ON THE MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS OF SHIPS. 35 
zines near to stoke holds. On the contrary I assert that in some of the latest and 
largest ships recently built the magazines are less favorably placed than in ships 
of smaller dimensions built previously. I maintain also that if the four command- 
ing positions toward the ends of the ship are occupied by heavy-gun stations, 
whether each position contains two guns or three guns, it becomes possible to avoid 
difficulties arising from placing magazines near the stoke holds. In fact a multi- 
plication of heavy gun positions involves an increase of these difficulties. The 
argument that small ships cannot maintain their speed at sea and cannot fight 
their guns, falls harmlessly on me, as I do not advocate dimensions so small as to 
involve these disabilities. My proposal is simply to return to more moderate 
dimensions and unit cost, because under existing conditions the large number of 
heavy-gun positions required in even the largest ships, in association with high 
speed and large radius of action, imposes conditions on the naval architect, which 
necessarily involve undesirable increase in size, in draught of water, and above all 
in unit cost. That is my proposition and it has not really been considered in the 
course of this discussion either by Admiral Bowles or Mr. Nixon. 
Further, I say that in respect of both war and merchant ships, that the cost 
of providing the question of suitable harbor and dock accommodations, for the 
largest ships built, must be considered carefully; andif it is decided to provide it, 
the work must be undertaken sufficiently early to have the accommodation ready 
for use before the ships are completed. If I were concerned financially with harbor 
and dock accommodations—which I am not, although I have been consulted in 
connection with many of the works mentioned in the paper—I should say we 
should always associate with programmes for building of ships (both mercantile ships 
and warships) programmes for suitable terminal ports. The question of the equip- 
ment of ports for the handling of cargoes is also important, but it is not equivalent 
in importance to that of the provision of adequate harbor and dock accommoda- 
tions if the dimensions of ships are to be still further increased. 
In connection with the great schemes of construction for the British Navy, 
for which I was responsible, schemes of dock accommodation were concurrently 
framed and worked out at the time that we were getting our shipbuilding pro- 
grammes. Never in my time did we have ships completed for which there was 
not adequate docking facilities. My work at the Admiralty, which involved an 
expenditure of 100,000,000 pounds sterling on ships for which I was responsible 
was associated with schemes for docks and harbors, the execution of which involved 
an outlay of about 22,000,000 pounds sterling and the two works were proceeded 
with simultaneously. 
Passing to the question discussed last year about the multiplication of the 
heavy-gun positions in the ship, I note that Admiral Bowles quoted from speeches 
made at meetings of the British Institution of Naval Architects last spring. As 
I was then performing the duty of President, and sat in the Chair, I did not join 
in the controversy. It may be pointed out however that although Admiral Bacon 
said that the biggest ship was the least vulnerable, he also admitted that the 
biggest ship which could be built could be put out of action and made unserviceable 
