Paper would have us deal with it. Now I propose to deal with a few of the subjects that are brought before us, in the order in which I have just now put them. First, with regard to the vessels that have been produced. It is rather a remarkable circumstance that the speed of these vessels has not been stated to us by the author of this Paper; but we have the means of gathering from that which he does tell us, that the speed of his Novgorod would in all probability have been 7 knots. The paragraph I refer to, which brings me to that conclusion is this, that "People forget when comparing "the speed of these vessels with the propelling power that was attained in English ships, that with English engines they occasionally develope more than eight times the nominal horse-power, whilst with "the engines of the Novgorod they developed about four and a half times." Then it goes on to say that the Novgorod's speed, "had the engines been of the same efficiency as those English engines, would "have been 9 knots." Then, drawing as near a conclusion from that as I can, it comes to this, that if the 9 knots would have been obtained with eight times, the speed of 7 would have been obtained at the outside with that which was given. I believe, from what I have heard indirectly, that that was about the speed which was obtained. Now giving it the fullest advantage of that which we are able to derive from the statement put before us, what does it come to? It comes to this, that, if you enter upon the figures which are given to us in this Paper as to the resistance which this vessel has to overcome, and of the power which is given to it to overcome it, the mechanical power to overcome and cause this vessel to advance is five times as great as that which it would be in an ordinary ship.

แ

Mr. E. J. REED, C.B., F.R.S., M.P.: It is nearly that.

Mr. SAMUDA: I am very glad, indeed, to find that I am confirmed in that by Mr. Reed. Now what does that lead us to? It leads us to this, that if we have got that resistance with a vessel going at 7 knots an hour, and with a form that certainly is ill suited to go at great speed (and 7 knots an hour is probably the speed which would be the fairest and best that you could assume in comparing this vessel with others), what would be the result if you attempted to develope this to something like those useful speeds which have been treated in this Paper subsequently as perfectly easy of attainment? From the experience I have had in connection with steam-which has gone over as long a period, I think, almost as that of any one in this Meeting-my conclusion would be that no conceivable power that you could put in one of these vessels could drive it 14 knots. It could not be done. That is my conclusion. I think that it would be allowing the most complete hallucination to exist if one were not to attempt to elucidate some more correct conclusions from the facts which have been stated than those which are contained in this Paper, and if it were allowed to go forth to the world that there was read at this Institution a Paper which dealt with the possibility and certainty of acquiring these speeds when it is positively certain that it cannot be done. I have got now to the question of speed. This Paper puts before us, not only the statement that you can go 14 knots with these vessels, but that you can carry, when you are going at this speed with these vessels, "a similar very large coal supply as in the case of 12 knots' ships;" that

"increased engine-power has taken more from the useful part of the displacement," but that she still possesses "the means of steaming 14 knots continually during five days and nights." Let me just call attention to what that would involve if you were to accept it as a problem capable of being carried out. If I take the Kaiser and the Deutschland—two iron-clad frigates I have lately built for the German Government, and which are two of the best ships of that peculiar form of construction for which Mr. Reed has had so much and such just praise, for here he carried to the greatest extent the beam of the ship as contradistinguished from the length of the ship-those vessels burnt, when going 14 knots, 10 tons an hour, or 240 tons a day; and therefore would have burnt in five days 1,200 tons of coals. I have already shown to you, and Mr. Reed has confirmed the view, that when going at 7 knots the quantity of coalthat is to say, the resistance of the circular ship in proportion to the engine-power-was nearly five times that of the ordinary ship.

Mr. REED: What ordinary ship?

Mr. SAMUDA: An ordinary sea-going vessel of the English Navy.

Mr. REED: Of what size?

Mr. SAMUDA: If Mr. Reed will let me give the details in my own way, I think he will find he will be answered more satisfactorily. Perhaps he may call his own ship an extraordinary ship, but I was going to compare the circular ship with the result of these very ships themselves the Kaiser and Deutschland—and if they possess anything beyond the ordinary qualities, it will be all in favour of the vessel I am going to compare it with; because I am going to show what popoffkas would have to carry if their conditions were similar to those which we have already seen they actually do possess when going 7 knots. When going 7 knots they require five times the quantity of power beyond a ship of ordinary form; when going at 14 knots they certainly would require considerably more than five times the quantity of power. That is a natural conclusion, from the form of the vessel. If you only take them as requiring five times the power, you would require in this case 6,000 tons of coal to carry out the conclusion arrived at in this Paper. I put it to this Meeting whether it is right that we should have to discuss these matters which are purely imaginative to the extent which this Paper has evidently put before us? I am quite content to yield every kind of approval to the ingenuity of the plan where it is suitable; but the only place, to my mind, where these vessels could suitably be adopted would be in a position where a fort is required to be stationed, and is not required to be attached to the land. There they would be extremely useful. The power which is given to them, which is exceedingly minute as to their power of locomotion, might be very usefully applied to take them from one port to another. I am sure I need not offer any apology to this Meeting for putting this problem before them. The science of naval architecture is considered to advance in proportion as you are able to diminish resistance, and to make use of a given power to accelerate speed, and improve the passage of the vessel through the water. This power, far from accomplishing this result, does exactly the reverse-it involves the use of five times the power for a similar speed; and there is not a person of my age but can recollect that at the time when the first suggestion was made with regard to increasing the fineness of the lines of vessels, there was this remarkable result: all those vessels which had been built upon the river, and which were built with bows something approaching to these circular vessels-that is to say, with the full old sailing vessel bows-had those bows elongated, not very considerably so, but so as to make what was then considered fine lines. And with what result? This: that they immediately doubled the mechanical effect produced upon the ship. It is in that direction we have been working ever since, and