HISTORY OF MARINE ARCHITECTURE.

7<J

watching their motions. Attempts, made in die preceding reign, under the con-duct of the ablest officers Britain possessed, to destroy this nest of hornets, had

proved

3 . Many of the inconveniences, mentioned in this paragraph of the answer, could hardly ever hap-pen in case an early distribution was made of proper ships convoys, and the time of their departurefixed; whereas, very frequently, ships are appointed when they are at sea ; and it is unknown inwhat condition they will return. The merchants say, that this year one of the convoys named for theJamaica trade was at that time in the Sound.

The answer says, the queen’s ships have as often stayed for the merchants, as thev for their con-voys.: of which one instance is given in an annexed paper. The fact may he so, sometimes; butthe case mentioned in the paper is not of that sort; for then the merchant ships were lying in theDowns, together with the Assistance and Dunkirk prize, two of the ships of captain Kesr’s squadron,and were ready to sail, and did sail vvitli them to Spithead, where the rest of the squadron lay : andthough it may be asserted, that Mr. Kerr's ships were ready the ISth of February, at Spithead; yetit appears, that his instructions do not bear date till the 3d of March, 1706-7-

As to the third head, relating to the want of cruizers, the lords observed, that it is not the appoint-ing cruizers yearly which will protect trade ; but the careful and strict observation, that the ships ap-pointed for that purpose do cruize accordingly :

Whereas it appears, in the account of the disposition of the fleet laid before the house of lords, thatno ship was cruizing in the Soundings and Channel in the Months of June, July, August, and Sep--tember last, in which almost all the galleys and homeward-bound ships, whose loss is so heavilycomplained of by the merchants, were taken or destroyed.

The ninth paragraph of the answer relates to the loss of the Hampton-Court and Grafton men ofwar, which, together with the Royal-Oak, and the merchant ships under their convoy, sailed fromthe Downs the 1 st of May last.

The answer affirms, that notwithstanding what Mr. Dawson swore before the lords, that lie wastold at the Admiralty-office, on the 29 th of April last, the Dunkirk squadron was gone West-ward ; yet there was no notice at that time of the Dunkirk squadron, otherwise than that they werein the Flemish road : .wherefore, the three men of war, one of 76 , and the other two each of 70 guns,were judged a sufficient convoy from the Downs to Spithead. 0

Sir Benjamin AylofF, governor of the Muscovia company, and five of the committee of the samecompany, viz Mr. Randolph Knipe, Mr. Henry Phill, Mr. Josiah Wadsworth, Mr. Thomas Stiles,and Mr. Samuel Heathcot, beside Mr. Dawson, who was again sworn, did severally depose, that theydid attend the prince’s council the 2 yth day of April last, and then were told from the board, that thethree ships designed for them were sufficient tor their security, because the Dunkirk squadron wasgone Westward ; and four of them, viz. Sir Benjamin AylofF, Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. Styles, and Mr.Phill, swore, they believed admiral Churchill was the person who told them so ; but, as to that, theywere not positive.

This matter of fact being directly proved, by so many persons of unquestionable credit, the .lordscommittees think, that by the reasoning used in the answer, the prince’s council could not judge thethree men of war a sufficient convoy ; and, consequently, ought not to have suffered them to sail toWestward oil the 1 st of May, especially considering that, from time to time, notice had been sent from

L 2 the