i <*. '
 
 NAVAL DEFENCES. 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 LIVERPOOL CHAMBER OF 
 COMMERCE, 
 
 Pointing out the Inaccuracies contained in 
 an Address by 
 
 :m:i^- zEnoi^-^ATOor), is/l.:e'., 
 
 Pufliamoitary Secretary to the Admiralty. 
 BY 
 
 ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET, 
 
 SIR THOMAS SYMONDS, G.C.B. 
 
 PRICE ONE SHILLING. 
 
 NEWTON ABBOT : 
 
 G. H. HEARDEK, PRINTER & STATIONER, 
 
 2, WOLBOROUGH STREET.
 
 TO THE CHAIR MAY AND MEMBERS OF THE 
 LIVERPOOL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 
 
 Dbar Sir, 
 
 1. — A report of a meeting of the Liverpool Chamber of Com- 
 merce, dated July 9tli, 1888, including an address by Mr. Forwood, 
 M.P., has just reached me by post. The statements of Mr. Forwood, 
 as reported, are so inaccurate and misleading, that I feel bound in 
 the interests of my country to point thera out, and to prove by 
 official documents that they are not based on fact. 
 
 2. — Mr. Forwood begins by stating that he will confine him- 
 self " as closely as possible to a statement of facts and to avoid 
 political or professional controversy." I claim the same position, 
 and will confine myself to facts refuting to the best of my ability 
 some of Mr. Forwood's assertions after quoting his words, as 
 follows — 
 
 3. — "All are agreed that we require, as a minimum, a Navy 
 sufficient in extent and power to overmatch the naval forces of any 
 combination of hostile foreign powers that can be reasonaldy antici- 
 pated." I concur in this assertion though a question might be 
 raised as to the interpretation of the expression " reasonably 
 anticipated." 
 
 4. — Mr, Forwood states — " Money should be regarded as 
 nothing as comparerl with the safety of the country," Here again 
 I agree with Mr. Forwood. Before proceeding to point out the 
 inaccuracies in Mr. Forwood's statements of tlie relative strength of 
 all naval powers, I must here remark that after declaring that 
 money is no object as compared with the safety of the country, he 
 immediately criticises Sir G. Hornby's requirements, chiefly on the 
 ground of their expense, so that the question narrows itself to this, 
 are Sir G. Hornby's requirements necessary for our safety ? I pro- 
 pose to prove that they are. In addition to the expense for
 
 (4) 
 
 material, Mr. Forwoo 1 britii,'-; f()r\vai\l the ilifBculty of manning so 
 large a fleet. But it would not he necessary to man the whole at 
 the same time, and by a judicious transfer of men a great economy 
 might be effected. And I agree entirely with Sir G. Hornby's 
 estimate of the necessary numerical superiority. 
 
 5. — Mr. Forwood states, '• I liop8 that in all T have said no 
 one will imagine that for one moment would I allow this country to 
 risk the loss of the com nan d of the sea." Here I must enter my 
 ))rotest, and endeavour to show tliat this assumed supeiiority of 
 which ]\lr. Forwood boasts is already gone. Even French Admirals 
 state that they would not have a moment's anxiety in entering into 
 battle with us, an 1 I grieve to be f)bliged to agree with them. The 
 structure of their shi[)-; is superior in arumur, their guns are all 
 breechloaders, whilst we have 49 armour-clads and 17 cruisers, <)6 
 in all, which have muzzle-loaders, see Parliamentaiy Return, 
 dune 12th, 1888 — unfit to load a second time within machine-gun 
 fire, which is no difficulty to tiie breechloader, with which all the 
 French ships are armed. Again he says — 
 
 (). — " An increase in the number of vessels to be laid down far 
 in exce&s of the normal yearly shi[i-building progi'amme, is fraught 
 with, danger." This may be true, for the French excel us in gun- 
 making and in general progress of science. We are only now 
 beginning to experiment on the new explosives with which the 
 French have been for some time familiar. 
 
 7. — Mr. Forwood declares '• The policy that is being pursued 
 by the Board of Admiralty is, I believe, the only safe and sure 
 one, if we are to increase the j^ower and strength of the navy, and 
 at tlie same time have ship? possessing all imjirovements developed 
 from year to year." 
 
 1 protest again-it tlii> assertion, because war may break out 
 before our provisions for safely are carried out, and therefore the 
 policy is neither safe or sure ; and I repeat, for reasons which I will 
 presently give, that our battleships should be as two to one, and 
 our cruisers as three to one. And in respect of i\lr. Forwooil's 
 declaration, that " already we are superior t ) any reasonable con- 
 tingencies that may arise, itc." I am constrained to meet it with a 

 
 (5) 
 
 direct contrniliction which T will presently support with facts 
 aiiniitted on all sides. 
 
 He says — " Several of our ships are of an obsolete type, but 
 the satne may he sail as re^^ards the vessels of our neighbours." 
 
 This asffiin is probably tni'^. but the inference, decidedly false. 
 An obsolete ship is of more comparative value to the French than 
 to us, since, in case of war, they would have the protection of their 
 harbours, whilst ours would have to keep the sea. 
 
 His remark that— "An expenditure of 29 millions ao^ainst 19 
 m'llions." would infi^r an ad'^quate sup-^riority on our side, if the 
 duties of the Fn^n^^h and Fnciflish fleets wpre the same — but when 
 we consider the enorm">us amount of nv^rr-autile shippingr we should 
 have to protect, the value of Mr. Forwood's remark is very much 
 reduced. 
 
 T have now exhausted my quotations, and proceed to the best 
 of my ability to show thi^ din-rerous fallacy of many of Mr. 
 Forwood's assertions. 
 
 In Mr. Forwood's lists of both N"avies he mixes battleships 
 with armoured cruisers, which is contrary to the plan adopted in 
 Parliamentary Return, June 12th, ISSS, and very misleading'. The 
 Cruisers being intended for the protection of trade, and not for the 
 line of Battle. Imperieuse was intended for a cruiser and turned 
 into a battleship, being founl uufi^. f)r the purposes for which 8he 
 was oriofinally inteudel. She, as well as Orlando are now flag^ ships. 
 Imperieuse drawing 29ft. water could not pass through the Suez 
 Canal, thence is not a fit cruiser. 
 
 He states at p. 18 — " To-day we have forty armoured vessels 
 ready for service ami thirteen completing, and France has twenty- 
 three ready and seven buildinir." This is perhaps the most mislead- 
 ing paS'^age in his speech, for 40 armoured vessels are not '■ ready 
 for service" as is proved by referring to Parliamentary Return, 
 number 218, p. 3, wliere it is shovn that Thunderer and Superb 
 require '' rep urs, rearming, new engines," etc., etc. See Navy 
 Estimates, 1888—89, p. 174. Thus the 40 "ready" are reduced 
 to 38. Of the French, building, there are 8 with Brennus, not 7! 
 Of those complete 29 instead of 23, if the 6 Battleships miscalled
 
 (6) 
 
 " Coast Defence," are treated as their inferiors, Hotspur, Rupert, 
 Belleisle, Orion, Penelope, Iron Duke are on Mr. Forwood's and 
 Admiralty List, June 12th, 1888. 
 
 Thus Mr. Forwood overrates the English 40 by 2 " not ready " 
 and underrates the French by 6 ready and one Croiseur Blinde 
 building — result 38 English to 30 French. 
 
 In the report on the French Navy Estimates 188S, dated 
 December 1887, at p. 22, Brennus is thus described. — " Arnian^ent, 
 p. 23, — Armour compound — surrounding the vessel without 
 interruption — (no unarmonred ends !) — height at least two metres, 
 armoured deck, cofferdams, raft system, speed 18 knots. The 
 French propose to expemi 200,000 journees on this new armour- 
 clad, and at p. 131, the money expenditure for 1888 is given! 
 Such an armour-clad is omitted by the Secretary of the Admiralty, 
 and we begin nothina^ to meet her, but reduce estimates and work- 
 men! Again, Dupmj de Lome is contained in Mr. Forwood's 
 M/iarmo?/reJcruiser list, p. 28 ! also in 218. Wliilstinp 20, Valeur 
 de la Flotte (French Navy Estimates' Report, Dec. 1887,) she is 
 styled "Un Croiseur, Blinde de l^re Classe. Steel armour belt from 
 end to end, and a steel armoured deck ; cofferdams; very numerous 
 compartments ; speed 20 knots. Tliey propose to spend 50,000 
 "journees on this vessel in 1888." But this period of preparatory 
 works passed, the greatest activity possible is to be used. Three 
 years and a-half should suffice to place the vessel in condition to go 
 to sea." He does not name 9 " Torpilleurs de hante-mer," speed 
 22 knots, the best of home cruisers and the most terrible scourges 
 possible to our channel conmierce. These are named at p. 122, 
 "Valeur reelle des batiinents au l^f Janvier, 18S8," — Balnij, 
 Challier, Capitnine Cuuy, Meld, Deho7-ter, Deroulede, Doiidart de 
 Lagree, Bouet Willanmer/, Edinond- Fontaine. 
 
 On his list are English vessels whose keels are not 
 laid down. The 6 French turrets omitted have a very superior 
 armament, Guns, breech-loaders, wjiile the English vessels 
 below named have a comparatively paltry armament. Guns muzzle- 
 loaders, etc., etc. Even Brassy writes of the six French turrets, see 
 vol I. p. 1G8. Note. — " It should perhaps be jjointed out, that it is 
 intended by the use of the term ' coast service vessel ' in the text 
 to connote a class capable of rather more extended employment than 
 would be expressed by the words ' coast defence vessels.' Like our
 
 own Hotspur and Rupert, the former could proceed to, aud be 
 employed on, an enemy's coast." 
 
 The Admiralty misinterpret the French heading " garde- 
 cotes-cuirasses. It is as incorrect as misleading, that while Hotspur 
 Rupert, Bellisle, Orion, Penelope, aud Iron Duke, are placed on the 
 list of battleships, the French superior vessels are omitted. These 
 misrepresentations are actually on the Admiralty Eeturn to Parlia- 
 ment, No. 218, June 12th, 1888. Just issued. The six French 
 turrets in question are also more modern in date, three carry 48-tou 
 guns, two have 2Uin. and 18in. armour, &c. 
 
 Yet Mr. Forwood sa^s "My desire has been simply to 
 state facts." But this does not complete the misstatements. 
 
 Tiie iollowiiig is a statement of various pnrtijulars of six 
 French turret ships, ' Garde-coles Cuirawse's,' not, o«/y ^ coast defence 
 vessels, and six coi responding Englibh vessels on the sea-going list 
 of Buttle ships — and one armoured cruiser. 
 
 FRENCH MISCALLED " COAST DEFENCE VESSELS, 
 ARMUUUED." 
 
 Names. Tonnase. 
 
 Frenxh Furieux 5,700 
 Tonnere 5,700 
 Fulminant 5, too 
 Vengeur 4,523 
 Tonnant 4,707 
 Tempete 4,523 
 
 B.L. Aimament. 
 
 Armour. 
 
 Date of 
 Speed. Launch. 
 
 2—13.4 (48 tons) 
 
 2oin. 
 
 14 knots 1883 
 
 2 — 10.6 
 
 13- 
 
 14 „ 1875 
 
 2 — 10.6 
 
 13,, 
 
 13 2 „ 1877 
 
 2—13.4 (48 tons) 
 
 13.. 
 
 10.8 „ 1S78 
 
 2—13.4 (48 tons) 
 
 lb,, 
 
 1 1 „ 1880 
 
 2 — 10.6 
 
 13,, 
 
 12 „ 1876 
 
 5,126 average. 
 
 I5in. 
 
 12.6 
 
 SIX ENGLISH VESSELS AS A COMPARISON: 
 MISCALLED " BATTLE-SHIPfc-," 
 
 while the French above are on an inferior list ! 
 
 M.L. 
 
 i2in. 
 12 ,, 
 
 Orion 
 
 4,870 
 
 4—12 
 
 Belleisle 
 
 4,^70 
 
 4—12 
 
 Rupert 
 
 5,440 
 
 2 — 10 
 
 Hotspur 
 
 4,010 
 
 2 — 12 
 
 flPenelope 
 
 4,470 
 
 8— 8! 
 
 c?Iron Duke 
 
 6,010 
 
 10 — 9 
 
 and four others. 
 
 
 
 4,945 
 
 average 
 
 12.8 
 
 1879 
 
 12.2 
 
 1876 
 
 13.6 
 
 1S7.! 
 
 12.6 
 
 1870!! 
 
 12.7 
 
 1867!! 
 
 12.5 
 
 1870!! 
 
 13.8
 
 (8) 
 
 The Admiralty returns do not give tliickness of armour. 1 liavc 
 therefore followed Lloyd's. Of Mr. Forwood's -Ao " reor/y " 
 Penelope (a) is said to be only fit to be at the Ca])0 as guard ship. 
 Iron Duke (d), and four others badly armed broadside vessels couhi 
 have no chance with any of the six French above. 
 
 The result of a battle between the above .<ix French turrets and 
 two English turrets, besides four bruaviside vessels can only end in 
 our defeat. Handling being equal, they ought to knock them to 
 pieces in a few n)inutes, and none of our other broadside vessels, 
 25 in number, ought to have a chance of success against either of 
 the six French "Garde-cotes Cuirasses" {omitted by Mr. Forwood), 
 all else being equal. We are quite wrong in repairing Superb and 
 Achilles, Hector or any b-oadside vessel, which can have no possible 
 chance against a decent turret. 
 
 Whilst Brennus is omitted by Mr. Forwood as an armour-clad, 
 and styled in last Parliamentary list " ordered to be built," it is 
 stated of our Blake '' designs not yet decided in detail," also no 
 engines for Vulcan, Burrosa, Barraconta, Blanche., Blonde, etc. 
 
 The mistakes alluded to above do an incalculable mischief by 
 over-rating our naval strength. 
 
 Whilst Lord George Hamilton calls one like me "' a most 
 pessimist alarmist" (see Times, March 22nd, 1888,) for striving 
 to expose facts for the good of my country, 1 feel bound to declare 
 that the optimist course is certain to ruin us in a measurable 
 time. 
 
 Mr. Foravood's List of Crctisers. In Parliamentary return, 
 June 12th, 1888, No. 218, the same dangerous misleading farce is 
 pursued by calling the French Dupuy de Lome " an unaiinoured 
 cruiser,''' see p. 14. Although the French " Yaleur de la Flotte," 
 Dec. 1887, styles her " Blinde," a document as public as our 
 estimates, and can readily be purchased. Mr. Forwood crowds his 
 list of cruisers with eleven vessels under li knots speed. Omitting 
 these as too slow, his result is French 27, English 35, of speed over 
 14 knots. I add nine French " Torpilleurs de haute mer," speed 
 22 knots, making 35 English, 36 French. The nine French
 
 ('9) 
 
 iiiinieH, p. 122, "Torpillems ilo haute uier" (styled in 218 '■'boats'") 
 are the perfection of Cliannel Oonniiorce di'stroyers. I most certainly 
 cannot say that otir cointnerce ^' could he efficiently protected^ On 
 the contrary, its destruction is certain and prepared for. 
 
 The coaling of ouf war ships, the keeping- their l)ottonis clean, 
 with insufficient ilock-ucconiniojation, and kee[)ing the engines in 
 repair, for racing s[)eed, necessitates even more than two Battle ships 
 for one and three Cruisers to one French vessel, as the duty of our 
 ships to keep tiie sea, is in no way obligatory with them. 
 
 The Decadence of tlie British armour-clad Navy dates from 
 •June, 1873, when the armour dads of 
 
 Eng;lan'd were otl Iron Armour Clads and 1-4 wootl ) rn . i co 
 
 r, 1 ]■ ., } iotai DO 
 
 „ Building -}„„,, I 
 
 France ... 3 Iron ,, ,, Si wood) .. 
 
 ,, Building o ,, ,, ,, 4 wood J " 
 
 The above from Admiralty Official sources. 
 
 Abstract — Fngland o'J Iron, 1-4 wood, grand total bo 
 „ France ,, ob ,, ,, 41 
 
 It would be almost correct to say the English Fleet was in 187o iron. 
 ,, „ ,, the French ,, ,, wood. 
 
 By Parliamentary Kcturii, June 12tli, 1888, the armoured 
 Fleet was comparatively 
 
 English, 2 wood, 4U Iron, 12 Coast Defence, t(jtal 54 
 7 Building 7 
 
 Gl 
 French : — 
 
 Armour Clads, 1888, '.» iron, lo wood, 14 mis-calletl " (Joast 
 
 Defence " (6 formidalile turrets, 8 gunboats), iron and 5 wood. 
 
 Total 23 iron, 18 wood 
 
 8 iron building. 
 
 31 18 Grand total 41). 
 
 English total (il i)t) Iron, 2 wood. 
 
 French ,, 49 31 Iron, 18 wood.
 
 (10) 
 
 It does not need much wisdom to see that the French have 
 built an Iron Fleet since 1873, so to say, instead of wood. 
 
 But the English have really only 17 modern Iron Armour 
 Clads, three of which are armed lolth muzzle-loadei's, and nine 
 armoured Cruisers, total 26. 
 
 The French have 32 7nodern Iron Armour Clads, including 8 
 gunboats, and one armoured Cruiser. Total 33. 
 
 The rest are in truth obsolete on both sides. 
 
 Why Return 218 is made to style as French " Coast Defence 
 Ve?sels, armoured," 6 formidable turrets, far superior to 10 on 
 the English battle lists, I cannot conct-ive. 
 
 Eefuges for Fremch Commerce Destroyers. 
 
 The new French ports Calais, Bolougne, Havre, mouths of the 
 Seine, improvements to Cherbourg, Brest, Toulon, &c. &c., will 
 very much assist such destructions, being slielters for coumierce 
 destroyers, and a menace to our commerce. G-i,OUU,OUO francs has 
 just been approved by the Chambers for tlie above purpose. 
 
 " From our Correspondent, Paris, Nov. 8th, 1887. 
 
 " A Bill was submitted to the Chamber to-day by the Govern- 
 " ment for tha enlargement of Havre Harbour and the improvement 
 "of navigation on the Lower Seine. The outlay is 95, UU0,OUOf., 
 " the Havre and Rouen Chambers of Commerce paying 2-1,000, OOOf. 
 " and lending to the State, free of interest, the remaining 
 " 72,000, OOOf just voted for improvements." We look on and do 
 nothing ! 
 
 Our Personnel is also dangerously few in number comparatively, 
 remembering that the French use " conscription," while we are all 
 volunteers. 
 
 I have now pointed out many of tlie inaccuracies of Mr. 
 Forwood's statements. I am quite cerltJn of my facts and 
 challenge an examination of them. My only object being by pub- 
 lishing the truth to induce my countrymen to look more narrowly, 
 in time, to their safety, by preparing a strong navy, before too late. 
 It takes three years to build an armour clad.
 
 (11) 
 
 Historical Conclusion. 
 As I am addressing the members of the Chamber of Commerce 
 of the Chief Mercantile Port in the world, I will endeavour 
 as briefly as I can to acquaint them with the ' History ' of the case, 
 and what the French promise us in future. " History of the French 
 Revolution," Alison, Vol. IV., page 648, states that the English 
 had in 1793, 153 sail of the line and 133 frigates. The French 
 had 83 and 77. James gives the numbers Vol. II., page 52, British 
 liners 158, French 82, and yet we wei-e out-numbered in every 
 general battle. 
 
 If Toulon had not been given to us that year, it would liave 
 been one of our sad lest years, for parsimony had reduced our Fleet 
 beldw pruihMice, as proved during the remainder of 22 years' most 
 successful naval war (although Toulon and 20 ships of tlie 
 line, i*cc'., fell into our hands). We had increased our Fleet by 
 1813 to 244: line of battlesliips, and 570 cruisers. 
 
 Our trade, cohniies, &c., were small fractions of what they are 
 now, and our sailors, from sea experience, were as superior as 
 possible to the French. Besides, Great Britain could feed her 
 population. Now steam has equalised the value of the men, which 
 has to be proved. The feeding our people has incalculably increasfd 
 our aiaval responsibility. The French Navy is superior to ours in 
 force, (rom better battleships, an 1 the cruisers are t to nearly equal. 
 G6 of our vessels are armed with ntuzzle-loading obsolete guns. 
 
 Moreover the duties of our Navy are incalculably more onerous 
 than the French, and if we take History as our guide, it appears 
 that in 1807, after the treaty of T'Isit, we fortunately had 206 
 battle-ships to face a combination of Europe's 180, of which France 
 had 60 I — see Jouiiui ' Vie cle Napoleon ' ii. p. 449, 
 who gives the names of the nations and number of 
 ships. England could then Jeed her people, now not half I 
 The increase of our wealth, trade, colonies, etc., etc. is enormous, 
 nevertheless Europe has now according to " Brassey." 232 armour- 
 clads, of which 49 are French to England's 61. From the above 
 it id perfectly clear that we ought now to keep a Navy equal to any
 
 (12) 
 
 combination and t'ai" superior to tlie French alone, or risk the loss 
 of everything. 
 
 I have no hesitation in stating tliat our politicians are (with 
 their eyes open) ensuring in our case disgrace to our flag and perfect 
 ruin to the country in case of a Frencli war, by understating the 
 facts. 
 
 In 1801, Alison states, we liad 202 sail of the line, and 277 
 frigates. Observe the enormous increase — French 31) and 35, 
 we were neai'ly 6 to 1. After the occupation of Toulon ; of Battles, 
 1st June, /94, St. Vincent, Cauiperdown, The Nile, etc., etc., in all 
 which we were outnumbered ! 
 
 Vol. XVI., Alison p. 324, Directory decree, 19th June, 179(), 
 " Neutral sailors found on board English vessels should be put to 
 death ! " 
 
 Our forefathers, wisely continued to increase the Navy until 
 in 1813, when it consisted of 244 sail of ihe line, and 227 frigates. 
 
 " Imperial decree Nov. 18th, 1810, created Provost Marshals 
 for the summary punishment of all Custom-liouse officers, etc., etc., 
 as far as sentence of death ; to any one who should connive at 
 the introduction of British Merciiandise." 
 
 Alison p. 359, Vol. VI. — ■" So it was a question vvhicli 
 persecuted British trade most barbarously the French republic, or 
 Emperor ! " 
 
 In p. 377. — '* Bales of English goods, of great extent, were 
 publicly burnt in all the chief cities or countries under French 
 influence ! " 
 
 In p. 4G5. — "Treaty of Tilsit, 1807. If England refused the 
 ])roffered mediation of Russia, the wliole maritime forces of the 
 Continent were to be employed against her and they could muster 
 180 sail of the line, in a few years this force could be raised to 
 250." " The 180 vessels were Frencii ships of the line t>0, 
 Spanish 40, Ilussian 25, Swecdish 15, Dutch 15, Danish 15, 
 Portuguese 10 = 180." Fortunately Great Britain jiossesscd 20G. 
 More than three times the French ! 
 
 Alison Vol. X. pp. 10G4, 5, IS 15.—" The great effect of the 
 wars of the French revolution, was the aggrandisement of the
 
 (IS) 
 
 Colonial empire ol: England. If we contemplate the manner in 
 which ilnring the early 3'ears of the contest, tlie strength of 
 England was paral^'sed by tlie miserable parsimony which haii 
 starved its naval and military forces in former years (as in 1888), 
 we may well feel astonisliment. Dnring the course of this long 
 continued strugj^le the British Xavy obtained a decisive superiority 
 in every sea, and the British commerce gradually acquired an 
 extension unparalleled in any former age of the world." 
 
 I believe that I have siiown above how the British Navy, when 
 not starved, ensured the safety of the Nation, extended its trade, 
 the tru.' wealth of our Islands, its Colonies, etc., etc. How 
 barbarous the FrePich Republic and Empire were to our Trade, and 
 below is what we are jtromised if we continue in a. course of 
 wickedly mad parsimony to the Xavy. 
 
 The above mentioned, which has been my constant study 
 through a long sea service, and my Tactical knowledge of Naval 
 combats leave me no possible escape from the certainty that the 
 least that can make the British Empire at all safe is to increase our 
 battle ships to twice those of France, and the cruisers to thrice her 
 cruisers, also that with the Navy as it is, defeat is certain and the 
 ruin of our food supply and commerce is inevitable. 
 
 FuirRE TKE.4TMEM' Hv Fkance VICTORIOUS. Remember 
 ivhat follows. — In the Revue des Deux Mondes, March 15th 
 1882. "The empire of the sea will belong to that nation 
 " of the two which has the most numerous armoured fleet. 
 " Every power of attack and destruction will be employed against 
 "all England's littoral towns — fortihed or unfortified — wliether 
 •'purely peace establishments or warlike — to burn them, to destroy 
 " them, or to pitilessly ransom them.' ' In any future war the French 
 " will come down from the heights of that cloudy sentimentality, 
 " which has created the monstrous association of words — rights of 
 " war {les droits de la guerre) and the attack on every source of 
 " riches will become not only legitimate, but obligatory upon them." 
 — Bi/ Rear-Admiral Aube, of the French Navy, late Minister of 
 Marine.
 
 Copy of Mr. Forwood's List, with N.B.* added. 
 
 (P- 25-) 
 
 ARMOURED SHIPS COMPLETED. 
 
 (LAID DOWN PRIOR TO 1877-78.) 
 
 ENGLISH. 
 
 NAMR. 
 
 Black Prince 1861 
 
 Agincourt 1865 
 
 Bcllerophon 1865 
 
 Northumberland 1866 
 
 Penelope 1867 
 
 Monarch 1868 
 
 Hercules 1S68 
 
 Audacious 
 Invincible 
 
 Iron Duke 1870 
 
 Hotspur 1870 
 
 Swiftsure 1870 
 
 Triumph 1870 
 
 Sultan I 1870 
 
 Devastation 1871 
 
 Thunderer 1872 
 
 Rupert 1872 
 
 Alexandra i^75 
 
 Dreadnought 1875 
 
 Shannon 1875 
 
 Northampton 1 1876 
 
 Ntlson i 1876 
 
 Inflexible \ 1876 
 
 
 Temeraire ... 
 Agamemnon 
 Ajax 
 
 1876 
 187Q 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 1862 
 1868 
 1S66 
 1868 
 1868 
 1869 
 1868 
 1870 
 1870 
 1871 
 1871 
 
 9210 
 10690 
 
 7550 
 10780 
 
 4470 
 
 8320 
 
 6010 
 6010 
 6010 
 4010 
 
 1872 
 
 6910 
 
 187.3 
 
 6640 
 
 I87I 
 
 9290 
 
 1873 
 
 9330 
 
 1877 
 
 9330 
 
 1874 
 
 5440 
 
 1877 
 
 9490 
 
 1879 
 
 10820 
 
 1877 
 
 5390 
 
 1878 
 
 7630 
 
 I88I 
 
 7630 
 
 1881 
 
 1 1880 
 
 1877 
 
 8540 
 
 1883 
 
 8660 
 
 1883 
 
 8660 
 
 13.6 
 148 
 
 14 2 
 I4.I 
 12.7 
 14.9 
 13.6 
 13.2 
 
 13-8 
 12.5 
 12.6 
 13-7 
 13-5 
 13 s 
 13.8 
 
 134 
 13.6 
 15.0 
 14.2 
 12.3 
 13.2 
 14.0 
 13.8 
 14.6 
 13.0 
 13.0 
 
 FRENCH. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 Heroine (a) ... 
 Ocean [n) 
 Marengo (a) 
 Suffren {a) ... 
 La Galissonniere 
 
 Friedland 
 
 Richelieu {a) ... 
 
 Colbert (a) 
 
 Victorieuse {a)... 
 
 Trident {a) 1 
 
 Redoutable ...] 
 Triomphante {a) 
 
 Thetis 
 
 Devastation 
 
 Tureiine 
 
 Admiial Duperre 
 Bayard 
 
 a Hulls of wood 
 
 1863 
 1868 
 18^9 
 1870 
 1872 
 •873 
 1873 
 1875 
 187s 
 1876 
 1876 
 
 1877 
 1877 
 1879 
 18-9 
 1879 
 
 Tons. 
 
 5887 
 7500 
 7900 
 7600 
 4700 
 8300 
 9 ICO 
 
 8400 
 4600 
 8800 
 
 9200 
 4700 
 
 302I 
 
 lOIOO 
 
 6400 
 1 1 100 
 
 6000 
 
 13.0 
 137 
 
 13-5 
 14-3 
 I3-I 
 '33 
 13' 
 14.4 
 12.7 
 141 
 14 6 
 12 9 
 12.0 
 
 151 
 14.1 
 14.2 
 H-5 
 
 In addition, the following English vessels are considered capable, 
 after repairs, of further service: — "Achilles," "Hector;" and, in 
 addition, we have laid up the " Warrior," " Defence," " Valiant," 
 " Lord Warden." " Repulse ; " and the French have the " Savoir," 
 " Revanche," and " Montcalm." 
 
 
 
 *N.B. — "Superb" and "Thunderer" are being re-engined. — 
 " Minotaur " is unaccounted for. Thomas Symonds.
 
 Copy of Mr. Forwood's List, with Omissions* added. 
 
 ( p. 26 ) 
 
 ARMOURED SHIPS COMPLETED. 
 
 (LAID DOWN OR PURCHASED SINCE 1877.78.) 
 
 ENGLISH. 
 
 FRENCH. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 Year 
 lauuclieJ. 
 
 Year 
 
 fiuished. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 ■3 
 03 
 
 NAME. 
 
 |1 
 
 Tons. w 
 m 
 
 Neptune 
 
 1874 1 88 1 
 
 1875 1880 
 
 1876 1878 
 1879 1881 
 
 1 881 1886 
 
 1882 1887 
 1882 i 88s 
 
 1882 1887 
 
 1883 1886 
 18S4 188S 
 
 1884 1888 
 
 1885 18S8 
 1 88s ■ 1888 
 
 1 886 ' 1888 
 
 9310 
 9170 
 
 4870 
 4870 
 
 620D 
 
 I4.I 
 
 12 2 
 12.8 
 
 iS-S 
 
 
 1 88 1 
 
 
 
 Courbet 
 
 1881 9700 15.0 
 
 Belleisle ! 
 
 
 Indomptable ... 
 Duguesclin 
 Caiman 
 
 I 
 
 1883 
 1883 
 
 18S5 
 
 7200 14s 
 5900 I4-0 
 7200 14.5 
 
 Conqueror! 
 
 
 9420 15.4 
 9500 16.4 
 
 Collingvvood 
 
 
 
 
 8400 
 10300 
 
 lofioo 
 6200 
 
 5600 
 
 16.7 
 16.7 
 16.7 
 iSS 
 iB.s 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 Benbow 
 
 
 Hero 
 
 j 
 
 Orlando 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 ♦Omitted 6 
 
 French. 
 T. Symonds. 
 
 Name. 
 \ Furieux 
 
 Tonnere 
 . Fulminant 
 
 Venguer 
 
 Tonnant 
 
 Tempe 
 
 Launched. 
 1883 
 
 1875 
 1877 
 1878 
 1880 
 1876 
 
 Tons. 
 5700 
 5700 
 5600 
 
 4523 
 4707 
 
 4523 
 
 Speed. 
 
 14 
 14 
 13.2 
 10.8 
 
 ARMOURED SHIPS COMPLETING. 
 
 Howe 
 
 Camperdown 
 Undaunted 
 Narcissus ... 
 
 Anson 
 
 Australia ... 
 Sanspariel ... 
 
 Galatea 
 
 Victoria 
 
 Aurora 
 
 Trafalgar ... 
 Immortalite 
 Nile 
 
 
 incom ■ 
 
 
 t 
 
 1885 
 
 plete. 
 
 10300 
 
 16.7 1 
 
 i88s 
 
 
 10600 
 
 16.7 1 
 
 1886 
 
 
 5600 
 
 18.5 1 
 
 1886 
 
 
 5600 
 
 i8s i 
 
 1887 
 
 
 10600 
 
 16.7 
 
 1886 
 
 
 5600 
 
 18.S 
 
 1887 
 
 
 10470 
 
 16,7 
 
 1887 
 
 
 5600 
 
 18.5 
 
 1887 
 
 
 10470 
 
 16.7 
 
 1887 
 
 
 5600 
 
 18.5 
 
 1887 
 
 
 1 1940 
 
 .6.5 
 
 1887 
 
 
 5600 
 
 18.5 
 
 1888 
 
 
 1 1 940 
 
 16.5 
 
 Admiral Baudin 
 Formidable 
 Requin ... 
 
 Hoche 
 
 Marceau ... 
 Neptune ... 
 Magenta ... 
 
 1883 
 
 1 1380 
 
 1885 
 
 1 1380 
 
 1885 
 
 7200 
 
 1886 
 
 1 058 1 
 
 1887 
 
 1 0581 
 
 1887 
 
 10581 
 
 
 
 15.0 
 15.0 
 
 14.0 
 
 15.0 
 15.0 
 150 
 
 *Brennus (French) omitted. — Thomas Symonds.
 
 Copy of Mr. Forwood's List. 
 
 (p. 27.) 
 
 UNARMOURED CRUISERS COMPLETED. 
 
 (LAID DOWN SINCE 1877-78.) 
 
 EN&LISH. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 Constance 
 Canada .. 
 Cordelia .. 
 Satelite .. 
 Heroine .. 
 Hyacinth 
 Leander .. 
 Arethiisa.. 
 Caroline .. 
 Ph?eton .. 
 Amohion 
 Calypso .. 
 Royalist .. 
 
 Rapid 
 
 Pylades .. 
 Calliope .. 
 Mersey .. 
 Severn 
 
 Archer 
 
 Scout 
 
 Surprise .. 
 Alacrity ., 
 Fearless .. 
 
 Brisk 
 
 Cossack .. 
 Mohawk .. 
 Porpoise .. 
 Tartar 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 is ® 
 
 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 ^ 
 
 <a 
 
 
 1880 
 
 1881 
 
 2380 
 
 1881 
 
 1883 
 
 2180 
 
 1881 
 
 1884 
 
 2380 
 
 i88( 
 
 1882 
 
 1420 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 1420 
 
 1881 
 
 1S83 
 
 14. 'O 
 
 1S82 
 
 iS^^S 
 
 4,300 
 
 1882 
 
 1887 
 
 4300 
 
 18S2 
 
 1886 
 
 I+iJO 
 
 i88t 
 
 1886 
 
 4-ioo 
 
 1883 
 
 1887 
 
 430T 
 
 1883 
 
 18S5 
 
 2770 
 
 18S3 
 
 1884 
 
 1420 
 
 188,1 
 
 18S4 
 
 1420 
 
 18S4 
 
 i88s 
 
 1420 
 
 18S4 
 
 1886 
 
 2770 
 
 1 83s 
 
 1887 
 
 4050 
 
 18S5 
 
 1888 
 
 40i;o 
 
 18S5 
 
 1887 
 
 1770 
 
 1885 
 
 188.5 
 
 1580 
 
 i88s 
 
 1886 
 
 1 6 so 
 
 i8Ss 
 
 1 886 
 
 1700 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1580 
 
 1886 
 
 188^ 
 
 1770 
 
 1886 
 
 18S8 
 
 1770 
 
 1886 
 
 i8S3 
 
 1770 
 
 1886 
 
 1888 
 
 1770 
 
 1 886 
 
 1888 
 
 1770 
 
 FRENCH. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 137 
 13.0 
 13.0 
 131 
 '3-1 
 I"!. I 
 16.5 
 16.S 
 '3-1 
 16.5 
 
 16.S 
 13-9 
 1 3- 1 
 13 I 
 13.0 
 
 139 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 16.8 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 
 Naiade 
 
 MnsTon 
 
 Aretheuse 
 
 Primauguet ... 
 
 Roland 
 
 Dubourdieh ... 
 
 Sfa\ 
 
 Mdan 
 
 Condor 
 
 Epervier 
 
 D-.iGfuav Trouin 
 
 >-5 
 
 1881 
 1881 
 1882 
 18S2 
 1882 
 1884 
 1884 
 1884 
 1 88s 
 i885 
 1887 
 
 Tons. 
 
 3.S00 
 2300 
 340 :> 
 2400 
 2330 
 340T 
 4t88 
 IS 10 
 :28 5 
 1280 
 3300 
 
 14.0 
 14.1 
 14.0 
 
 15-^ 
 145 
 
 T4.0 
 16.0 
 18.0 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 
 15.9 
 
 CRUISERS, Etc., Etc., OMMITTED BY Mr. FORWOOD, 
 
 according to Return lyth June, 1SS8. 
 
 Duquesne 
 
 Tourville 
 
 Iphiginie 
 
 Lapcrouse 
 
 D'Estaing 
 
 Forfait 
 
 Villars 
 
 Nielly 
 
 Eclaireur 
 
 10— Rigault tie Gennuilly 
 
 Torpedo Vkssels 
 are not named on Mr, Forwood's list, of which there are 8 completed; 
 named at p. 14, Parliamentar}- Return, with speed 18 knots; admirably 
 calculated for commerce destroyers. 
 
 ■Speed. 
 
 Date of Launch. 
 
 
 16. g 
 
 1S76 - 
 
 
 
 16 g 
 
 1876 
 
 
 
 14.0 
 
 ]88i 
 
 
 
 14.7 
 
 1877 
 
 
 10 
 
 i5o 
 
 1874 
 
 y 
 
 and 
 
 14.0 
 
 1879 
 
 
 14.2 
 
 1S79 
 
 5 
 
 other 
 
 15.0 
 
 1880 
 
 
 
 15.0 
 
 1877 
 
 
 
 14.3 
 
 1876 . 
 

 
 Copy of Mr. Forwood's List. 
 
 (p. 28.) 
 
 UNARMOURED CRUISERS COMPLETING. 
 
 ENGLISH 
 
 NAME. 
 
 Thames 
 Forth ... 
 
 Serpent 
 
 188^ 
 1886 
 
 18S7 
 
 Tons. 
 
 '87-8 
 
 Uncer- 
 tain 
 
 4050 
 4^50 
 
 1770 
 
 Racoon I 1887 
 
 i 
 
 Magicienne j 1888 
 
 Marathon 
 
 Medea 
 
 Medusa 
 
 Melpomene 
 
 Barrosa 
 
 Barracouta 
 
 Blanche 
 
 Blonde 
 
 Bellona 
 
 Barham 
 
 Blake 
 
 Blenheim 
 
 Vulcan 
 
 (for Australasia) 
 
 .. ; 1770 
 
 — ' 2950 
 
 — 2950 
 
 — ' 2ioo 
 
 — 2800 
 
 — 295-) 
 
 — I si^o 
 
 — i';8o 
 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 
 175 
 to 
 
 180 
 17-5 
 
 to 
 18.0 
 19.7 
 19.7 
 20.0 
 20.0 
 19.7 
 
 • 5 
 
 I5S0 
 
 •65 
 
 is8o 
 
 16.5 
 
 1800 
 
 195 
 
 18 )0 
 
 19-5 1 
 
 9-: 00 
 
 22.0 1 
 
 9010 
 
 22.0 
 
 60CO 
 
 20.0 
 
 2575 
 
 19 
 
 2575 
 
 19.0 
 
 2575 
 
 19.0 
 
 2575 
 
 19.0 
 
 2575 
 
 19.0 
 
 FRENCH. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 Tagfe 
 
 Faucon 
 
 Forbin 
 
 Cecille 
 
 Alger 
 
 lean Bart 
 
 "isly 
 
 Davoust 
 
 .•^uchef 
 
 Surcouf 
 
 Ironde 
 
 Lalande 
 
 Cosmao 
 
 Coetlogan 
 
 X'aiitour 
 
 *Dupuyde Lome 
 
 Ton-s. 
 
 1887 
 1 883 
 
 7045 
 1280 
 1850 
 5766 
 
 4^9 + 
 4094 
 4094 
 2977 
 2977 
 1850 
 1847 
 1847 
 1847 
 1818 
 1280 
 
 19.0 
 
 17.0 
 
 195 
 19 o 
 19.0 
 19.0 
 19.0 
 19.0 
 19.0 
 195 
 195 
 •95 
 
 17.0 
 
 * This last is the most powerfully armoured cruiser in the world and 
 is omitted as such but noted, as unannoured. Thomas Symonds. 
 
 Torpedo Vessels Completing and Building. 
 
 See Return 21S, June 12th, '88, p. 14. 
 
 "Nil." 
 
 I find the above "Nil" in the Return 218, just issued, although, 
 " Valeur de la Flotte Rapport,'' Dec. 1887, as official as our Estmiates, 
 gives Tableau B. p. 109, No. 2039, — Baluy, Challiey, Capitaine Cmiy, 
 Mehl, Dehnrtcr, Dcroulcde, Douiart de La^yee, Bouct Willanmey, Edmond- 
 Fontaine.
 
 (18) 
 
 New Constructions authorised during 1888. 
 
 " Croiseur Blinde." — Dupuy de Lome. 
 
 " Croiseurs Torpilleur Avisos." — Bengali, Lezard, Cicogne. 
 
 " Avisos Torpilleurs.'' — Sainte Barbe, Salve. 
 
 " E'claireurs Torpilleurs." — 3 Ouragan N-- N'"-. 
 
 Why three of these five are omitted in a Parliamentary 
 Return, 218, June 12th, 1888, I cannot conceive. 
 
 Mr. Forwood also omits 25 unarmoured cruisers, being 
 before his date, I presume, but well able to destroy Commerce. 
 
 From list 218, England has in short, 
 
 50 fast vessels exceeding 16 knots unarmoured. 
 France 44. 
 
 Too few for safety sake by 72 and for 3 to i ! 
 
 Yours, 
 
 Admiral of the Fleet, Thomas Symonds. 
 
 Torquay, August 21st, li
 
 Addenda to my Lettey to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. 
 
 I think it my duty in support of my expressed opinions, that 
 our Navy is unfit to cope with France, to examine the character, 
 condition and sea-going power of the 40 armoured ships mentioned 
 by the Secretary of the Admiralty, as ready for service at the time 
 of his speech at Liverpool, 
 
 Thunderer, Superb, and Penelope were not ready — undergoing 
 extensive repairs — Edinbui'gh, Colossus, Alexandra, Dreadnought, 
 Temeraire, Agattiemnon, and Sultan, were in the Mediterranean 
 — Selson remains in Australia — Imperieuse, Swiftsure, Orlando, 
 Bellerophon, flagships on distant stations — Audacious and 
 Triuviph, returning thence for repairs. This leaves us with 23 
 armoured vessels in the Channel. Of these, Hero, Conqueror, 
 Rodney, Cotlingwood, Benbow, Bellisle, Orion, Hotspur, Rupert, are 
 unfit to blockade in all weathers, owing to too low a freeboard : 
 Black Prince, Agincourt, Northumberland, are quite unfit, being 
 thoroughly obsolete, with 41- in. armour, etc., Warspite, Northamp- 
 ton, Shannon, are Cruisers with Trade protecting duties. There 
 remain eight. Monarch, Hercules, Invincible, Iron Duke, Inflexible, 
 Ajax, with Devastation and Neptune, which two last I should 
 not trust to blockade in all weathers being too low. — To 
 blockade the Coast of France from Bordeaux to Calais — A 
 manifest absurdity. Beyond the 40 above mentioned, the Secretary 
 named 13 vessels (7 Battle ships and 6 Cruisers) as armoured ships 
 completing. The 7 Battle ships are unfit to blockade, being of 
 too low a free board. The 6 Cruisers have the same fanlt and thus 
 are unequal to overtake French vessels built after our Transatlantic 
 vessels, which are twice as large and high out of water, {Normandie 
 for instance, 10650 tons; coals 1600 tons, with cargo, dead weight, 
 3000 tons, which might be coals, total 4600 tons of coals,) while 
 our Cruisers cannot carry sufficient coals (900 tons) to steam at 
 full speed to America. 
 
 I conclude therefore that our Fleet is not calculated to carry 
 on an efficient blockade or the Cruisers to do their duty, and earnestly 
 hope that the country will see the absolute necessity of building 
 a fleet capable of blockading the Coasts of France and of protecting 
 the Coasts of England, and our food supply, commerce, etc., etc. 
 
 Very much is made of the difficulty as to class and type of 
 vessels to be built. We should build vessels of classes, etc., exactly 
 similar to the French, with such additional vessels as the vastly 
 more onerous duties of our Fleet necessitate. As in 1813 — Two 
 Battle-ships to one French and three Cruisers to one, is the very 
 least to be in any way satisfactory. 
 
 The French built much finer war-ships, at the end of last century 
 and now, than we do. 
 
 ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET, 
 Torquay, Sept. 6th, 1888, THOMAS SYMONDS.