The _Alexandra_ is a ship of 9500 tons displacement, the _Téméraire_ is of 8500 tons; after them came the _Nelson_ (to which the _Northampton_ is a sister ship), of 7320 tons displacement. This vessel cannot be regarded as an armored ship at all, in the usual sense of the word, having but a partial belt of armor, and none of her guns being enclosed within armor protection, although two guns for firing ahead and two for firing astern are partially sheltered by armor. Even less protection than this is afforded to the guns of the _Shannon_, which also has but a partial belt of armor, and protection for two bow guns only. The comparatively small size of the _Shannon_ (5400 tons displacement) relieves her in some degree from the reproach of being so little protected; but it is difficult (to the present writer) to find a justification for building ships of 7320 tons, like the _Nelson_ and _Northampton_, and placing them in the category of armor-plated ships, seeing that their entire batteries are open to the free entrance of shell fire from all guns, small as well as large. Where a ship has a battery of guns protected against fire in one or more directions, but freely exposed to fire coming in other directions, to assume that the enemy will be most likely to attack the armor, and avoid firing into the open battery, appears to be a reversal of the safe and well-accepted principle of warfare, _viz._, that your enemy will at least endeavor to attack your vulnerable part. No doubt, when the size or cost of a particular ship is limited, the designer has to make a choice of evils, but where people are as free as is the British Board of Admiralty to build safe and efficient ships, the devotion of so much armor as the _Nelson_ and _Northampton_ carry to so limited a measure of protection is a very singular proceeding, and illustrates once more with how little wisdom the world is governed. [Illustration: THE “TÉMÉRAIRE.”]