212 Mr. William H. White [March 9, 



rise to greater controversies than the proper method of disposing the 

 armour. On the whole the system adopted in 1889 has given general 

 satisfaction. It involves large proportionate weights and costs. On 

 a ship like the 'Royal Sovereign the thick vertical armour weighs 

 about 3000 tons, and costs over a quarter of a million sterling. 



Great improvements in armour have been made in recent years, 

 increasing its defensive power for a given thickness and weight. But 

 in view of remarkable developments in explosives and ordnance there 

 is no disposition to diminish weights of armour on battle-ships. In 

 fact increased protection to secondary armaments involves greater 

 weights in proportion to displacements. 



Since modern war-ships have higher speeds, greater coal supplies, 

 more powerful armaments, and better protection, it is inevitable 

 that they should be of greater size and cost than their prede- 

 cessors. In the mercantile marine, also, the demands for higher 

 speeds or greater carrying power have involved considerable enlarge- 

 ment of dimensions and additional first cost. The largest passenger 

 and cargo steamers, as a matter of fact, exceed in dimensions and 

 displacements the largest battle-ships and cruisers. Their costs are 

 less than those of the war-ships, because they are much less elabo- 

 rately fitted and carry no armaments. On the Trans- Atlantic service 

 there are employed passenger steamers from 525 to 600 feet in 

 length, and from 15,000 to 20,000 tons displacement. The largest 

 battle-ships yet laid down for the Royal Navy — the Majestic class — 

 are 390 feet long and of 14,900 tons displacement. The largest 

 cruisers — the 'Powerful class — are 500 feet long and of 14,200 tons 

 displacement. Analysing the designs of war-ships, and comparing 

 them with merchant ships — as far as comparisons are reasonable 

 between vessels built for entirely different services — one is forced 

 to the conclusion that the sizes and cost of recent war-ships are rela- 

 tively moderate. 



If size and cost are to be reduced, as some persons strongly 

 urge, then it will be absolutely necessary to reduce some or all of 

 the qualities associated in the designs of the large ships ; to accept 

 lighter guns, less weight of protection, lower speeds, or lessened 

 coal supplies. In other words, to produce fighting machines of 

 smaller individual power, comparing badly with the ships of most 

 recent design built or building abroad. There would be no difficulty, 

 of course, in producing a larger number of less powerful ships for a 

 given expenditure. But it would be a new departure in British 

 naval policy to deliberately accept individual inferiority in our ships 

 to foreign ships for the purpose of securing greater numbers. If the 

 necessary expenditure is faced, superiority in numbers as well as in 

 the powers of individual ships can be secured ; and the weight of 

 public and professional opinion undoubtedly inclines to that side. 



If the constitution of the Naval Defence fleet is considered, it will 

 be noted that only the ten battle-ships are really of large dimensions, 

 out of the total number, seventy. This is an illustration of general 



