486 Mr. Cowan' t Improvementt in Ship.building. 



and eflicieut member: yet of late jears viations from the 



he had been thrust from among them, 



or otherwise totally neglected, though 



no fault has ever been laid to his 



charge. 



This story appeared to me so impro- 

 bable, that I at first doubted the fact ; 

 but he referred me to so many in- 

 stances where he was omitted, evi- 

 dently by design, that my scepticism 

 gave way, and I promised to consult 

 the authorities which he said had 

 placed him there ; and, if his statement 

 was correct, that I would advocate his 

 cause with you ; to prevent, by means 

 of your literary publication, a repeti- 

 tion of such crying injustice. 



Upon turning to the best anthors, I 

 found my friend N perfectly right ; he 

 certainly has been placed in the word 

 contemporary by Cowley, Dryden, 

 Addison, and other learned men. 

 Continuing my researches, I met with 

 further, and in my mind conclusive, 

 evidence in his favour: it is that of 

 the learned Dr. Bentley, who, in liis 

 literary controversy with the Hon. 

 Mr. Boyle, upon the Epistles of Pha- 

 laris, charges Mr. B. as a matter of 

 reproach, with using the word cotem- 

 porary, which the doctor calls a down- 

 right iDarbarism. " For the Latins 

 (says the doctor,) never use co for con 

 except before a vowel, as co-equal, co- 

 cternal; but before a consonant they 

 cither retain the w, as contemporary, 

 vonstitvtion, or melt it into another 

 letter, as colleciion, comprehension. So 

 that Mr. B.'s cotemporary is a word of 

 his own coposilivn ; for which the 

 learned world will cogratulate him." 



In the iace of such authorities, with 

 what propriety can this letter n be 

 left out of the word in question. 



I do trust, sir, you will give publi- 

 city to this case ; when I have no 

 doubt of my friend's being again 

 placed in that situation f om which he 

 has been so capriciously expelled. 



iVorcesteishire. 



To the Editor oftlui Monthly Magazine. 



1 SHOULD bo obliged to any of 

 your readers, if tiiey can inform 

 me if they know any instance of a 

 ship, either British or foreign, having 

 been built with a solid bottom and 

 sides, and diagonal riders, instead of 

 the ceiling or lining, previous to 1805 

 or 1808. 



The Navy Board have favoured me 

 with an account of the following de- 



rJuly I, 

 common mode of 

 constructing ships ; but none of them 

 appear to be similar to the one pro- 

 posed by me. Lord Stanhope's ves- 

 sel, the Kent Ambinavigator, built in 

 the year 1792, without lining, but with 

 the outside plank increased in thick- 

 ness. And in his lordship's patent 

 mode, dated April 9, 1807, he pro- 

 poses building vessels, which he de- 

 nominates " Stanhope Weatherers," 

 in the same manner. These were flat- 

 bottomed vessels, and, as I under- 

 stand, were open between the timbers, 

 and had no diagonal riders. 



Mr. Duhamel proposed, about the 

 middle of the last century, to use 

 oblique riders. Sir Robert Seppings 

 introduced diagonal riders into his 

 Majesty's ship Glenmore, in 1800; 

 and diagonal trusses* into the Kent in 

 April 1805. The San Juan Nepome- 

 ccno, built at Ferrol in 1781, and 

 taken by Lord Nelson, had also dia- 

 gonal riders in the hold. 



Li the last instances, where the 

 diagonal riders were proposed and 

 used, the ships, I believe, were built 

 as usual, with the lining, and with the 

 open spaces between the timbers. 



Admiral Schank conceived that my 

 system of constructing ships was simi- 

 lar to his ; and, the Navy Board being 

 of the same opinion, I laid the ease 

 before counsel, and the answer was 

 to the following efl'ect: — "As B.'s 

 plan differs from A.'s, in retaining the 

 lining of the ship, and as in A.'s plan 

 diagonal riders are used for strength- 

 ening the ship, instead of the linings, 

 and the two modes being geometri- 

 cally diQerent, it is evident that the 

 plan of B. does not encroach on the 

 right of A." 



As the solid system of building ships 

 met with a " determined and syste- 

 matic oi)position," when first intro- 

 duced, 1 should be obliged to any of 

 your readers that would inform me 

 what were the professional or mecha- 

 nical objections to it when formerly 

 proposed by me. 



Some idea may be formed of the 

 immense unnecessary loss of ships, 

 lives, and property,! since the rejec- 

 tion of Mr. Kirby's proposal in 1763, 



for 



• Short pieces of timber, placed dia- 

 gonally. 



t The greater part of the disasters and 

 losses at sea may be traced to the barba- 

 roiis state of naval architecture, and the 

 defective equipment of ships and vessels. 



