The stores, &c., would have to be replenished twice and—­as it would not be prudent to let the ships run right out of them—­replenishment should take place at the end of the second and at the end of the fourth months.  Two vessels carrying stores and ammunition, if capable of transporting a cargo of nearly 1700 tons apiece, would bring all that was wanted at each replenishment.  To diminish risk of losing all of one description of supplies, if carried by itself in a separate vessel, it has been considered desirable that each supply-carrier, when employed, is to contain some ammunition, some stores, and some provisions.  There are great advantages in having supply-carriers, including, of course, colliers, of moderate size.  Many officers must have had experience of the inconvenience and delay due to the employment of a single very large vessel which could only coal one man-of-war at a time.  Several vessels, each carrying a moderate amount of cargo, would permit much more rapid replenishment of the ships of a squadron.  The inconvenience that would be caused by the loss or breakdown of a supply-carrier would be reduced by employing several vessels of moderate cargo-capacity instead of only one or two of great capacity.

Each battleship and large cruiser of the assumed squadron may be expected to burn about 1000 tons of coal in five weeks, so that the quantity to be used in that time by all those ships would be 8000 tons.  The remaining ships, scattered between different places as most of them would probably be, would require about 3500 tons.  Therefore, every five weeks or so 11,500 tons of coal would be required.  Four replenishments would be necessary in the whole period, making a total of 46,000 tons.  Each replenishment could be conveyed in five colliers with 2300 tons apiece.

Moderate dimensions in store- and coal-carriers would prove convenient, not only because it would facilitate taking in stores and coaling, if all the squadron were assembled at one place, but also if part were at one place and part at another.  Division into several vessels, instead of concentration in a few, would give great flexibility to the system of supply.  A single very capacious cargo-carrier might have to go first to one place and supply the ships there, and then go to supply the remaining ships lying at another anchorage.  This would cause loss of time.  The same amount of cargo distributed amongst two or more vessels would permit the ships at two or more places to be supplied simultaneously.

You may have noticed that I have been dealing with the question as though stores and coal were to be transported direct to the men-of-war wherever they might be and put straight on board them from the carrying-vessels.  There is, as you all know, another method, which may be described as that of ‘secondary bases.’  Speaking generally, each of our naval stations has a principal base at which considerable or even extensive repairs of the ships can be effected and at which