Early in 1859 designs for a type of ship to “answer” the French _frégates blindées_ were called for, and fourteen private firms submitted designs. All, however, were discarded. Details of the designs submitted were as follows:[90]-- =============+=======+=======+==========+======+======+======+====== |Length.|Breadth|Displ’m’t.|Speed.|Wt. of|Wt. of|I.H.P. Designer. | | | Tons. |Knots.|Armour| Hull | of | | | | |Displ.|Displ.| Eng. -------------+-------+-------+----------+------+------+------+------ Laird | 400.0 | 60.0 | 9779 |13½ | .11 | .51 | 3250 Thames Co. | 430.0 | 60.0 | 11180 | | .10 | .58 | 4000 Mare | 380.0 | 57.0 | 7341 | | .13 | .46 | 3000 Scott Russell| 385.0 | 58.0 | 7256 | | .18 | .38 | 3000 Napier | 365.0 | 56.0 | 8000 |13½ | | | 4120 Westwood & | | | | | | | Baillie | 360.0 | 55.0 | 7600 |13½ | .16 | .36 | 4000 Samuda | 382.0 | 55.0 | 8084 |13½ | .16 | .57 | 2500 Palmer | 340.0 | 58.0 | 7690 |13½ | | | 4500 Abethell | 336.0 | 57.0 | 7668 | | | | 2500 Henwood | 372.0 | 52.0 | 6507 | | .18 | .40 | 2500 Peake | 354.9 | 56.0 | 7000 | | .14 | .46 | 3000 Chatfield | 343.6 | 59.6 | 7791 | | .14 | | Lang | 400.0 | 55.0 | 8511 |15 | .14 | .53 | 2500 Cradock | 360.0 | 57.6 | 7724 | | .20 | .42 | 2500 Admiralty | | | | | | | Office | 380.0 | 58.0 | 8625 |14 | | | =============+=======+=======+==========+======+======+======+====== The Abethell and Peake designs were wooden hulled, all the others iron ships. The two ships, _Warrior_ and _Black Prince_, as actually laid down, differed from the Admiralty design in certain details. The beam was increased slightly, and the displacement rose from 8625 to 9210. The _Warrior_ was laid down on the 25th May, 1859, at the Thames Ironworks, Blackwall; the _Black Prince_ a little later at Glasgow. [Illustration: THE _WARRIOR_, AS COMPLETED, 1861.] In substances they were ordinary “wooden frigates,” built of iron instead of wood, with armour to protect most (but not all) of the guns. This was done by a patch of armour amidships, covering about 60% of the side. It was deemed advisable to protect the engines; otherwise as like as not the armour would have been over the battery only. Waterline protection was entirely unrealised, the steering gear of the _Warrior_ being at the mercy of the first lucky shot. This, as Sir N. Barnaby has pointed out, was due to accepting existing conditions:--