Palmerston, in 1860, said: 'The adoption of steam as a motive power afloat has totally altered the character of naval warfare, and deprived us of much of the advantages of our insular position.' He quoted the opinion of Sir Robert Peel, 'that steam had bridged the Channel, and, for the purposes of aggression, had almost made this country cease to be an island.' It is not difficult to show that such views are entirely erroneous. No change in weapons or method of propulsion can alter the general principles of naval warfare. But this may be fairly advanced, that increased rapidity of movement, improved communications with distant stations, and augmented resources in war material, all tell in the favour of the stronger navy, whether for attack or defence. Squadrons thousands of miles away can now be concentrated at any point, reinforced if threatened, or recalled home, in so many days, while formerly as many months were required. If steam has bridged the Channel, in one sense, it has equally removed the space which intervened between one part of the United Kingdom and another, and has rendered a collection of vessels at any point threatened a matter of a few hours, whereas in former times a contrary wind might delay succour until it was too late. On the whole, therefore, it appears to me that steam would only tell against us in the event of our being completely overmastered at sea, a contingency it seems unnecessary to dwell upon.
In thus dealing generally with the question I by no means preclude the possibility of raids by single vessels
