which for centuries were in use
in the Mediterranean.

Another writer says: "A gale arising, the French galleys were in danger,
the English ships bearing down upon them with full sail, a danger from
which they escaped purely by the skill and experience of their
commanders, and the intrepidity of the _Prior of Capua_, who exposed his
galley with undaunted courage, and freed himself from danger with equal
address." The title of Prior of Capua sounds oddly enough when applied
to a naval commander. From these accounts it would appear that the
English ships were more powerful than those of the French, and were
better calculated to stand the brunt of battle than to chase a nimble
enemy, as the French seem to have been. The larger ships in the British
navy were at that time fitted with four masts, like the _Henri Grace de
Dieu_.

Though the yards and sails were unwieldy, the rigging heavy, and the top
hamper prodigious, we find that they were tending towards the form they
had assumed when Howe, Jervis, and Nelson led our fleets to victory.

They had short stout masts, a vast number of shrouds to support them,
and large heavy round tops on which a dozen men or more could stand.
The sterns were ornamented with a profusion of heavy carved-work, and
they had great lanterns stuck up at the taffrail, as big, almost, as
sentry-boxes, while the forecastle still somewhat resembled the building
from which it took its name. This vast amount of woodwork, rising high
above the surface of the water, was very detrimental to the sailing
qualities of ships, and must have caused the loss of many. What sailors
call fore-and-aft sails had already been introduced, and we hear
constantly of ships beating to windward, and attempting to gain the
weather-gage. In those days a great variety of ordnance were employed,
to which our ancestors gave the odd-sounding names of cannon,
demi-cannon, culverins, demi-culverins, sakers, mynions, falcons,
falconets, portpiece-halls, port-piece-chambers, fowler-halls, and
curthalls. These guns varied very much in length and in the weight of
their shot. When a ship is spoken of as carrying fifty or sixty guns it
must be understood that every description of ordnance on board was
included, so that a very erroneous idea would be formed, if we pictured
a ship of sixty guns of those days as in any way resembling in size a
third, or even a fourth-rate at the end of the last century. An old
author says: "By the