neglect of duty in not pointing out to his captain that there was shallower water within a short distance, and in not having offered any suggestion as to the stopping of the leak on the outside. The court is further of opinion that Commander Tandy showed great want of energy as second in command under the circumstances. The court is further of opinion that Mr. Brown, the chief engineer, showed want of promptitude in not applying the means at his command to relieve the ship of water. The court is further of opinion that blame is imputable to Mr. David Tiddy, of H.M.S. _Vanguard_, for not offering any suggestions to his captain as to the most efficient mode of stopping the leak, and for not taking immediate steps for sounding the compartments and reporting from time to time the progress of the water. The court adjudges Captain Richard Dawkins to be severely reprimanded and dismissed from H.M.S. _Vanguard_ and he is hereby severely reprimanded and so sentenced accordingly. The court adjudges Commander Lashwood Goldie Tandy and Navigating-Lieutenant James Cambridge Thomas to be severely reprimanded, and they hereby are severely reprimanded accordingly. The court imputes no blame to the other officers and ship’s company of H.M.S. _Vanguard_ in reference to the loss of the ship, and they are hereby acquitted accordingly.” [Illustration: HOTSPUR FRENCH RAM TAUREAU (1865) GLATTON RUPERT RAMS OF THE REED ERA.] This disaster drew attention to the ram, the more so when it became known that the _Iron Duke_ was uninjured. Ram tactics had, of course, been heard of before, and had been discussed at great length by Sir Edward Reed in 1868. At that date, although one or two special ram-ships had been built, Sir E. J. Reed had expressed a certain amount of scepticism as to whether the ram could be successfully used in connection with a ship in motion, and pointed out that in the historical instance of the _Re d’Italia_ at the battle of Lissa, the ship was stationary. He further had written:--[104]