CHAPTER XVI

MEMBER FOR WATERFORD, AND COMMANDER, ROYAL NAVY

I shall never forget my first impressions, when, in 1874, I entered Parliament. There was a discussion upon a matter of Local Government. I listened to the speeches made on both sides of the House, each speaker taking a different point of view, and I became more and more doubtful concerning the solution of the problem in hand. At last a Radical member, whose name I forget, drew all the yarns into one rope, making what appeared to me to be a clear, concise and reasonable proposal.

Sitting among my friends, several of whom had been at school with me, I said:

"That is the only man who has solved the difficulty, and if he divides I shall vote with him."

My innocent remark was received with a volley of expostulations. I was told that I had only just joined political life, and that I did not understand it; that the Radical speaker's plan was excellent, but that the other side could not be allowed to take the credit of producing a good scheme, because it would do our side harm in the country; that the scheme would be thrown out for the time, in order that our side might be able later on to bring in the same scheme and reap the credit of it, and so forth.

"Well," I said, "if this kind of tactics is required in politics, it is no place for me. I had better go back to sea."

Whereupon I was told that I should shake down to political methods when I had been a year or two in the {139} House. But I have spent years in politics and I have never shaken down to political methods. A thing is either right or wrong. I have never scrupled to vote against my own party when I thought they were in the wrong.

Upon one occasion, someone told Disraeli that I was intending to vote against the party. He put his arm on my shoulder, and said in his orotund, deliberate enunciation:

"My boy, don't you know that it's your first duty to vote with your party? If everyone voted according to his convictions, there would be no party system. And without a party system the Government could not be carried on, as you will discover in time."

I have also discovered that when politicians think only of issues as affecting themselves and not as affecting the State, party politics fall to a very low level, and those who believe in great national and Imperial ideas are regarded as freaks and faddists.

Disraeli was very friendly both to my brother Waterford and myself. Upon the first occasion of a division in which I took part, he walked through the lobby with his arm on my shoulder, rather to the surprise of the old members.

"Who the devil is that young man to whom Dizzy is talking?" I heard them murmur.

I sat immediately behind Disraeli; and one night, Lord Barrington, a great friend of his, hurried into the House, and squeezing himself in between me and the next man, leaned over and said to Disraeli in a whisper:

"Poor Whyte-Melville has been killed!"

Disraeli turned slowly round, fitting his glass into his eye.

"Dear, dear," said he deliberately; "and pray, how did _that_ happen?"

"Killed in the hunting-field!"

"How very dramatic!" said Disraeli solemnly.

We stayed at Sandringham, and went for long walks together, during which Disraeli talked and laughed with the greatest enjoyment. But I remember how, in the pauses of {140} the conversation, he would stand still, and, glass in eye, dreamily surveying the landscape, would make some such observation as "The air is balmy ... and serene!" or "The foliage is stunted ... but productive!" with the most weighty and measured emphasis, as though these were prophetic utterances. I was quite bewildered; for I did not then know whether he were serious, or were indulging a recondite wit. He was a visionary, dwelling much in a world of his own; and I know now that he was perfectly natural and serious on these occasions.

He and his wife were devotedly attached to each other. Having taken Lady Beaconsfield in to dinner one evening, I noticed some red marks upon her arm and her napkin. She was wearing red roses, and at first I thought some petals had fallen from them. Then I saw that she was wearing a bandage on her arm, and that blood was oozing from under it. I told her that her arm was bleeding.

"Please don't say a word, Lord Charles," she said hastily, "it would distress Dizzy so much." And she furtively twisted her napkin about her arm. Lord Beaconsfield, who was sitting opposite to us, stuck his glass in his eye and stared across the table--I was afraid for a moment that he had overheard what his wife had said. Poor lady, she died shortly afterwards.

When I entered Parliament in 1874 it was still the day of the great orators: of Disraeli, Gladstone, Bright, David Plunkett, O'Connor Power; whose like, perhaps, we shall not see again. There was a tradition of eloquence in the House of Commons of that time; members declined to listen to a bore; and debate was conducted almost entirely by the two Front Benches. It was in my first Parliament that Disraeli touched the zenith of his extraordinary and splendid career; during which he formulated the principles of a national policy, a part of which himself carried into execution, but whose complete fulfilment remains to be achieved. Disraeli established a tradition; and like all those who have a great ideal--whether right or wrong is {141} not here the question--he still lives in the minds of men, and his name still carries inspiration. His great rival, who wore him down at last, bequeathed no such national inheritance.

It was in this my first Parliament that Mr. Parnell emerged as the leader of the Irish party. He was a cold, unapproachable person; he kept his party under the most rigid control, with a tight hold upon the purse. He had great ability. I have often seen him stalk into the House in the middle of a debate, receive a sheaf of notes from his secretary, Mr. O'Brien, with whom he would hold a whispered consultation, then rise and deliver a masterly speech. He sat with me on the committee of the Army Discipline Bill; speaking seldom, but always to the point.

Lord Randolph Churchill entered Parliament at the same time as myself; and he was always a great personal friend of mine.

Although we were opposed in politics, the other four Waterford members were on excellent terms with the only anti-Home Ruler in the five. There were Dick Power, F. H. O'Donnell, J. Delahunty, and Purcell O'Gorman, who weighed twenty-eight stone or so; and they all came to my wedding. Another Waterford man was Mr. Sexton. As a boy, he manifested so brilliant a talent for oratory, that he was sent into Parliament, where, as everyone knows, he speedily made his mark. I remember, too, The O'Gorman Mahon, who, if I am not mistaken, fought the last formal duel in this country.

When I entered Parliament the automobile torpedo was a comparatively recent invention. Mr Whitehead had begun his experiments in 1864; after four years' work and at the cost of £40,000, he produced the formidable engine of war known as the Whitehead torpedo, the type from which all subsequent improvements have been evolved. I have heard it stated that the British Government could have bought the invention right out for £60,000. Whitehead invented the device of using hydrostatic pressure to regulate the depth of the immersion of the torpedo, and employed compressed air {142} as its motive power. The new weapon was adopted by the British Navy and by other naval powers. In the year 1876 the type in use was the 14-in., length 14 ft. 6 in., weight 525 lbs.

In my view, the capabilities of the new weapon had not been fully appreciated; that opinion may or may not have been justified; but I considered it to be my duty publicly to insist upon the importance of the torpedo in naval warfare. I spoke on the subject both inside the House of Commons and on the platform, and was so fortunate as to win the approval of _The Times_.

The Admiralty, however, were deeply affronted. The First Lord, Mr. George Ward Hunt, informed me that the Board took great exception to my speaking in the House upon naval subjects, and desired me to understand that I must choose between the career of a sailor and that of a politician. My reply was that I considered the request to be a breach of privilege. Mr. Ward Hunt admitted the point; but argued that the employment in the House of Commons of my knowledge of the Service was prejudicial to discipline. He was of course right in so far as the conditions did undoubtedly afford opportunities for prejudicing discipline; but as there was no regulation forbidding a naval officer to sit in Parliament, a dual position which had been frequently held by members of the Board of Admiralty, the responsibility rested upon the individual.

However, it was not a case for argument; and I appealed directly to Mr. Disraeli, telling him that I regarded the request of the Admiralty as a breach of privilege; that I had no intention of relinquishing my naval career; and that I had entered Parliament solely in the interests of the Service. Disraeli listened with his customary sardonic gravity.

"What," he asked, "do you intend to do?"

I said that if the matter were pressed to a conclusion, I should resign my seat, in which event Waterford would very probably be captured by a hot Home Ruler.

"My dear boy," said Disraeli, in his deliberate way, "I {143} am quite sure that you will do nothing heroic. I," he added,--"I will see the Secretariat."

And that was the last I heard of the affair.

Among other Service matters in which I did what I could in the House of Commons to obtain reforms, were the training of the personnel, the more rapid promotion of officers, promotion from the lower deck to officers' rank, and the necessity for building fast cruisers to protect the trade routes. I advocated more time being spent by the men upon gunnery training, and less upon polishing bright-work; and brought forward a motion to stop the men of the Fleet "doing 'orses" (as they called hauling carts laden with stores about the dockyard), instead of being trained in their proper work. These subjects no longer possess any interest save in so far as the circumstances resemble those of the present day. But I find recurring to-day many of the difficulties of thirty or forty years ago.

At that time the Admiralty had abolished the short service system under which highly efficient seamen were recruited direct from the mercantile marine, and the Board had become responsible for the whole supply and training of men for the Fleet. But the Admiralty had neglected to constitute an efficient system of training. A very large proportion of men were employed at sea upon duties which precluded them from receiving war training of any kind; another large contingent was kept idle in hulks and receiving ships while waiting to be drafted into sea-going vessels. The suggestion was that barracks should be erected for their accommodation and provided with attached vessels; and that a complete system of training should be organised; so that every man upon going to sea in a ship of war should be acquainted with his duties. Commander Noel (now Admiral of the Fleet Sir Gerard H. U. Noel, K.C.B., K.C.M.G.) kindly sent to me a most valuable memorandum upon the subject, in which he presented an admirable scheme of organisation, the principles of which were afterwards carried into execution. Of late years those principles have been {144} infringed; but the exigencies of the Service will compel the authorities to return to the essential conditions laid down by Sir Gerard Noel, whose authority is entitled to the greatest respect. I also received a sagacious letter on the same subject from Commodore John Wilson, under whom I afterwards served as commander in the _Thunderer_, indicating the necessity of framing a scheme of organisation to come into force as soon as the barracks were completed.

With regard to the promotion of officers and men, the state of things nearly forty years ago finds a parallel to-day. Then, as now, a very large proportion of officers, from the rank of commander downwards, cannot hope to be promoted. It was then suggested that the retiring allowance should be increased. It is true that in 1873 Mr. Goschen, by granting an increased retiring allowance for a limited period, had done his best to effect a temporary relief. But the permanent reform, which is more necessary now than ever before, still awaits achievement. In the meantime the discontent to which I drew attention in 1875, is by no means less detrimental than it was. The whole difficulty, as usual, is financial. Government after Government, of what political complexion soever, refuse to pay the Services properly. The condition of affairs is a national disgrace.

At that time, too, the Fleet was highly deficient in cruisers; and, in consequence, the sea-borne trade of the country was exposed to great danger in the event of war, as I explained to the House of Commons. In later years the requisite ships were provided; only, in a moment of retrograde impulse, to be abolished. After a period of insecurity and uneasiness, the cruiser force is once more being slowly increased.

In later years my political opponents found great solace at elections in saying that I had objected to the abolition of flogging in the Navy. The question arose in my first Parliament. What I actually did--as a reference to Hansard will confirm--was to point out that in many cases they were the best men, the men who had the pluck to get {145} into a row. High-tempered, full of exuberance, they were flogged for offences against discipline, and whereas a flogging was soon over and done with, the alternative proposed would break a man's heart in prison and deprive the Navy of valuable services. Which, then, was the more humane course? To-day, the circumstances and conditions have changed. Discipline is better, and flogging, thank goodness, is abolished.

But when the matter was under discussion, a certain ex-naval officer assembled a public meeting, at which he attacked me with great vehemence and impassioned eloquence. He was interrupted by an old fellow at the back of the hall, who, refusing to be silenced, was asked to speak from the platform. He did. He gave the meeting a dose of lower-deck phraseology, hot and strong; and told the audience they were not to believe a word they had heard concerning myself; that he had been shipmates both with the speaker of the evening and with myself. He devoted some complimentary remarks to me, "but," says he, "as for the other, he flogged every man in the ship three or four times." Whereupon the audience rose in its wrath and drove my opponent from the platform.

Mr. Disraeli asked me to survey the three battleships building for Turkey and the one battleship building for Chile, and to give him my opinion as to whether or not they were worth buying. Disraeli said he preferred to ask me rather than the Admiralty, as I could, if necessary, speak on the matter in Parliament. "And," said Disraeli, in his pontifical way, "I like young brains." I advised the purchase of the ships; and purchased they were, being added to the British Navy under the names of _Superb_, _Belleisle_, _Orion_ and _Neptune_.

In those days I owned a bull-dog of marked personality. He never fought unless he were attacked; but his favourite recreation was to rush at full speed, head down, at every dog bigger than himself. The instant he caught sight of a big dog, he shot away like a projectile discharged from a gun; nothing stopped or turned him; and the unsuspecting object {146} of the manifestation would go down like a ninepin. Then, unless he were detained by reprisals, Butcher would return to his master with the air of a dog who knew his duty and who had done it. At that time the streets of London were haunted by Italian image-venders, who carried the Twelve Apostles and other sacred statuettes neatly arranged upon a board, which the merchant balanced on his head. One of those pious venders was walking directly in the headlong path of Butcher, who flashed between his legs. Down came the Apostles, who were dashed to fragments, for which I had to pay about £12 to the pedlar of saints.

When my dog thought I wanted a hansom, he used to scramble into it, jump upon the seat, and sit there panting with his tongue hanging out. He performed this feat one day when an old gentleman, without noticing him, had hailed a hansom. The old gentleman, climbing slowly into the cab, suddenly saw the dog on the seat, and was so startled that he tumbled backwards and knocked his head on the pavement.

In 1876, having passed in torpedo work in the _Vernon_, I applied for the appointment of second in command in a big snip, holding then, as I hold now, that every officer who hopes to obtain flag rank should gain experience in detailed routine work and in handling and organising men, which can only be acquired as first lieutenant or commander. The second in command of a man-of-war gains invaluable experience. He must always look ahead in order to _prevent_ things occurring which would cause confusion or discomfort. He has literally not one minute to himself in the day; thinking ahead, waylaying the wishes of his captain, and providing not only for what _will_ occur but for what _may_ occur, and being ready to encounter the constant unforeseen emergencies inseparable from life at sea in a man-of-war.

I was accordingly appointed to the _Thunderer_ as commander. Her captain was John Crawford Wilson (afterwards Rear-Admiral). The Navy lost one of the best officers that ever sailed the seas when he died in 1885. He {147} was mentioned in the Admiral's dispatch for gallant conduct in the affair of the Peiho Forts in 1859, served on the Pacific Station, and was commodore of the Australian station. He was commander of the _Bombay_ screw wooden first-rate, when she was burned off Montevideo on the 14th December, 1864, and when 97 officers and men perished. Many of those who were lost had climbed out on the bowsprit, and when they were forced overboard by the heat, the melting lead of the gammoning (the lead covering to the chain gammoning securing the bowsprit) dropped on them and killed them. It was largely due to the splendid discipline maintained by Wilson that the loss was not far greater. The men held their posts although the flames were licking up through the skids, so that the falls of the last boat, lowered from the yard-arm, were actually burned through. It should be added that in this disaster the Royal Marines enhanced their unrivalled reputation, 34 out of 97 lost belonging to the corps, the sentries dying at their posts.

The _Thunderer_ was of 9190 (4407) tons, 6270 (800) h.p., and belonged to the Channel Squadron. She was an improved central battery twin-screw ironclad, designed, with the vessels of a similar type, _Devastation_ and _Dreadnought_, by Mr. E. T. Reed, C.B. In these ships there was no propulsion by mast and sail power. They also embodied the idea of limiting the armament to heavy guns, the secondary armament of lighter guns being omitted. This arrangement, after having been wisely abandoned for many years, was repeated in the _Dreadnought_ of the year 1906, only to be once more recognised as a mistake. One of many reasons why a secondary armament was essential, particularly with muzzle-loading guns, was that, lacking it, the men might have been exposed to the enemy's fire for some time before they could reply, a most demoralising position. These considerations were constantly represented by Captain Wilson to the Admiralty. While the science of gunnery progressed, the element of time has remained a {148} factor in the problem, though under different circumstances. The _Thunderer_ carried two pairs of muzzle-loading guns in two turrets; the foremost pair being 38-ton guns, hydraulic loading, the after pair 35-ton guns, hand-loading. She was belted with 14-inch armour along the water line; and the armour projecting squarely from the hull, its edge struck the water so hard when the ship rolled, that she was shaken throughout her structure. To remedy this defect, wedge-shaped pieces were fitted along the lower edge of the armour. Before I joined the ship she had burst a boiler, the escaping steam causing great loss of life. Captain Wilson, who was in the engine-room at the time, was saved by his stature; although he was scalded, his face was above the level of the steam, being between the deck-beams where there was an air cushion.

That the boiler exploded was due to the remarkable coincidence of two factors. The box safety-valve jammed, owing to the two different metals of which it was constructed expanding in different degrees. And the pressure-gauge tell-tale, which was fitted in a cogged circle, had the needle forced right round the circle twice or more, so that it showed a normal pressure. The actual pressure must have been terrific.

And after I left the ship one of her guns burst. This accident contributed another instance in favour of breech-loading as opposed to muzzle-loading guns.

The accident occurred during practice at quarters in the Gulf of Ismid, on 2nd January, 1879, in the fore-turret. Captain Alfred John Chatfield had succeeded Captain Wilson in command. Two officers and nine men were killed, and thirty-five persons injured. The muzzle was blown off from about two feet in front of the trunnions. There was much discussion then and subsequently concerning the cause of the accident. The probability is that the bursting of the gun was due to its having been double-loaded, after a previous miss-fire, which, in the simultaneous discharge of the rest of the guns, had not been noticed. The committee {149} which reported on the matter on 1st March, 1879, adopted this hypothesis, in preference to the theory that there had been a flaw in the material.

Captain Edward Seymour (afterwards Admiral of the Fleet the Right Hon. Sir E. H. Seymour), who was then in command of the troopship _Orontes_, in his book, _My Naval Career and Travels_, thus refers to the incident:--

"From Malta I brought home the main part of the ship's company of H.M.S. _Thunderer_, on board which ship the terrible explosion of the 38-ton muzzle-loading gun had lately occurred in her foremost turret. Both turret guns were being fired simultaneously, but evidently one did not go off. It may seem hard to believe such a thing could happen and not be noticed, but from my own experience I understand it. The men in the turret often stopped their ears, and perhaps shut their eyes, at the moment of firing, and then instantly worked the run-in levers, and did not notice how much the guns had recoiled. This no doubt occurred. Both guns were then at once reloaded, and the rammer's indicator, working by machinery, set fast and failed to show how far home the new charge had gone. This, too, may seem unlikely, but no doubt it happened; and the gun on being then fired burst, killing two officers and several men, and wrecking the turret. Experiments made with a similar gun double-loaded, burst it in exactly the same way."

I agree. I have frequently been in the turret during practice, and I have myself fired several rounds and I can testify that the concussion was so tremendous that it was impossible to hear whether one gun was fired or both guns were fired. Without insisting upon details, it was also the fact that the men in the turret could not tell by the position of the hydraulic rammer whether or not the gun had already been charged, as the rammer was three-jointed and telescopic: the indicator which was designed to show the position of the rammer was totally unreliable; while the actual loading of the gun was done upon the battery deck below the turret. {150} Hence the loading crew must also have been unaware that there had been a misfire. The system in use in the _Thunderer_ was experimental, and after the accident its defects were remedied. I then wrote to _The Times_ explaining what the system had been and how it had been improved, in order both to remove any misapprehension there might have been with regard to the efficiency of the officers and men who perished in the disaster, and with regard to the future safety of guns' crews. I was reprimanded by the Admiralty for having published the letter while on full pay in the command of the _Osborne_; but the reprimand was (like the Bishop's apron) a mere form, for I also received a private letter of thanks.

After the bursting of the boiler, but before the gun accident, the Prince of Wales at my suggestion very kindly came on board, in order that the men's belief that the _Thunderer_ was an unlucky ship should be removed. The Prince fired the fore turret guns at a target from the captain of the guns' firing position, and made a rattling good shot.

The _Thunderer_ was employed in experimental work, such as measuring her turning-circle (the diameter of which is the smallest distance the ship can set between the point at which she begins to describe a semi-circle and the point at which she ends it), and noting her behaviour under various circumstances and stresses of weather. I gained much valuable experience in her, and I shall always remember Captain Wilson as one of those officers from whose skill and experience I learned the most.

While I was in the _Thunderer_ (1876-7) I made one of the first working models of the telephone used in this country, and had the honour of presenting it to H.R.H. the Princess of Wales. The invention was first exhibited before the British Association by Mr. W. H. Preece on 23rd August, 1877; and it was shown to Queen Victoria at Osborne on 15th January, 1878. The Telephone Company was established during the same year.

The _Thunderer_ was sent to blow up a vessel which had {151} capsized and which was floating in the Channel, a danger to mariners. Explosives attached to her side tore pieces out of her, but the wreck continued to float. In these cases it is necessary to disintegrate the vessel, whether sunk or floating, into fragments. I suggested that the hull should be girdled with an iron hoop to which explosives were attached at intervals, and the device was successful. The explosion cut her into holes like the perforations of a sheet of postage stamps and she broke up.

The _Thunderer_ was lying off Queenstown, and I was watching a cutter which was running out of the harbour. On the deck was a group of Irish farmers. The cutter suddenly gybed, the boom knocking down the farmers. Getting up, they instantly fell upon one another with sticks; and they were hard at it when over came the boom again, and again felled them all to the deck. It could be they had had a drop of liquor taken, which confused their intellects.

In the year 1878 I married Miss Jeromina Gardner, daughter of the late Richard Gardner, M.P. for Leicester, and of Lucy Countess Mandelsloh, whose father, Count Mandelsloh, was for some years Minister in London, representing Würtemberg.

Shortly afterwards I was appointed to command the royal yacht _Osborne_. The _Osborne_ was used by the Prince of Wales (afterwards King Edward VII). In those days she was not kept in commission for more than a few months in each year.

Several cruises were made to Denmark, and there were many shooting expeditions. On one such occasion I was the only person present who was not either a king actual or a king prospective. There were the King of Denmark, the King of Norway and Sweden, and the King of Greece, the Prince of Wales, the Cesarewitch, the Crown Princes of Denmark, of Norway and Sweden, and of Greece. We shot foxes, hares, deer, and anything that came along; and I was laughed at when my instincts forbade me to shoot a fox.

{152}

Upon a return voyage, when all the Royal children were on board, a gale sprang up just off the Skaw. The starboard paddle-wheel was smashed upon some wreckage; and the next thing I saw was a small craft being driven on a lee shore. The _Osborne_ dropped anchor, in order both that the paddle-wheel should be repaired and that the crew of the driving vessel might be assisted. The only way to rescue them was to veer a boat astern with a hawser. Just as the arrangement was ready, to my delight I perceived the crew--there were four--embarking in their own boats. They reached the shore in safety, but their ship was wrecked.

It was then the system in the royal yachts to retain the officers in her for long periods. One officer had been in the _Osborne_ for fourteen years. I ventured to suggest to the Prince of Wales that under these conditions his acquaintance with the officers of the Fleet was necessarily limited, and that by means of restricting the time of service in the _Osborne_ to two years, he might become acquainted with a succession of officers. With his habitual courtesy and address, the Prince adopted the suggestion.

Queen Victoria was, however, a little perturbed by the change. Her Majesty said to me that she hoped I should not endeavour to change the officers in the royal yacht.

"No, ma'am," I replied. "I have no such power. I only made a suggestion to the Prince."

"You may be right," said the Queen, "but I am an old woman now, and I like to see faces I know about me, and not have to begin again with new faces."

We had some excellent boat-racing in the _Osborne_. One famous race was rowed at Cowes between the officers of the royal yachts _Victoria and Albert_ and _Osborne_, in six-oared galleys. Her Majesty Queen Victoria came down to the jetty to witness the contest. The stroke of the _Victoria and Albert_ was my old comrade in the _Marlborough_ and _Bellerophon_, Swinton Holland. I was stroke of the _Osborne's_ crew. At first the _Osborne_ drew ahead--rather, I think, to {153} the Queen's dismay--but eventually the _Victoria and Albert_ won the race, to the delight of Her Majesty.

Another great race was rowed between the _Osborne_ six-oared galley and the Dockyard boat. It took place off Southsea, the whole of the foreshore being lined with people. The _Osborne_ won. Her boat was manned by Irish bluejackets whom I had trained myself.

While I was commanding the _Osborne_ one of the crew met with a singular accident. We were shooting the seine off Calshot, and, as it fouled, I sent a man down to clear it. When he came up, he said that he had been stabbed through the hand "by some beast." I examined the wound and found that his hand had been pierced right through, and I thought that he must have come upon a nail or a splinter in a piece of wreckage. But when we hauled up the seine, there was a huge sting-ray. I cut out the sting and gave it to the Princess. There is no doubt that the fish had transfixed the man's hand. The sailor is still alive, and is well known in Portsmouth for his political enthusiasms. It was in the same haul that we caught a red mullet weighing about six pounds, the biggest I have ever seen.

I ought here to record the very great interest taken by the Royal Family in all matters connected with the Navy. While I was in command of the _Osborne_, the Prince of Wales graciously consented to attend one of the gatherings of members of Parliament who came at my invitation to see something of the Navy. On this occasion they visited Portsmouth Dockyard, where they were shown everything of interest.

One of the experiments performed for the entertainment and the instruction of the party was firing at a floating cask with bombs thrown by hand, a method of warfare since discontinued owing to the danger it involves to the person bombarding. When the cask exploded, a stave flew between the Prince and the general commanding at Portsmouth, Sir Hastings Doyle. Had it struck either of them he must have been killed.

{154}

The general's brother, Percy Doyle, a dear old gentleman well known in society, had very bad sight. I once saw him trying to eat a red mullet done up in paper. After a good deal of harpooning, he got it out, but put the paper in his mouth. We always told him he had swallowed the births, deaths, and marriages column of _The Times_.

On Sunday the 24th of March, 1878 (the date of my engagement to Miss Gardner), the _Eurydice_, training frigate, capsized off the Isle of Wight in a sudden squall and sank. The total loss of life was about 300, only two being saved. She was on her way home from the West Indies. Coming under the Isle of Wight, she hauled her wind for Spithead, thus closing the land, so that it was impossible for the watch to see a squall coming up from windward. The captain, the Hon. Marcus A. S. Hare, was anxious to reach the harbour as soon as possible in order to give the men Sunday leisure. It was about four o'clock in the afternoon when a sudden squall struck the ship, and she heeled over; the lee main-deck ports being open, according to custom, she took in a good deal of water, depressing her bows; so that instead of capsizing, she simply sailed straight to the bottom, her fore-foot being broken off with the force of the impact, and her topgallant masts remaining above the surface. There was no time to shorten sail. When she was raised it was found that only one rope, the mainroyal sheet, had carried away.

Rear-Admiral Foley, admiral-superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard, kindly invited me to be his guest to take part in the salvage operations arranged for the raising of the _Eurydice_. That occasion was, I think, the first upon which the newly invented wire hawsers were actually tested in practical work. When they were introduced it was thought that they would not be flexible enough for their purpose. They were, however, used with great success in raising the _Eurydice_. The hawsers were passed under the hull of the sunken ship and secured to lighters moored on either side of her. As the tide went down, the hawsers were hove taut, and water was {155} let into the lighters so that they should be brought as low in the water as possible. The water was then pumped out of the lighters, thus putting the utmost strain upon the hawsers. Then, as the rising of the tide exerted a powerful lift upon lighters and hawsers, the lighters were towed towards the shore, in order to drag the wreck upon the beach. As soon as she grounded, the hawsers were fleeted and the whole process gone through again until at low tide she was nearly high and dry.

My old ship, the _Thunderer_, which took a hawser to her after capstan to tow the _Eurydice_, had the solid iron spindle of the capstan pulled right out of her, as a long nail is bent and dragged out of a piece of timber. I well remember the intense excitement when the wreck first shifted from her bed. Eventually we hauled her up the beach. I was just then taking a bearing for Admiral Foley, and could not have given a better holloa if I had viewed a fox.

Before the water was pumped out of her, and as she lay on her side on the beach, I climbed in at a porthole, and sat there waiting till I could enter. As the water fell, I saw emerge the sentry's clock on the main-deck. The hands had stopped at 4.5. The bodies lay in heaps, tangled amid ropes; some had lost a head and some a limb. Black mud had filtered in everywhere, even (as Sir Edward Seymour remarks) into the closed drawers of the chests in the cabins.

When, as a cadet, I was learning to heave the lead from the chains of the _Eurydice_, which, as I have already related, was then moored off Haslar Creek in Portsmouth Harbour, I little thought I should one day help to raise her from the bottom of the sea.

Dr. Boyd Carpenter (late Bishop of Ripon), in his charming volume of recollections, _Some Pages of my Life_, narrates a remarkable story concerning the _Eurydice_, as it was told to him. Sir John MacNeill was the Bishop's cousin and, like other members of his family, had the gift of second sight.

{156}

"Sir John MacNeill," writes the Bishop, "was looking out of the window in Sir John Cowell's room at Windsor, when suddenly he exclaimed: 'Good Heavens! Why don't they close the portholes and reef the topsails!' Sir John Cowell looked up and asked him what he meant. He said, in reply, that he hardly knew; but that he had seen a ship coming up Channel in full sail, with open portholes, while a heavy squall was descending upon her. At the very time this conversation was taking place the fatal storm fell upon the _Eurydice_, and she foundered as she was coming in sight of home."

In 1880, while I was still in command of the _Osborne_, I lost my seat at Waterford. In the following year, desiring to hold another independent command before my promotion to captain, I applied to go to sea again, and was appointed to command H.M.S. _Condor_.

{157}