Observations on the Circular Sterns of Ships. 353 
ransacked the records of twenty-five years for examples. And 
although he tells us, that during , this space of time he has been 
enabled to find 120, still he does not tell us how many im 
stances, in the same space of time, he might have collected of 
ships being weak in the bows or elsewhere. And although 120 
be in nearly the proportion of five a-year, still what is that in com- 
parison to the number of vessels that were employed t6 through 
the trying services of a long and active war ?” 
Sir Robert, at p. 6. of his letter, very properly remarks, “ that 
circular sterns are formed, and in all respects timbered and se- 
cured, in the same manner as the bow ; and consequently equal- 
ly well adapted to stand the shock of the sea.” But though the 
strength maybe equal, the form of the counters is by no means 
the same as the form of the bows near the surface of the water, 
which, in resisting the shock of the sea, is of equally great im- 
portance. But the upper part of the stern need not be so strong, 
for we seldom hear of the dead-lights of a frigate or line-of-bat- 
tle ship being stove in. And in the instances brought forward 
in Mr Harvey’s paper, the weakness is almost invariably occa- 
sioned by a tendency in the sides to separate. This being the 
case, I should think that the stern timbers above the counter, 
might be considerably smaller than those of the sides and bow. 
So great a weight being removed from the overhanging part of 
the counters, would make them comparatively stronger. The 
great danger to be apprehended from the effects of a sea striking 
vessels, is either when they broach-to, or are brought by the lee; 
in both these cases the sea would strike 1 them on the sides. In 
getting stern-way, the great danger to be apprehended is the loss 
of the rudder. 
“ The next point of view in which this important subject may 
be contemplated, is the consideration of themeans which each form 
of stern affords for attack and defence.” A comparison is here 
drawn between Men-of-war and Field-fortification. I cannot 
say I think this comparison holds good. But if it does, is it not 
a maxim in fortification, that no gun has its full effect, unless 
the parapet be at right angles with the object assailed ? This, 
then, being the case, it can seldom happen that more than one 
gun on each deck, in the aft-part of the vessel, can have its full 
effect ; and every body on board men-of-war knows the diffi- 
z 2 
