^2 Lord Napier's different Contrivances 



vigation. I have understood too, that the respectable and 

 patriotic Mr. Miller of Dalswiuton, who, some years ago^ 

 jiiade several expensive experiments at Leith, for the im- 

 provement of shipping; also contrived a submarine vessel, 

 with what success I have not heard. But either or both of 

 these facts might be easily ascertained, were it worth while. 



About 30 years ago, a Mr. Day, after a submarine ad- 

 venture, which was in some degree successful, made a 

 second attempt, I think at Plymouth, but never appeared 

 again upon the surface. The particulars are detailed in the 

 Annual Register, or some similar compilation. 



The fourth volume of the American Philosophical Trans- 

 actions contains a more interesting detail of this kind. The 

 37th article is inlitled " General Principles and Construc- 

 tion of a Submarine Vessel, commnnieated by D. Bush- 

 ncll of Connecticut, the inventor, in a letter of October 

 J7S7, to Thomas Jefferson, then minister plenipotentiary 

 of the United States at Paris." Mr. Bushnell affirms, that 

 one of his operators actually brought his boat under a Bri- 

 tish fiftv gun-ship, lying neai' New York; but the screw 

 (for attaching to the ship's bottom the magazine containing 

 150lbs. of powder, to be fired by clock-work, which would 

 go 12 hours, if necessary) happened to strike upon iron, 

 and the man, in moving the apparatus, lost the ship. Mr. 

 Bushnell turther stales, that in 1777 he made an attempt on 

 the Cerl)erus frigate, lying at anchor near New London. 

 The frigate escaped : but his machine, which was con- 

 ducted bv a line, without any person on board, exploded 

 and totally demolished a schooner, which was concealed 

 from his view by the frigate, and received the shock in- 

 tended for the latter. In the same year one of his machines, 

 which was calculated to go off by a slight touch, was di- 

 rected against some British shipping in the Delaware, but 

 was intercepted by a boat, which it destroyed. Mr. Bush- 

 nell says that his apparatus was contrived in 1771) but not 

 finished till 1777? when, happily, as it would appear, for 

 many British vessels, circumstances prevented hmi from 

 bringing his ship-destroying scheme to that perfection of 

 which he plainly saw it \a as capable. 



Such schemes, however, are far from being abandoned. 

 M. St. Aubin, niember of the Tribunate at Paris, pub- 

 lished, about IS months ago an account of a diving-boat, 

 invented by a Mr. Fulton, another American. This boat, 

 if we mav implicitly believe the description, which other 

 accounts of the kind certainly render credible, will be truly 

 formidable to the ships against which it may be employed- 

 1 We 



