-7(5 HISTORY OF MARINE ARCHITECTURE.

Although the inconvenience and impolicy of the above practice is so glaring,that it becomes no small matter of wonder it continued even for the shortesttime, it cannot be denied it has not been completely removed even in the Bri-tish navy till within a few years, and is on many occasions adopted by foreignpowers down to the present moment. From the information afforded by the fore-going table, it becomes easy to calculate the number of spare ports, and the dispo-sition of the guns on the different decks, with respect to the Royal Prince. Onthe lower were two cannon petronels, (twenty-four pounders) six demi cannon,nearly thirty-two pounders, and twelve culverins, (eighteen pounders:) the after-most and the bow ports were vacant, the first being supplied in case of action byone of the twenty-four pounders from the stern port, the second by one of theculverines from the opposite side; the upper deck was entirely furnished with demiculverins, or nine pounders, and the aftermost port being vacant as on that be-neath, was supplied by transporting the opposite gun to the side on which theattack might be made by the enemy. The relief afforded by lightening thevessel in the mode just specified, was supposed to counterbalance the introduc-tion of the thirty-two pounders in the after battery as an increase of force,instead of using culverins throughout the whole tier. The sakers, or five pounders,were confined, under the same regulations as were adopted in the tiers belowthem, to the quarter deck and forecastle.

Although much care and expence had been bestowed on the royal navy foreight or ten years previous to the report made by the commissioners in 1618,yet that seems to have been the period when the exertions began to be moreearnest. Subsequent to that time it appears, from the parliamentary journals,that during the space of five years, not only the sum of fifty thousand pounds wasannually granted for the building and repairs of the royal navy, but that timber,to the value of one hundred and eighty thousand pounds, was felled in theroyal forests for the same purpose. These extraordinary aids may additionally con-vince us, that the number of ships contained in the list, which has the authorityof Sir William Monson for its accuracy, is either incorrect, or the money musthave been misapplied: the latter appears incredible from the well known tenorof the king’s conduct, and his strict attention to economy. The conclusion,therefore, is obvious; particularly when nearly all historians unite in admitting,that, exclusive of the ships which it became necessary to repair from time totime, the royal navy was augmented one fourth part during the reign of kingJames ttie First, or, to speak more precisely, in the five last years of it.

Charles