ous to the gun, her hull under water could not be made strong enough to resist the shock of a swift ram or the explosion of 200 lbs. of gun cotton, which the latest torpedo carries.
The great argument in favour of the very big ship is that it represents the principle of concentration, and that tactically a small number can be more efficiently handled than a force numerically superior but composed individually of weaker ships. This is true in a general sense, but the principle may be carried too far, and take us on to the 20,000-ton ship alluded to. Admiral Sir Geoffrey Hornby, while endorsing the concentrated strength principle, has also said: 'I think it better that we should have ships of medium size.' Does he look upon 14,000 tons as 'medium size'? My friend Mr White, if he ever reads this work, will probably say here: 'What is the limit you would impose?' and be ready to show that it precludes some important qualification. To this my reply would be that I am prepared to sacrifice some protection, and to risk being struck by the heaviest projectiles, as long as my ship will exclude the remainder. Rapidity of movement and an overwhelming fire from your own guns will probably prove the best defence. There seems to me no reason why a good speed, large supply of coal, and a powerful armament cannot be obtained within a displacement of 10,000 tons. In eight vessels of 14,200 tons we have an aggregate of 113,600 tons of material employed. If we distribute this among twelve vessels, they can be approximately of 9,500 tons. I have asked admirals
