The probable destructive effect of shells exploding in the sides or on the open decks of ships was thoroughly recognized, and experiments at targets sufficiently proved it; but circumstances on a proving-ground and in action are so dissimilar that the experience of a naval engagement was looked forward to with much interest, in order to satisfy as to the effect of the new projectile in all the varying conditions of a sea-fight. Referring to the history of the past thirty years, which marks the period of the general introduction of shell-guns, it is remarkable how few engagements between ships have taken place; but on every occasion of the use of shells, when unarmored vessels were engaged, the effect has been most decided and complete. Three instances only can be referred to of purely sea-fights, _viz._, the engagement between the Russian and Turkish fleets at Sinope in 1853, during the Crimean war, the engagement between the United States steamer _Hatteras_ and the Confederate cruiser _Alabama_ during the war of the rebellion, and the fight between the _Kearsarge_ and the _Alabama_ during the same war. In the affair at Sinope the Russian ships used shells; the Turkish had only solid shot. The result was the total destruction of the Turkish force. Not one ship escaped; all were burned or sunk. The fight between the _Alabama_ and the _Hatteras_ resulted in the sinking of the _Hatteras_; and the contest between the _Alabama_ and the _Kearsarge_ ended the career of the _Alabama_. And it may be noticed that but for the failure to explode of a shell that was embedded in the stern-post of the _Kearsarge_, that vessel might have accompanied her antagonist to the bottom of the sea. The gallant attempt of Rear-admiral Lyons with the British wooden fleet before the forts of Sebastopol is an instance which proved the uselessness of subjecting unarmored vessels to the steady fire of fortified positions using shells from their batteries. One other instance of a sea-fight can be cited in the engagement in 1879 between two Chilian armored vessels and the lightly armored Peruvian turreted vessel _Huascar_. The _Huascar_ was terribly over-matched during this fight, but at its conclusion her boilers and engines were intact, and indentations on her sides showed that her light armor had deflected a number of projectiles; but the effect of the shells that had burst on board of her was apparent in the great destruction of life. The very decisive engagement which took place at Lissa in 1866, between the Austrian and Italian fleets, should not be omitted in alluding to sea-fights of a late period; but this action can hardly be quoted as one in which the element of shell-fire can be recognized as the exclusive cause of destruction, for the remarkable impetuosity and dash of the attack and the desperate use of the ram produced a crisis which obviated the necessity for continuous bombardment with cannon.