The _Mersey_ class were described as being handy, steady gun platforms and able to fight their guns longer than most ships.[10] The captain of the _Severn_, however, reported a view that the 8-inch guns should be removed and lighter pieces substituted. Admiral Baird agreed with this. Sir Arthur Hood, in his comments, stated that he was “decidedly opposed” to any reduction of armament, both in this case and that of the other cruisers. The _Arethusa_ type were reported to roll so heavily when the sea was abeam or abaft that “accurate shooting would be impossible and machine guns in the tops would be useless.” The Committee concurred with Admiral Baird that the armament of these should be reduced. For the _Archer_ class it was unanimously suggested that lighter guns should be fitted forward. Sir Arthur Hood agreed with this view, which, however, was never carried into effect. Particular interest attaches to the _Rattlesnake_[11] class of torpedo-gunboats--these vessels being really prototypes of the destroyers of the present day. They were reported as “safe, provided they were handled with care.” Their handiness was unfavourably reported on. It was strongly urged that the 4-inch gun mounted forward should be removed. This, however, was never done. With reference to any new vessels of this type, the Committee reported as deserving immediate consideration:-- (1) Generally strengthen the hull in this type of vessel. (2) Raise the freeboard forward. _or_ (3) “Turtle-back” the forecastle. In the gunboats that followed the freeboard forward was considerably raised; but when destroyers came to be built several years later, it is interesting to observe that the turtle-back forecastle was adopted, and it was not till after over a hundred had been built that the high forecastle, recommended so long before, appeared in the _River_ class. The report concluded:-- “The proportion of untrained (2nd class) stokers which were drafted to several of the ships appears to have been too large; in point of physique they are reported as unequal to their work, and in many instances the experience of these men in stokehold (or any other work on board ship) was nil. “As a means of affording opportunities for training newly-raised stokers we recommend that at least one year should be served by them as supernumerary in a sea-going ship before they are considered fit to be draughted as part complement to any vessel; we further are of opinion that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the sufficiency or otherwise of the complements allowed in the steam department of each class of ship, the proportion of 2nd class stokers which should be borne, and the amount of training which they should be required to undergo before they can usefully be borne as part complement in a fighting ship.”