Page images
PDF
EPUB

Concerning the other causes of refrigeration, we have stated our doubts of the accuracy with which they are distinguished, their laws propounded, and their value assigned: something remains to be elucidated respecting the expression (a+b) of the combined action of three of the causes, in terms of the temperature and of constant quantities; and with regard to the meaning of intensity of impression, which refers (we imagine) to the fourth cause: remove the calculation, and it seems to us that the author attributes too great an effect to abduction, and too little to the refrigeration produced by the continual ascent of heated particles. Still, however, in this very intricate analysis, we admire the great skill with which the experiments are varied, and the separate actions of the cooling causes evolved. Our objections we purpose not to defend as if they were property or prejudices: they may originate either from misconception on our part, or from the omission of necessary explanation, or from real error: be this as it may, we should be happy to see them removed, not averse, with information more ample or more correct, to re-enter on the present train of thought and investigation.-With respect to arrangement and construction, the author has not done ample justice to his theory; which he should have exhibited more summarily, and with greater closeness of connection; and he should not have interrupted the process of reasoning, by so many separate dis

cussions.

In reviewing such a production as the present, we shall not insist on some little inaccuracies of style which have occurred to us *; and particularly as, generally speaking, the composition

* A note will contain a few errata which we have detected,

[blocks in formation]

P. 73. Inverse ratio of the distance, for inverse ratio of the square of the distance.

P. 282. v made to denote velocity instead of additional velocity.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

P. 350. 1250 for 2500.

P. 351. In the 2d expression for time, the minus sign is omitted, and b put for .-In the note, - sign is omitted before H.log. b-b.

A

is much superior to that of most scientific details. Nor were we violently displeased on occasionally meeting with a tone rather too arrogant, and an inference too precipitate; because we applaud the freedom, the fearlessness, and the activity of the au thor's mind. Unfettered by system, and unawed by authority, The always thinks for himself; and of his opinions, many are novel, and all are interesting. As a whole and a system, his work claims attention; and the discussions, whether adjunctive or subsidiary, in the notes or the text, are profound and original. In the dark and tortuous passages of his theory, although experience is his sure and constant guide, yet Geometry holds her torch, and illumines the way.

RW.

ART. XII. A Brief Inquiry into the present Condition of the Navy of Great Britain, and its Resources: followed by some Suggestions, calculated to remedy the Evils, the Existence of which is made apparent in the course of the Investigation. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Highley.

ART. XIII. A Reply to a Pamphlet intitled, " A Brief Inquiry," &c. &c. Wherein is clearly demonstrated the Force of the Enemy, and what was opposed to it by the late Board of Admiralty; as well as the actual Strength possessed by the King's Dock Yards, and their Ability to keep up and increase the Navy, without the aid of Merchant Builders. 8vo. 15. Ginger.

:

*

ART. XIV. Audi alteram Partem or the real Situation of the Navy
of Great Britain at the Period of Lord St. Vincent's Resignation:
being a Reply to the Mis-statements of " An Answer to Mr.
Pitt's Attack upon Earl St. Vincent and the Admiralty :" also
containing the Substance of a suppressed Pamphlet on the same
Subject. By an Officer of His Majesty's Navy. 8vo.
Budd.

18. 6d.

WE cannot suppress our opinion that this controversy claims very serious attention from those who take an active part in our national councils; and we recommend to their dispassionate and studious perusal the tracts which it has called forth, as well as the several reports of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry. Judging from the view which we have been able to take of the subject, we cannot pronounce that the economical plans of the late first Lord of the Admiralty were pernicious, impracticable, absurd, and puerile; they may have been commenced at an unlucky moment, may have been too much precipitated, in some instances may have been harshly executed, and the opposition to them, with its effects, may not have been sufficiently calcu* See Review for July last, p. 315.

3

lated:

lated but, on the other hand, all the discussion which they have undergone only serves to strengthen our conviction, that they originated in genuine patriotism, and honourable zeal for the service; that they were the result of experience sanctioned by wisdom, and intimately interwoven with the ultimate prosperity and dearest interests of the country. Though the noble projector of them no longer superintends them himself, it ap pears to us to require the most grave deliberation of Parliament, to determine whether the labour bestowed on them is to be thrown away. We have not to learn from the virulent pamphlets before us, from these advocates of expence, from these panegyrists of profusion, that reforms never proceed smoothly; that the tongue of calumny is busy in traducing the promoters of them; and that those, who were pampered by the fruits of the impositions lately exposed, are active in obstructing the benefits of investigation. That anonymous writers should broadly profess enmity to economy is not matter of surprize but when they state it as a solemn accusation, that on the late board of Admiralty announcing an intended visit to one of the divisions of marines," it had the effect of producing in the case of one individual apoplexy, and in another mental derangement," this avowed sympathy with persons who betray a consciousness of extreme guilt is indeed somewhat strange. If these apologists pleaded the cause of extravagance as respecting our brave defenders, who shed their blood to protect us, we should attentively and respectfully listen to them: but when it applies to persons who have no more to do with warfare than the artisans who cast our artillery, or the taylors who make our uniforms, we are at a loss to guess what is in their case, that rendered it so criminal in the late board of Admiralty to endeavour to confine them to their fair and honest earnings! When we reflect on the extravagance of some of the charges preferred against the Board, on the flimsiness of others, and on the satisfactory manner in which the rest are by its advocates refuted, we cannot help conjecturing that it was the weakness of other departments of administration that occasioned its fall, rather than its own demerits.

It is asserted, in one of these pamphlets, that 10,000 seamen from the port of London alone, at the epoch of the peace, went over to the enemy; that our shipwrights have acted the same part, and been well received; that the late Admiralty sold a quantity of hemp from the King's stores, and that it found its way to the consular repositories at Brest; that certain ships have been lost; that privateers have contrived to escape in some instances the vigilance of our cruizers, to slip out to sea,. and to commit depredations on our trade; and that

that the small craft of the enemy has been able, under the protection of the batteries on shore, to assemble at the places of their rendezvous. These severally form weighty charges in the accusing pages.

One of the accusers of the dismissed board impeaches the blockading system itself. It may be observed that not the board, but the cabinet, is answerable for that measure: but, as the plan has both been adopted and professedly extended by the present regulators of our naval affairs, we must conclude that the accuser preferred this charge without instruction from his patrons.

The enemies of Lord St. Vincent join with him in representing the extreme inactivity prevalent in the King's dock-yards; and they do not controvert the facts on which the conclusion is founded, that the hands employed and the expenditure made in the several arsenals would, under the same management with that which is exerted in the Merchant-yards, be more than adequate to construct and keep in repair the whole Navy of England. What, then, renders it an offence in the noble Earl to attempt to make them efficient? What claims have these establishments to be made sinecures? Why are two-thirds of the Navy of England to issue out of the private yards, in order that the artisans in those of the King may live in indolence? The letter of Mr. Wells, who is a private builder, subjoined to the last of the above pamphlets, is in every way creditable to the writer, and impresses the reader strongly in his favour: but it contains no accusation against the late First Lord, nor do we see how it can be construed to his disadvantage. The merit of the private yards is not the question; the matter in dispute is the destination of the royal yards, how far they fulfil it, and the expediency of removing the abuses and defects with which they are chargeable. On this subject, let us attend to what is said by the author of the Reply:

From the foregoing statement, it appears that 5329 Shipwrights. and Caulkers (exclusive of apprentices) in the Merchants' yards, cannot only keep in repair nearly Two MILLIONS OF TONS of shipping (which are in constant wear, and not lying in the harbours, as one third of the Royal Navy has and ever will), and build upwards of 100,000 tons per year, but also add one half to the list of the Navy; whilst 2870 Shipwrights and Caulkers in the King's yards have not kept in repair five hundred and twenty three thousand two hundred and thirty one tons, and have built only 29 sail of the line in 24 years. Moreover, let it be remembered, as a well authenticated fact, that 46 Shipwrights can, without any extraordinary exertion, build a 74 gun ship in twelve months! to which need only be added what has been stated by Mr. Wells," that in the year 1795 he launched from his yard 8000 tons of shipping more than any three of his Majesty's yards together launched

in the same period." I find that Mr. Wells has, at this time in his yard, 14 Shipwrights (apprentices included), which is 17 more than can be found in the employ of any other Merchant-builder in the kingdom. What conclusion then, let me ask, must be drawn with respect to the mode of working of the men in the King's yards, and what they ought to perform, when it is known that three of the King's yards averaged, during the whole of the year 1795, Two THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY Shipwrights, apprentices included. When these facts are known, will they not create equal astonishment and indignation at the assertions which are so industriously circulated, that without the aid of the Merchant-builders the Navy cannot be kept up? Is it not manifest that the present deplorable system is ruinous to the country, and calculated to keep us for ever dependent on the Merchant builders. who meaning those who have hitherto built ships of the line and frigates) do not possess one-third of the strength or ability to be found in the King's yards? And does not that man deserve the highest praise and honours which a grateful country can bestow, who, equally regardless of the odium attached to reform, as the clamour of the interested, has devoted his time to correct this most alarming evil, and not hesitated to bare his breast to the venomed shafts of the most virulent calumny, in order to excite a spirit of energy in our dock yards; and by tearing off the fetters from the good and industrious workmen, encourage them to exertions which cannot fail to place the Navy independent of the Merchant-builders?"

He farther adds:

Notwithstanding the asserted challenge of Messrs. Wells, Bar. nard, and Brent, i am one of those who do not believe that ships built by contract are, in general, by any means so well put together as those built in the King's yards. My opinion is formed on the many instances that have appeared to the contrary; and I will mention one, because it came a-propos to Mr. Pitt's discussion in their favour. A day or two after the propriety of depending on the Merchantbuilders for the supply of ships of the line for the Navy had been strenuously urged both within the House and out of doors, a letter was received at the Admiralty from the aptain of a ship of the line, built by contract not eight years since in the River i hames, accompanied by five fore and aft bolts of the iron knees (OR RATHER POINTS OF BOLTS) which, with several others, had worked out of the ship during her last Cruize only, each of which should have been 20 inches long and clenched; instead of which, however, two were only 4 inches long, tapered to the points like wedges, and the other three from 7 to 11! I believe I may defy all the Merchant builders in the kingdom to produce one solitary instance of a single bolt of this description ever having worked out, or made its appearance, on board any ship built in a King's yard. In defence of these circumstances, it is urged, that the ship, when building, is under the inspection of a resident Overseer, whose duty it is to see that all the materials are good, and the work well executed. It is true, a person of that description is appointed by the Navy Board, and the Merchant-bui der cannot obtain his bills, during progress of the work, until the Overseer has certified that it has

the

« PreviousContinue »