34 ON THE MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS OF SHIPS. | 
having formerly limitations of draught to 16 feet, 18 feet or 21 feet of water. We 
have already advanced to 40 feet of water; but every one who has had acquaintance 
with such works knows that the cost increases rapidly with increase in the depth 
of excavation. It is a problem of which I have some knowledge based on experi- 
ence; and consequently although I sympathize strongly with the desire of my 
fellow naval architects to have the available depth of water increased as much as 
possible, I venture to urge naval architects not to act and speak as if the whole 
world should be rearranged for our benefit. We are only dealing with one item 
in a great scheme; we must think of the welfare of our nation as a whole, and 
what will most benefit the community rather than any class in it. 
Before quitting this section of the subject let me repeat the statement that 
I have no desire or intention on this occasion to advertise the Mauretania or to 
criticize the administrative work of shipowners. These gentlemen are the best 
judges of the types of vessels to be adopted for various services, and the limits of 
expenditure they will face in building single ships. My sole desire has been to 
illustrate and describe principles which, it seems to me, must have important 
influence on future developments in the sizes of ships. 
Coming next to warships, it is obvious that I occupy a singularly difficult 
position in opposing as I do the large dimensions now in fashion, and recommending 
a return to more moderate sizes and costs; because I was the man who was criti- 
cized nearly twenty-five years ago for introducing monster warships. Some people 
have forgotten the fact but Icannot. In 1889 I had to defend the Royal Sovereign 
class which were then the largest warships built; and in thus increasing the size 
of warships, for which I was responsible, I then believed and still believe I did the 
right thing. 
I am not an advocate of small dimensions. Admiral Bowles spoke of small 
ships as those in which the magazine were necessarily placed in close neighborhood 
to boilers and bunkers. Nothing of that kind can be found in any ship designed 
by me. For many years, I resisted proposals to place magazines and shell rooms 
in situations where the explosives stored in them would be exposed to the deteriorat- 
ing influences resulting from high temperatures. To-day’s discussion has been 
diverted into a direction with which personally I have no concern. I am no 
advocate of small ships. The vague use of such terms as small and large ships 
reminds one of the old story which used to be told years ago, when I was an appren- 
tice, of a man who said a certain object was of the size of a piece of chalk. We 
cannot deal with these subjects in such a vague manner; we need clearer definitions. 
I am not advocating small ships. I am advocating ships so large that they will 
be capable of maintaining their speed at sea and of fighting their guns in all weathers 
when an action can be fought. That is my idea of the lower limit of size for battle- 
ships. I believe that an undue multiplication of heavy-gun positions in individual 
ships is a mistake. I argued that matter last year, and my arguments still stand. 
I disagree with the view that in recommending a return to more moderate dimen- 
sions than those adopted in recent warships, one must necessarily place the maga- 
