Minor cruisers _must_ be cheap to construct. Any improvement in them _must_ have a definite intrinsic value. Lacking that, it is worth very little. The _Astræas_, as cited, indicated how a supposed advantage may even be a real deficit from another point of view. The value of increased speed cannot be put into £ s. d., but armament easily can be. Like reconstruction, minor “improvements” on a design rarely pay. With the original conception the naval architect is given certain data for which he arranges accordingly. Ordered to improve upon it in any direction he can only add displacement and upset the balance of everything. The Naval Defence Act also included a certain number of third-class cruisers--_Pallas_, _Pearl_, _Philomel_, and _Phœbe_--for the ordinary service, and five similar ships for the Australian station, originally named _Pandora_, _Pelorus_, _Persian_, _Phœnix_, and _Psyche_. These were later altered to Australian names, _Katoomba_, _Mildura_, _Wallaroo_, _Tauranga_, and _Ringarooma_. They were of 2,575 tons, with 2½ decks, armaments of eight 4.7-inch and four above-water 14-inch tubes. The designed speed was 19 knots. Thirteen torpedo gunboats, improved _Rattlesnakes_, were laid down under the Act, corresponding to nine others of the normal Programme, of which two were for Australia. The Naval Defence boats were _Alarm_, _Antelope_, _Circe_, _Gleaner_, _Gossamer_, _Hebe_, _Renard_, _Speedy_--all laid down in 1889, as also were the _Whiting_ (afterwards _Boomerang_) and _Wizard_ (renamed _Karahatta_) for Australia. Those laid down normally in the previous year were the _Salamander_, _Seagull_, _Sheldrake_, _Skipjack_, _Spanker_, _Speedwell_, for the British Navy. Two others, _Assaye_ and _Plassy_, were built for the Indian Marine at and about this time. All carried a couple of 4.7-inch guns, were of about 750–850 tons displacement, and were first known as “catchers.” They were all intended to steam at 19 knots or over with locomotive boilers; but in service none ever did. At a later date, reboilered with water-tubes, many reached or exceeded the designed speed, and the majority of them are still in service for auxiliary purposes--many being specially fitted as mine sweepers, and the rest used as tenders for various services. They are of considerable interest on account of the fact that the destroyers of 1909–12 were practically the same displacement and general shape, with a not very dissimilar armament--two 4-inch instead of two 4.7. The modern destroyers, however, were approximately ten knots faster--an interesting commentary on engineering improvements in the course of twenty years! More interesting still, however, is the fact that Sir William White should have evolved twenty years ago almost exactly what--except in the matter of modern speed possibilities--is to-day the recognised ideal for destroyers.