'United Service Magazine' of May 1890 as well as having pamphlets printed which he distributed to those likely to be interested. The idea gave rise to an immense amount of discussion nationally. The Times came out against the idea of government intervention in commerce, arguing the important issue was not who paid for sunk ships, but having a navy capable of preventing them being sunk. It argued that the scheme was a diversion from this main objective and would simply provide a false sense of security. Many smaller papers took the same line, as did a number of naval officers including Lord Charles Beresford. Their concern was chiefly that a government might see the scheme as an alternative to a larger navy. Tryon responded in a letter to The Times on 19 September arguing the need for the scheme whatever the size of the navy. The Chairman of P&O, Sir Thomas Sutherland, wrote arguing that a scheme ought to be considered and prepared in peace time, but no legislation should be passed or anything else done unless an actual war situation arose. When it did, it might turn out that insurance would be available privately or that shipowners might benefit from higher wartime profits. He questioned whether any amount of compensation would convince owners to send ships if they expected them to be lost. Sir Arthur Forwood (shipowner and later parliamentary secretary to the Admiralty) wrote observing that during the American war of Independence shipowners had responded to the initial insurance rate of 20% by building better ships and choosing their routes carefully, with the results that the best blockade runners could then obtain lower premiums. He added that they bought cotton at 2d, and sold it at 2s, a 1000% profit if they succeeded. Retired admiral Alfred Chatfield, then a city businessman, observed that the scheme would disproportionately favour smaller and slower ships at the greatest risk of enemy capture, perhaps even making them more profitable and thus discouraging the construction of safer but more expensive replacements. Others, such as Thomas Ismay of the White Star line were in favour of the plan, arguing it would prevent many ships simply being laid up in safety for the duration of hostilities, and suggesting that many who were relying on flying under a neutral flag which theoretically guaranteed safety, were liable for a nasty surprise. Tryon himself argued that the scheme