another Effort to see you besides that your Servant told you of, when Mrs. D'Avenant was with me; but I cannot always get the four Horses when I wish for them, & your Distance is too great for a Pair."

How Mrs. Thrale would have rejoiced in a motor car! Fanny's mother (Mrs. P.) appears to have been trying to make mischief, and Mrs. Thrale wants her. niece to understand it has had no effect.

"Mrs. P. never came near me or even sent a How d'ye upon the Birth of my Girl or the Death of my poor Boy; I hear She says very harsh Things of me, & among others that Mr. R. & you removed to another County because Mr. Thrale & I were likely to be such disagreeable Neighbours : This sort of Stuff however I am not quite so silly as to listen after, and I will endeavour to see you as soon as I can to thank you for your Letter, & kiss your little Boy, & enquire when the Girl comes & tell your Husband and yourself how much I am his and

"Your affectionate Servt.,

"H. L. THRALE."

A short, friendly note on paper, in her small and most fluent form of writing, shows Mrs. Thrale in a polite and amiable light, less formal yet full of pretty phrasing.

"If dear Fanny does not dine with the High Sheriff herself Mrs. Thrale hopes She may see her o' Fryday: She will meet many People She will like and many more that will like her: Mr. Thrale will beg her husband's Leave when they see each other at Croydon today.

best Respects to Mr. and Mrs. R.

If there is to be a Ball o' Fryday Mrs. Thrale will not think of breaking in upon her Niece's arrangements, but if nothing better is to be done-why not dine here?"

"STREATHAM, 11 August.

When young Mrs. R. was about eighteen or nineteen, and had been married nearly three years, her brother's death drew the following characteristic letter from Mrs. Thrale. It is a mixture of regret and good counsel in stilted phrase, ending with praise of her niece's young husband as being the kindest thing she could say by way of consolation and affection. Yet the words "Obedt Servant" are not forgotten-like the farewell curtsey at the door on leaving a room, which was a polite custom down into the early part of the nineteenth century.

"I heard the other Evening at Mrs. N.'s the Account of your poor Brother's Death, & can assure you with Truth that I feel his Parents Distress sincerely, & even sharply, notwithstanding the ill Reception my desire of pleasing has ever met with from them both. You must now be their Comfort, & give them the most rational Happiness they can receive— that of seeing your Husband & you live together in an uniform Course of Prudence, Love and Virtue; bringing every Year a Son, & educating him

in the Knowledge of Books & the World and in the Fear of God which is both the End & beginning of Wisdom. Your Expectations are considerably encreased by this Accident, but do not let that too soon swallow up all Tenderness for the Memory of poor Ralph, whose Inoffensiveness was valuable enough when compared with more noisy Folly. Adieu my good Girl, and be sure give my Compliments to dear Mr. R., whose honest Heart & obliging Behavior have obtained a considerable Share of the Kindness & Esteem of

"Your Affectionate

"and Obedt. Servant

"HESTER L. THRALE."

Young Mr. R. seems to have answered occasionally the letters from his wife's aunt, and a partially-dated letter of Mrs. Thrale's acknowledges a card from him.

"DEAR SIR,

"STREATHAM, Sunday 30.

"Your kind Card gives us real Pleasure, I hope Fanry and her young Ones will long continue handsome and healthy, and a Delight to you & your Friends. I will come and see her as soon as ever I can. My Uncle Sir Lynch Cotton is just dead, I suppose you saw it in the Papers; Mrs. D'Avenant & her Husband were with him. Adieu and believe me with sincere Affection Yours and Mrs. R.'s

"most humble Servant

"H. L. THRALE."

He must have been a young man who endeavoured to read Dr. Johnson's works, for a note from her just before his unexpected elopement desires "her kind Coms. to Mr. J. R., begs the favour of him to return her Rasselas by the bearer." It is to be hoped he had finished the book and that he returned it, for no further mention is made of Rasselas or any other book afterwards. Could he have taken refuge from its study in the society of his pretty Fanny? One can still read it in a very leisure hour, but a charming young girl must have been much more attractive to the youth, and no wonder he had to be reminded to return it at such a moment!

The interest attaching to these few letters is that they show Mrs. Thrale's romantic turn of mind, long before she proved it by her second marriage, and also they testify to more affection than she usually allows to peep out in her gay and clever bantering style. It makes us the more ready to believe that her marriage to the worthy Italian, Mr. Piozzi, was one of sincere affection. He certainly treated her kindly, and apparently made her happier than she had been during her first marriage. But she was a restless person by nature, and she must have caused much excitement amongst her friends by her peculiar character and unstinted power of expression. She rated herself highly, probably because her powers of conversation never failed her. Her books show an abundant flow of language rather than of ideas or accurate facts. They must have been more charming in her beautiful handwriting than they are in the sober uniformity of print. MIRIAM A. ELLIS.

THE NAVY THAT WE NEED.

In view of the financial burdens which press on the British taxpayer, it is essential that the Navy Estimates from year to year should aim to provide the Fleet which we actually need. Are we building a more powerful force than absolutely necessary?

The definite policy of the country as reiterated in Parliament is that the British Navy shall be at least equal in numbers and shall be superior in power to the next two greatest navies; in fact, able to fight the two strongest foes with a good hope of success. The business of the Admiralty is to frame their estimates on this two-Power standard, and we have the assurances of Lord Selborne and Mr. Arnold Forster that this is the aim in view.

Some disciples of the "Rule of Three" have taken the aggregate sum expended on naval defence by France, Russia and Germany, and have shown that the outlay on the British Fleet rivals the expenditure of these three Powers. No hesitation need be experienced in meeting the deductions drawn on this "rule of three" principle. The cost of the great navies of the world has immensely increased in the past fifteen years, a period which takes us back to the Naval Defence Act of 1889, from which the modern British Navy dates. This has been a time of unexampled activity, as may be seen from these figures, giving the expenditure on the several Fleets in 1889 and in 1902, and the percentages of increase:

The year 1889 is a useful one from which to calculate not only because it was the date of the commencement of the naval activity of several of the Powers, including Great Britain, but because in that year the nation, through Parliament, which acted only in response to the strongest outside pressure, registered its view that the provision hitherto made for the Fleet had been inadequate. In the intervening years Russia, Germany, and the United States have increased their naval expenditure in a greater

proportion than this country has done, and, moreover, the possibility of a combination against Great Britain is a more serious matter than it was.

The British naval position is unique for the reason that in effect, though not in fact, we need two Fleets :

1. We require a battle fleet, with a due proportion of cruisers and torpedo craft, sufficient and efficient to meet any probable combination of two Powers and defeat it. In order to arrive at a conclusion as to the ability to accomplish this end, the first consideration in any comparative statement must be the number of modern battleships possessed by this country and her possible antagonists. It must be also borne in mind that this battle fleet must be constituted so as to be able to search out and defeat the enemy off his coasts; it will not do for it to laager in fortified ports or cling to the British coast. It must take the offensive on the outbreak of war, and it necessarily follows that the ships must be able to carry great quantities of coal, stores, and ammunition, and they must therefore be large, and from the first provision will have to be made to keep open the lines of communication between the distant battle squadrons and the home ports from which they will draw essential supplies, for a fleet, like an army, "moves on its belly." In the opinion of the most expert officers who examined the proportion of ships which this country should be able to put to sea (Report on the Naval Manœuvres, 1888), the British battleships should be in the proportion of four to three possessed by the enemy, and cruisers in the proportion of two to one, with an ample supply of colliers.

2. Another naval force, consisting of cruisers for the protection of commerce, is required. In view of the huge volume of oversea trade it is practically impossible to place any limit to the number of cruisers which could be usefully employed on this service, and it is admitted that we have far too few. Since 1889 France and Russia (especially the latter) have greatly increased their naval expenditure, while Germany, America, and Japan have entered the arena as first-class naval Powers. Each of these countries is

practically self-supporting. The oversea trade they possess is infinitely small in volume in comparison with the trade of this country-the British imports consist largely of food and raw material-and in a great degree the trade of these rival Powers is non-essential. The value of British imports and exports in 1889 was £743,229,000 (in 1892 this had fallen to £715,000,000), as compared with the figures of 1902, £878,000,000, the highest total ever reached. For the defence of this increasing oversea commerce the Admiralty need to be in a position to send out an

immense number of cruisers so that the supply of food and of raw materials for the mills and factories may not be cut off, and the working classes not only deprived of their work, but of the very necessaries of life..

The first essential is battleships. How do we stand in this respect in comparison with 1889? In the preceding year, 1888, the question of the hour, in the characteristic phrase of the Daily Telegraph, was "Is England in Danger?" and all qualified opinion was to the effect that she was. The answer was embodied in the Naval Defence Act. Since then battleships are the first essential to British security afloat, and we had insufficient in 1889, when France and Russia were not allied; supremely important deductions hang on an investigation of the number of battleships which have been launched and completed since that year. figures for the several countries are as follows:-'

Great Britain
France......

Launched and
completed
since 1889.

The

Total number of large battleships less than 25 years old.

48 of 627,800 tons

34

17 (a)

(a) In these totals are included certain small battleships or coast defence ships; in the case of France, 4 under 7,000 tons; Russia, 3 of 4,126 tons each; Germany, 7 under 5,000 tons; United States, 1 of 6,315 tons, and one of 4,084 tons only.

Or, to take the second basis of comparison, we obtain the following possible combinations, again including only battleships of less than twenty-five years old, which is the admitted limit of usefulness:

With this statement may be placed the following forecast of the position in 1907, when all the ships now building will be com

1 Since this article was written Lord Brassey has published a most interesting brochure entitled, "Observations on Naval Expenditure," which emphasizes the growth in British naval expenditure and shows its relation to the increased activity of rival Powers.