than four admirals[1] (an unprecedented fact I believe in the history of journalism) respond to the challenge of the sea-lawyer, and pledge their professional reputation to the opinion that the sea-lawyer is entirely mistaken, and that convoy, although the conditions of it are altered, is as feasible now as ever in the history of naval warfare. I have heard naval officers affirm that they would rather fight a frigate than a sea-lawyer; but it must be confessed that, on this occasion at any rate, our admirals have given a very good account of the sea-lawyer in question. Requiescat in pace. Powder and shot must be cheap now-a-days!
5. Lastly, we have the eidolon fraudulosum which pretends that, however advantageous to England and maritime nations
- ↑ Rear-Admiral Sir F. Leopold McClintock, F.R.S.; Vice-Admiral Sir George Nathaniel Broke Middleton, Bart,; Vice-Admiral W. King Hall; and Admiral Sir Henry Keppel, K.C.B.—Cf. Pall Mall Gazette, August 19, 1876.
