1807.) 
on the subject, which was published in 
the xivth vol, p. 319, of the Monthly 
Magazine. In that letter I boldly as- 
serted the mght of Mr. Wouldbave to 
claim the honour of that invention, and 
invited Mr. Greathead. to shew, it he 
could, that I had treated him unfairly. 
Mr. Greathead, however, did not think 
fit to take any notice of the papers which 
appeared about that time on the subject, 
but ceptented himself with a fer putts in 
the newspapers now and then, in which, 
by the assisiance of the editors, he was 
held oat to public view as the inventor. 
As I considered the method he took to 
establish his clawn to be at once unfair 
and pitiful, I determined to assert the 
claim ot Mr. Wouldhave in a manner that 
should force him either to answer me, or 
be considered as a pretender to what 
was not his own. 1 accordingly put my- 
self to the trouble and expence of print- 
ing “ The Enquiry concerning the Inven- 
tion of the Lite Boat, &c.” whereby I 
have given to the public an opportunity 
of judging how far his claim is capable 
of being substantiated. Mr. G. has not 
yet thought proper to make any reply. 
Unknown to me, a gentleman, who tre- 
quently favours Messrs. Nichols and 
Son with communications for their peri- 
odical work, wrote a letter on the subject 
of the Life-Boat, in which he recommend- 
ed my pamphlet. Tiis letter was pub- 
lished in the Gent. Mag. for May, 1806, 
and is signed W.N.C. In the Gent, 
Mag. for July appeared a short letter, 
signed Y. R. in which the invention is 
claimed tor Mr. L. Lukin, coachmaker, 
Long Acre, London, and Mr. Wouldhave 
and Mr. Greathead challenged to prove 
the contrary, ‘To this letter I replied in 
August, and, according to my manner, 
gave my name. In the Mag. for Sep- 
tember I had my pertormance severely 
criticised, and all my improprieties and 
puerile expressions pointed out with 
Johnsonian dogmatism, but none ot my 
arguments touched. The gentleman at 
first alluded to, and who gave rise to the 
present controversy, had, in his letter, 
called my pamphlet a well written one, 
and Mr. Lukin, harping on the words 
** well written pamphlet,” gave me rea- 
son to snppose that he considered 
W.N.C. and W. A. Hails as the same 
person, under different signatures. As 
wrote the pamphlet with no other view 
than to do justice to an ingenious, and, 
im my opinion, injured man, I had no- 
thing of my own at stake, and can truly 
say that no advantage was sought on iny 
part which truth did not offer, I was 
4, 
On the Claims to the Inventwn of the Life~Boat. 7 
therefore unwilling that any one should 
be led to think I had been puting under 
a borrowed signature to bring my little 
work into notice, or even ®hat there was 
au understanding between W. N.C. and 
the writer of that pamphlet; and though 
Wiessrs. Nichols must be well assured 
that we are two distinct persons, yet I 
desired them, in my answer to Mr. Lue 
kin’s letter, to assure the public that [ 
did not even know who was the writer of 
the letter signed W. N.C. till nearly a 
inonth after its appearance in their 
work, As Mr. Lukin, in his letter, had 
made a great parade of his candour and 
liberality of sentiment, I did not expect 
that I should have those things kept back 
which I desired particularly to have pub- 
lished. In this, however, I was mis- 
taken, for my notice on the above cir- 
cumstance was not published ; and ano- 
ther, of far greater consequence, namely, 
that M. Begnieres, director of bridges, 
Fie here id in France, invented an 
unimmergible boat long before the daie 
of Mr. Lukin’s patent, upon which a 
number of trials was made at the gate of 
the Invalids in Paris, which demonstrated 
it to be as completely formed for safety 
as either the Life Boat, or Mr. Lukin’s 
with projecting gunwales. The experi- 
ments were made in the presence of vast 
numbers of people, August 1st, 1777. 
This my answer, divested of the above 
notices, was published in the Gent. Mag, 
for October, and Mr. Lukin’s reply de- 
Jayed till his pamphlet was published in 
December. I soon perceived that the 
editor and he acted in concert; and 
though Messrs. Nichols had not declared 
their intention not to publish any thing 
farther on the subject, I was pretty sure 
such was their determination. I, how- 
ever, wrote another letter, which they 
neither published nor noticed. { have 
since read Mr. Lukin’s pamphlet, and 
shall, with your leave, offer a few remarks 
on that pertormance. This I shall do as 
briely us Tam able; nor shall [, uless 
ip one particular, advert in the least to 
that candour ahd liberality of sentiment 
for which Messrs. Lukin and Nichols are 
so eminent. I shall, in the first place, 
Shew that Mr. Lukin's invention, and 
that ef the Life Boat are not the same: 
and secondly, that the method ef proof he 
himself has offered in his triumphant 
note, p. p. 27, 28, will prove that neither 
Mr. Wouldhave, Mr. Greathead, nor Mr. 
Lukin, is the inventor. ; 
In p. 10 of his pamphlet he says “ The 
principles upon which I proceeded weret 
Ist. Lo give the vessel such a power of 
buoyancy 
