REVIEW. 83 



made with a floating body, which has been published in the 

 ^^ Nautical Magazine.'* And, with respect to this experiment, 

 Mr. H. denies that the centre of gravity of the model was raised 

 by the inclination produced. The model is represented as i n- 

 clined to 90 degrees ; and that its centre of gravity did rise con- 

 siderably, and that the model turned as it inclined round the 

 point which experiment determined to be the place of the meta- 

 centre, is a fact too palpable to be confuted. But Mr. H. con- 

 founds the point which is the centre of gravity of the model with 

 that which is the centre of gravity of the system, or, in other 

 words, the common centre of gravity of the weight of the model 

 and the inclining power : and this point with respect to Captain 

 P.'s experiments, Mr. H. acknowledges to be the axis of rotation. 

 But, he endeavours to make it appear, that the common centre of 

 gravity of the weight of the model and the inclining power, is the 

 centre of gravity of the weight of the model alone; which is an 

 error too palpable to require any comment. And Captain P. 

 clearly proves, that the metacentre is the centre of gravity of the 

 whole system, and of which, the weight of the ship, which 

 constantly acts downwards through its centre of gravity, is only 

 a single part. 



At page 21, Captain P. quotes an observation of Mr. H.^s, 

 namely : that, under certain conditions, " the centre of gravity of 

 the ship will remain immoveably at the same distance from the 

 surface of the water, whatever may be the magnitude of the angle 

 of inclination.^' And concludes his first paper with a most 

 simple illustration, which proves that the centre of gravity of a 

 ship cannot be the point through which the axis of rotation 

 passes, and that that point does not remain immoveably at the 

 same distance from the surface of the water. 



At page 25, an illustration is given of a most interesting ex- 

 periment, which Captain P. made with a floating body; and 

 which most completely confirms the truth of what has been ad- 

 vanced by those eminent authors Bouguer and Chapman. It 

 appears, however, that Mr. H. denies the truth of their arguments, 

 and says, that those authors have both fallen into a similar error. 

 But, we are most decidedly of opinion, that Mr. II. has fallen 

 into a very great error, and that he is vainly endeavouring to 

 defend the erroneous parts of the theory of Naval Architecture, 

 and to destroy those parts which are in accordance with existing 

 and unerring laws, and with facts derived from actual experi- 

 ments. 



