THE annual meetings of the Institution were held this year on the 29th, 30th, and 31st of March. The programme included no less than nineteen papers, not one of which could in any sense be called a stop-gap. It seems a pity that this Institution should hold but one meeting in the year. The time available for reading papers on the three days amounts in all to but twenty hours, which leaves about one hour for the reading and discussion of each paper. It is no exaggeration to say that many of the subjects considered at the recent meetings required a whole day for their adequate discussion, and would have received this allowance of time at any other institution. The true interests of the naval architects are sure to suffer in the long run, if the present policy of cramming so many papers into the short space of time available at the meeting is adhered to. The first paper read, and the only one which dealt directly with ships of war, was by Mr. Samuda. It was an attempt to controvert the arguments made use of by Sir Wm. Armstrong in his recent address to the Institution of Civil Engineers. The address in question has been generally construed into a defence of unarmoured as against iron-clad ships. Sir William Armstrong states that for the cost of one ironclad we could have three unarmoured ships, each carrying the armament of the iron-clad, and that in a match between the iron-clad and her three supposed antagonists they would probably get the better of it. Mr. Samuda, however, points out, that in fleet fighting, which he supposes will in the future, as in the past, be the principal form of naval combat, this advantage of the many unarmoured ships against the few iron-clads would disappear.