consideration and study than is bestowed upon it; and I think it is capable of being very clearly understood, even to demonstration. I am equally satisfied that it is by no means so at present, which an example or two shall shew:-I once had charge of an excessively sharp vessel, one in which perhaps the relative proportion of beam to depth, was as great as in any craft ever built; she had had some kentledge, merely for trimming her. I took it out, which the pilot seeing when he was about to undock her, actually would not take charge of her, without I replaced it, and he was encouraged in this determination by the shipwright. I laughed at it, but was however obliged to comply; and often afterwards actually lay with this same vessel at anchor in exposed situations, without any thing in her whatever! I once was almost similarly placed with one of the ten-gun brigs; she was in dock, with topgallant yards across; she had not been risen upon, nor altered in any way, and the shipwrights thought I was mad to turn her out into the river with a clean-swept hold; but I did so; and she was "as stiff as a church." This brig was afterwards loaded with a cargo of equal weight throughout; it was not particularly heavy; it filled her completely up to the deck; and she was a little deeper than she would have been in her old service. She was quite stiff, though, from her construction, the greatest part of this cargo must have been placed so high up; that, I will answer for it, the general impression in the navy, and with dock-yard officers, would be, that it would have destroyed her stability altogether.

The object of these remarks is to shew, that a very erroneous impression is afloat, which attributes the accident which has befallen the Star to her construction, instead of, as I believe it should be, placing it to the account of the prejudices which possibly Captain Symonds himself may not be altogether free from, or if he is, that he cannot overcome the deep-rooted ones which exist so generally in the navy-of the necessity of creating stability by weight. It is to be hoped, however, that the truth may be apparent before it is too late, and has the effect of condemning a really good system; and this truth is, that Captain Symonds has produced ships that of themselves are stable, and require great attention not to interfere with this, their natural good property. As for throwing the Star upon her beam-ends if she had been properly ballasted, it might as well be expected, that throwing a shilling down upon the table, it should take up a position upon its edge, instead of its flat surface.

I shall from time to time, Mr. Editor, take opportunities of offering, through your good work, all the support I can find in argument, in favour of the system of increased beam, the value of which I am so fully convinced of.

London, 3d February.

MERCATOR.

MORGAN'S PADDLE-WHEels.

To the Editor of the Nautical Magazine.

SIR, I returned to town a few days ago, after an absence of some months, and have been much amused by an article in your Magazine of last November, headed, " Paddle-wheels-Hiram v. Morgan and others."

In that article, your correspondent Hiram attempts to give an answer to the observations which were made, by myself and others, on his many inaccuracies." I preserve the word, although inaccuracies persisted in would warrant a stronger expression. But I will endeavour to abstain from imitating Hiram's example, and making your pages a vehicle for unnecessary and inexcusable personalities, such as those he indulges in with regard to almost every person whose name he mentions.

Leaving it, then, to this modern Iago to "stab men i' the dark,” I shall proceed at once to tear aside the veil of obscurity in which he has enveloped his "inaccuracies," and so enable your readers, as Hiram says, "to judge between us," with regard to some of the most important of them.

In the article in question, Hiram has the hardihood to assert, that, with the exception of a solitary case, his facts had not been controverted, and expresses his readiness to acknowledge any error or any injustice arising therefrom. I will give him an opportunity.

At page 294 of the 39th number of your magazine, for May, Hiram took on him roundly to assert of Morgan's wheels, that "if one radius rod gives way, the wheel is useless."

By "giving way" I naturally supposed he meant "breaking;" and in my letter, contained in your 42d number, I stated that such a thing had not occurred, in 5 years' practice. At the same time, I pointed out how such an accident could be remedied, if it should occur. (See page 469.)

But how does Hiram answer this? The passage is so curious an instance of the "beautiful obscure," and happily so short, that I cannot resist the temptation of extracting it verbatim he says, "In stating, that if one radius rod gave way, the wheel was useless, it should be recollected I was drawing a comparison between the two systems." (See No. 45, page 663.)

I leave your readers to make out this sentence, if they can. I cannot. How a positive assertion is to be established by a comparison, is quite beyond me.

But even supposing he really did mean to say that the wheel was comparatively useless, I am prepared to meet him, and to assert, without fear of contradiction by any respectable engineer, who has ever been to sea with my brother's wheels, that a rod

could be removed, and the floats detached in a few minutes, ay,

even at sea.

But Hiram goes on to say, that "in the old wheel, one, two, or three of the arms may be removed; it is effective: not so Morgan's."

Would not any one suppose that he had ascertained as a fact, this "not so Morgan's."

Now it so happens, that Hiram has himself helped me to the means of disproving this" inaccuracy." For it now seems, that by "giving way" Hiram did not mean "breaking," but any thing you please; and he has raked up an occurrence which took place with the Flamer's wheels; narrating it, with much satisfaction, between inverted commas, as a statement made to him by her first commander.

But what were the real facts? Why, that on the return of the Flamer from Corfu and Malta, on either her third or fourth voyage, in July, 1833, when she was off Cape St. Vincent, a rod, which had originally been defective in length, and had also received a slight bend, so impeded the float as to become worse than useless. Instead of the rod and float being at once removed, which ought to have been done, the vessel put into Lagos bay, where the rod was taken off, straightened, and put on again.

The engines were then again started; but before the vessel had cleared the bay, (not proceeded 120 miles, as stated by Hiram,) the rod again" gave way," if Hiram will so have it, and was then altogether removed, and its float detached. The vessel then continued her voyage without the rod and float, and performed a rapid passage to England, against a fresh N. W. breeze, without their absence being felt or sensibly perceived, either in the engine-room or by any one on board.

Thus, sir, I think I have fully met Hiram in the only instance which his zeal and industry have enabled him to ferret out, and I have satisfactorily shewn that Morgan's wheel, with one rod removed, is not even comparatively useless," and is "effective." My brother has not yet had the good fortune to have two or three "give way."

Here, then, is a favourable opportunity for the exercise of Hiram's candour. Will he avail himself of it?

Another instance, indeed, occurred a very few weeks previously to the period when Hiram wrote his tirade. I will supply him with materials for a future display of his

powers.

The Firebrand, whilst being towed through the canal at Helvoetsluys, was driven by a heavy squall, bodily against a dolphin. Besides having one of the paddle arms bent up to the diagonals, and also a stem broken, a rod was severed by the concussion. The float of the broken stem was removed, the stem itself lashed, and the rod was disconnected; and the vessel, having a most

distinguished personage on board, came home without any diminution of the customary speed of the vessel.

The next subject I shall advert to, is one on which inaccuracy is, perhaps, less excusable, and certainly more dangerous, than on any other. I mean that of figures: with these Hiram seems to deal without much scruple.

For instance, at page 663 he states the cost of the Confiance's wheel, in their improved state, to have been £3891! He may well ask, "Will it be believed?" I have no doubt it will not. I dare say he thought that the particularity of the numbers would give an appearance of authenticity to his statement. But I happen to know that the cost of those wheels has not exceeded one-third of the sum he names.

Again; at page 667 he says, that perhaps the cause of the rejection of my brother's wheels, by the owners of the Soho, might have been the enormous price. "I have reason to know," he says, "£1600, or thereabouts."

Now, an anonymous writer may safely say, "I have reason to know," and needed not the protection of an or thereabouts;" but I, sir, who sign my name to this paper, have reason to know that the price asked was several hundreds less than £1600, and that the reason why my brother's wheels were not applied to the Soho was that which I stated in my former letter; namely, the difficulty of fitting them without sacrificing the berth-place.

I know not what alterations may have been made subsequently, in the internal arrangement of the Soho, but I know the fore paddlebeams did, at that time, come into the after-end of one of the double sleeping-berths, and must have been removed to suit my brother's plan.*

Again; at page 671, the mechanical performances of the old and new wheels, on the Pluto, are stated as 1290 and 1269 respectively. I know not whether Hiram has some mode peculiar to himself, of arriving at these figures. They certainly will not bear the test of the mode ordinarily employed, and apparently pointed out by himself, at page 668, where he speaks of obtaining a comparative performance by means of the "involution of the velocity, area of immersed section, and the power."

Subjected to this test, and assuming, for argument sake, that the power exerted in both cases was equal, which it was not, we should obtain the following results

V2 (10.05) x area immersed (129) = 13029 (9.035o) × do. (166-66) 13604

By the bye, it is not extraordinary, as I observed in my former letter, that although the superiority of the common wheel over my brother's had been so "clearly and incontrovertibly established,” as Hiram asserts, by the trials of the Soho and the Flamer, the owners of the Soho should afterwards have entertained for a single moment the idea of applying my brother's wheels to her.

shewing that the result of the experiment with my brother's wheel was not "inferior, or as 1269 to 1290," but, on the contrary, superior, as 1360 to 1303 nearly.

But what will your readers think of Hiram's honesty, when I direct their attention to the circumstance, that the strokes at the experiments were relatively 27 and 22, as stated by Hiram himself, and therefore the power exerted with the new wheels was only 81.48, or about 4-5ths of that exerted with the old.

For, 27: 22: 100: 81-48.*

Why do I dwell on these inaccuracies? Not so much on account of their actual importance-and yet they are of someas with a view to put your readers on their guard against Hiram's results in cases where they have no figures to check, nor any means of ascertaining the correctness of his data.

One or two of these cases I will point out, as instances, and I have done with the question of " inaccuracies"-not for want of materials, but lest I should tire your readers.

At page 669 of your number 45, Hiram pretends to give the Columbia's trial, 2d May, 1833. He sates, that at " 11 ft. 10 in. mean immersion, with 101 tons of coals on board, her perform

ance was

Miles.

Against tide, with wind. . 9.50
With tide, against wind. . 5.50

}

This is Hiram's statement. Now what was the fact? Why, that (if the official account is worthy of Credence) she performed the distance (one measured mile),

2) 17.

8.5 per hour. only just one mile more than Hiram candidly and accurately describes.

Again, at page 666, we have a variety of figures and data which I can have no means of controverting. There they stand; but, after the glaring inaccuracies' I have pointed out, I cannot bring myself to believe that any of your readers will take them for granted, so long as Hiram chooses to preserve his incognito, or withhold his proofs of their correctness- I could, however refute (as far as positive unqualified statements put forth on my own avowed and open responsibility constitute refutation) many of Hiram's statements, if I did not fear to encroach too far on your

The experiment with the old wheels was made in 1831, when the engines were in an effective state, and the old wheel in its best possible position.

In 1835, when the experiment was made with the new wheels, the engines were in any thing but an effective state, the vessel very much immersed, and very much out of trim, she being 7 inches too much by the head.