proposition could be believed by the members of the academy? Yet they did believe it. But, from what has been shewn, any body may boldly say, that, nineteen hundred years past, our forefathers could never cross the Atlantic Ocean, and of course could not know America. I have heard indeed, forty years ago, that an Irishman, taken by the savages in America, cried out in his native language; and that the words he spoke had such an effect upon these people, that they thought there was some connection between the Irish tongue and their own, which induced them to give him his liberty. There, sir, is one more discovery for your inventive antiquaries; it may lead them to the analogy of the Hibernian grammar with that of the Americans, as well as on the arts and sciences, manufactures and commerce, of these wild people.

"But, to shew how cautious writers should be in advancing hypothetical notions, the shortest way to America is more than thirty degrees in longitude, through strong currents and tempestuous oceans, large enough to swallow ten millions of Gallic flat-bottomed ships, rigged I know not how, with pliant, well-dressed skins, and anchors fastened to iron chains.'

"Besides, they must have had other methods of working their ships than those they have left us a notion of, to navigate in those dangerous seas, which make the boldest mariner tremble. But to come from that new world, how could they find their way in latitudes where fogs are so thick as to hinder one man's seeing another half way over the ship?

"From what you have seen, sir, it must appear very extraordinary that M. L'Abbé Cartier should conclude so positively from, as he says, the little documents which the ancient authors have left us;' but it is still more extraordinary that an academy of antiquaries should have crowned such a work, especially when most of the sea-faring gentlemen of our days are of opinion, that all that has been said of the ancients on their ships of war with oars is fabulous.

"Let these gentlemen remember, that Julius Cæsar, in his Commentaries, is very particular in the description of his engagements with the Egyptian ships before Alexan

dria.

"I do not pretend to give reasons why our writers and mariners do not believe what the ancients have said; but I am persuaded that those who generally comment on ancient arts have very little experience in those of our times, as may be seen in the Encyclopedie, which are almost

written and copied by men who make it their business to write on arts they never have practised.

"From this we may conclude, that the knowledge of the ancient arts is not easily obtained from the works of our present writers, who, for instance, name three-banked ships, &c. those with three rows of oars, for want of understanding the practical part; like those translators who understand not the true style of the language, and much less the technical terms of arts, which will ever put in confusion the greatest orator in the world, if he has not experience in the art he speaks of.

"As you see, sir, I have given some reasons to shew how far we are from having a thorough knowledge of the ancient maritime arts, I hope to be excused if I venture an opinion on what I think material for saving ships in many cases, together with a great number of men's lives. I mean to take something from the ancients, and apply it to our manner of acting, for which I should propose a premium: For the best manner of tacking about, without sail and with sail, to go in and out of port backwards and forwards without turning, in all weathers except storms or strong winds, as the ancient Greeks and Romans did; this to be done without obstructing the present manner of working ships, one thousand pounds.'

"Many think the French are the best theorists in naval architecture; but their method, as well as those of other nations, appears not to be founded on plain and fixed principles; for the dimensions of their ships they are at variance one with the other. For example, says a builder at Brest, a ship ought to be from 175 to 180 feet long, by 47 to 50 broad, and 22 to 25 in the hold. Vessels of other sizes have no better rules: a frigate of 36 guns, they say, ought to be from 120 to 130 feet in length, by 33 or 34 in breadth, and 16 or 17 in the hold.

"I shall not say that such a diversity of dimensions proves their not having just ideas of the proportions of their art; but I shall make bold to put a few questions to these gentlemen.

"What inconvenience would there be in making a first rate ship of 200 feet long, and 50 broad, with a hold of 25 feet? It would carry more sail, and go quicker. Such dimensions are so simple that a child could put them in practice, since they give four breadths for one length, and the hold is in the midship. All ships should be made in these proportions, that is, in aliquot parts; then we should be certain which would be best for different uses.

"To build frigates of 108 or 110 feet long for thirty guns, merely for the accommodation of metal, is like being guided by accessary parts to find principles for the direction of the whole, whereas it should be the subject which governs the attribute. Nothing, in short, is more apt to lead into difficulties than reasoning from random principles, instead of founding them on harmonious rules, which lead to true maxims, and give the first idea of the parts which compose an invention. This ancient manner of reasoning is not easily to be found in the modern contrivers, who seldom or never look out of the track they are in, and even offer premiums to understand a part more of the wrong routine they have ever followed. I am, my good friend, your humble

servant,

1792, Sept.

*W. BLAKEY."

XVII. A Fragment of History relative to the Revolution.
MR. URBAN,

I HEREWITH send you a part of a letter from Dr. Rose, bishop of Edinburgh, to bishop Campbell, at London, which is the more curious, as I have never seen it noticed in any collection of papers, or history of the times to which it refers. It accounts for the conduct of the Scots Episcopal Clergy at the Revolution, and for the suppression of the order of bishops in that kingdom. From this letter, likewise, it may fairly be inferred, that, if the Scots bishops had followed the example of their brethren in England, episcopacy would not only have been tolerated but established in Scotland; and that king William would have been much better pleased to have countenanced the bishops there than the Presbyterians, if the bishops would have undertaken to have supported his cause. But from the perusal of the original, the reader will naturally draw his own conclusion.

I am, Sir,

Yours, &c.

Y. D.

Dr. Rose, Bishop of Edinburgh, to Bishop Campbell, at
London.

October 22, 1713

BECAUSE you desire a short history of my own proceedings and conduct when in London, at the late revolu tion, I shall, for your satisfaction and that of others, set down a short and plain sum of it, which is as follows.

Wher in October in 1638, tire Scots bishops came to know the intended invasion by the prince of Orange, a good many of them being then at Edinburgh, meeting together, concerted and sent up a loyal address to the king. Afterwards, in November, finding that the prince was lauded, and foreseeing the dreadful convulsions that were like to ensue, and not knowing what damages might arise thence both to church and state, resolved to send up two of their number to the king, with a renewed tender of their duty; instructing them also to wait on the bishops of England for their advice and assistance, in case that any unlucky thing might possibly happen to occur with respect to our church: this resolution being taken, it was represented by the two archbishops to his majesty's privy council, (in which the lord Perth sat as chancellor) and was agreed to and approved of by them. Whereupon, at the next meeting of the bishops, it was not thought fit, even by the archbishops themselves, that any of them (though they were men of the greatest ability and experience) should go up, as being less acceptable to the English bishops, from their having consented to the taking off the sanguinary laws against the Papists, and so that undertaking was devolved over upon Dr. Bruce, bishop of Orkney, and me; he having suffered for not agreeing to that project, and I not concerned, as not being a bishop at that time; and accordingly a commission was drawn up and signed for us two, December 3d, 1688. The bishop of Orkney promising to come back from that country in eight or ten days time, that we might journey together, occasioned my stay; but when that time was elapsed, I had a letter from him, signifying that he had fallen very ill, and desiring me to go up post, as soon as I could, promising to follow as soon as health would serve; whereupon I took post, and in a few days coming to Northallerton, where hearing of the king's having left Rochester, I stood doubtful with myself, whether to go forward or return; but considering the various and contradictory accounts I had got all along upon the road, and that, in case of the king's retirement, matters would be so much the more dark and

perplexed, I resolved to go on, that I might be able to. give just accounts of things to my brethren here, from time to time, and have the advice of English bishops, whom I never doubted to find unalterably firm to their master's interest. And as this was the occasion of my coming to London, so by reason of the continuance of the bishop of Oikney's illness, that difficult task fell to my share alone.

The next day after my arrival at London, I waited on the archbishop of Canterbury,* (to whom I had the honour to be known, some three years before) and after my presenting, and his grace's reading, my commission, his grace said that matters were very dark, and the cloud so thick or gross that they could not see through it; they knew not well what to do for themselves, and far less what advice to give me; that there was to be a meeting of bishops with h that day, and desired me to see him a week thereafter. I next waited on the then bishop of St. Asaph,t (being my acquaintance also) who treated me in such a manner that I could not but see through his inclinations; wherefore I resolved to visit him no more, nor to address myself to any others of that order, till I should have occasion to learn something farther about them: wherefore the week thereafter I repaired again to Lambeth, and told his grace all that had passed between St. Asaph and me, who smiling replied, that St. Asaph was a good man, but an angry man, and withall told me, that matters still continued dark, and that it behoved me to wait the issue of their convention, which he suspected was only that which could give light, and open the scene; but withall desired me to come to him from time to time, and if any thing occurred, he would signify it to me. In that wearisome season, (wearisome to me, because acquainted with few, save those of our own countrymen, and of those I knew not whom to trust) I waited on the bishop of London, and entreated him to speak to the prince, to put a stop to the persecutions of our clergy, but to no purpose. I was also with the then Dr. Burnet, upon the same design, but with no success, who told me he did not meddle in Scots affairs. I was also earnestly desired by the bishop of London, and the then Viscount of Tarbat, and some other Scots peers, to wait upon the prince, and to present him with an address upon that head. I asked whether I or my address would readily meet with acceptance or success, if it did not compliment the prince upon his descent, to deliver us from popery and slavery; they said Dr. Compton, E.

+ Dr. Lloyd.