inflicted by two of which might cause instant destruction. Of the two, I should prefer to be sunk by a ram, as it might remain to pick one up, although it is quite possible, that whilst effecting my destruction I might in the death-struggle give the ram its coup de grâce. Well, to save the crews of our vessels we have the usual ships' boats; but the larger of the boats will be lumbered up with engines and torpedo-gear, besides the chance that before the fatal moment came, when they would be wanted to save life, they may themselves have succumbed during the dangerous experiences which they are called upon to go through now, both at picket or on aggressive work as torpedo boats. Truth is, that the inventive mind has been so busy of late in devising the best (by best, one of course means the worst) and surest means of destroying life, that there has been no time nor energy left, to contrive how best to save life. How to burn, sink, and destroy has occupied too much time to allow leisure to look at the reverse of the picture. In our old paintings of sea fights, we see boats rowing about picking up the crews of sinking ships; in the Russo-Turkish war, however, in the few cases in which the Russians destroyed Turkish ships, the opposite has been the case; the Russians have been unable to save the Turkish crews. Of course the most strenuous efforts were made to save their enemies' lives, but, alas! without success! The fact remains, however, that the Turkish ships not being supplied with any ready means of saving life went down, and their crews went with them. What I propose, and what I wish discussed is, the best method of supplementing our boats with life-saving apparatus; I don't mean simply apparatus to support a man for an hour or two. Admiral Ryder and other gentlemen have suggested such means; but what I should like to see supplied to our ships is such equipment, in the shape of rafts,' as would suffice to carry their crews, and at the same time carry the necessary amount of subsistence to support the rescued men for a short. time. We have read in history how hastily constructed rafts have been the means of carrying shipwrecked crews across large tracts of ocean, the men eventually being saved. We judge then what properlyconstructed and well-supplied rafts might do on emergency.

I have examined the models of several of our ships to ascertain their capacity for carrying rafts without materially interfering with their efficiency. I find that the " Rupert" could carry a raft abaft the mainmast, and the "Wivern" rafts on poop, forecastle, and amidships. I would propose that vessels possessing poops and forecastles should have rafts on the top of them, constructed of air-tight cells or of corkcompartments, forming "flying" poops and forecastles. Vessels of the "Prince Consort class could carry rafts in many places. "Achilles" and "Agincourt" the same; "Monarch" on the forecastle, and from after-turret aft. The "Devastation" class could have the hurricane deck divided into rafts. The "Invincible" class can carry rafts upon the upper deck; in fact I don't think that there is one vessel in the Navy in which some place cannot be found available for the purpose. Our broadside ships might, also, carry boats, on

1 The lecturer here showed a model of a raft (see Figs. 9 and 10), and also of another composed of mattresses attached by a framework of wood.

falling-out davits, similar to the paddle-box boats of old. I would also suggest that boats be supplied in frame which might easily supply the place of any that may be lost.

The only vessels carrying extra boats are the troopers, and they have Berthon's collapsable boats, which hang up like barn doors against the ship's sides, and which would speedily be riddled. As it is still contrary to the usages of war (strange as it may seem) to use explosive bullets, might not some arrangement be come to as to the employment of torpedoes, say-I know the idea is Quixotic-to limit their use to within a certain distance from the land? The people on board St. Paul's ship, on broken spars and fragments of the wreck, all got safe to land; but in this 19th century many of our ships don't carry spars, and as the fragments of the others would not float, it behoves us to have some part or parts of the wreck capable of floating. There is no doubt that our seamen and marines would go into action with the same pluck, energy and devotion as heretofore; but they would have more confidence if they knew that, if, through the fortunes of war their ship was to sink, they at any rate had a chance of being saved.

I must apologise for trespassing so long upon your time, but the question is a most important one, and I trust that the discussion this evening may be fruitful of good results. Of course the putting of rafts on the decks of ships and on their poops and forecastles would be rather cumbersome, and would add something to their top weight; but I defy anyone to spoil the beauty or add to the ugliness of our ironclads, and I should hope that our naval architects are capable of making such an arrangement of the weights as will allow of these superstructures being carried. As it is a question that comes more home to the seaman, and on which he is as well capable of judging as the shipbuilder, it is to be hoped that our naval Officers will be consulted on the matter. Perhaps it is not too much to hope that the Lords of the Admiralty may appoint a Committee to inquire into the feasibility of our ships carrying either the life-saving gear I propose, or some better means for rescuing the crews of our ships.

The CHAIRMAN: I have now to invite discussion upon this subject, which is a very wide one, and likely to be a very interesting one. If gentlemen would only keep in mind that our ironclads are, as has been said, much more likely to hurt each other during an action, as we have seen in the case of the "Vanguard," than they ever were before, it will be seen how necessary it is to provide means for saving the lives of our men. We have provided many means of offence, but we have hitherto failed in providing any means of defence under water.. This raft (Fig. 11) is a means at least of mitigating the enormous loss of human life which we might otherwise have to regret.

Commander GILMORE: I may state that Sir William Mends, at the head of the Transport Department, has a pontoon raft formed from the pontoons carried by large vessels, but it is not a ready means of safety. I think I may call upon Mr. Roper to explain his apparatus; it is a most ingenious invention.

Mr. ROPER: I was not under the impression that I should have to explain the raft to-night. This raft (Plate XVII, Figs. 11, 12, 13) takes up the position that an ordinary captain's bridge would occupy in a merchant ship. Instead of having a deck only for the captain to stand upon, I put a floating power under, on the cellular principle, either with a flat bottom, a corrugated bottom, or a round one, as shown in these models, subdivided into lengths as a protection against foundering. This does not in

terfere with my floating power at all. The raft carries the necessary provisions, water, signals, stores, masts, compass, and everything that is required, all above water. In time of emergency the contrivances are so arranged that there is nothing to look for; there are no lashings to cut away, but the raft can be immediately launched. The weight of the raft is four tons; its length is 40 feet beam, 20 feet fore and aft, and it will take about 58 tons to sink it. The cost would not be more than 240l. or 250l. We come much lighter and much cheaper than ordinary boats. We have two rather strong forgings which keep the raft in its position, and by throwing down a lever we let go a tumbler, similar to letting go an anchor from a cathead. The raft would fall by its own weight, and you lower it down by any tackle or by any simple arrangement on either side of the ship. The system of launching Mr. White's boat is a plan of my own. It is Mr. White's boat, but it is my system of launching, given to Mr. White about fourteen years ago by Captain Hurst through myself.

The CHAIRMAN: The weight of the raft, you say, is 4 tons? What water would she draw?

Mr. ROPER: Seven inches light; and loaded it would take about 58 tons to sink it; it would carry about 400 men with the load on board; the draught is about 2 feet. It would leave about 1 foot freeboard. The cubical contents are 2,400 cubic feet, and the thickness of the material used one-sixteenth of an inch, steel or iron. A raft of this kind, fitted on a large man-of-war, of 60 feet beam, and 30 feet fore and aft, would carry something like 900 or 1,000 men. I have here a model of a raft, built on the corrugated principle, that will carry two 16-lb. field pieces and 12 horses, and about 150 men.

The CHAIRMAN: Is that model to scale?

Mr. ROPER: Yes; and it is built on the fluted-bottom system.

The CHAIRMAN: You trust to the fluted bottom largely for strength?

Mr. ROPER: Yes; and for a passenger ship, where she would not be likely to be picked up immediately, and you might have to navigate the raft, it would keep better to windward, either upon this principle or the tubular principle, than upon the flat-bottom system. The whole depth of the raft is 3 feet, but 3 or 4 inches additional, or perhaps 6 inches, could be added, or it might be made less than 3 feet deep, according to the size of the ship. My raft could be lowered on the deck of a war ship in action and shielded behind armour, and the cells could be filled with cork to stop rifle bullets, which is a part of my patent, and if half the cells were destroyed, it would carry all the people that could get on it; the flying and ordinary decks of war ships also could be built upon my system.

Admiral RYDER: I should like, Mr. Chairman, to ask whether, considering the importance of the subject and the very short notice naval Officers have had, you would entertain the idea of continuing the discussion to-night under the understanding that there will be an adjourned discussion later in the season. If that was an understood thing it would shape the remarks of some Officers here who might like to wait until that adjourned discussion or might prefer to deliver themselves to-night. I ask you whether, considering the importance of the subject and the short notice that has been given, it would be possible to have an adjourned discussion. The CHAIRMAN: That must be a question for the Council, it can scarcely be decided now. I shall feel it my duty to put the case before them as you have said. For the present I think we may go on with the discussion.

Admiral RYDER: The question is a very important one; as you stated, it is a very large question, and divides itself into many branches. Commander Gilmore has particularly devoted himself to one branch of it-viz., the larger question of the raft, which is a very important one in itself. Various descriptions of rafts have been proposed from time to time by different persons who have thought the subject well out, but besides that, there is the subject to which I have paid particular attention, namely, the smaller question as you may perhaps call it, but it is the one which has been thrust upon our notice during the last few years by two or three losses that we have experienced. One was the case of the "Bombay;" that ship was destroyed by fire, and when they came to muster all hands after she was burnt, they found nearly all the Marines and a large number of boys were drowned. Captain Wilson, now commanding the "Thunderer," was the commander of the "Bombay,” and I