HISTORY OF MARINE ARCHITECTURE.

81

awe them from putting to sea, in such a situation as to render the attempt dan-gerous, if not impracticable. Repeated experiment had shewn the impossibility

of

Mr. Coward deposed, that his ships were nor taken by the month, as the answer alleged ; but thecontract was at £- 3 . a ton, directly to Jamaica ; which might have been .performed in seven weeks :whereas, by means of the deviations complained of, they have been detained ever since the 15th ofNovember, 1706, and were in Ireland at the time the complaint was made; whereby the ships areruined, and left at mercy, as to any satisfaction.

The lpth paragraph takes notice how far Mr. Palmer had forgot himself, and imposed upon tirelords in his deposition : for that the Litchfield prize did net arrive at Portsmouth till the 7th of June ;whereas, Sir Cloudesley Shovel was off Lisbon tire ptli of June ; and therefore it was not possible thatthe Litchfield prize should have joined him at Plymouth.

Mr. Palmer being examined as to this particular, said, that in tin's complaint it was alleged, theLitchfield prize came to Spithead the 7th nf July, not of June, as it is repeated in the answer ; butowned his mistake in saying, “ If die Litchfield prize might have proceeded to Plymouth, the corn-ships might have joined Sir Cloudesley Shovel's whereas, he meant to have -said, the transport Jleet,

which at that time lay at Plymouth bound ro Portugal.

To shew that it was a mere mistake, lie produced to the lords three original letters from Ports-mouth, wrote by his master, Samuel Riccard, dated the 7th, 12th, and 26th of July, which men-tion the transportfleet, which had lain for a considerable time at Plymouth ; aud, as those letterssay, sailed for Portugal about that time.

The 20th paragraph, affirming that tbe article in the Gazette of the Stb of May, 1707• which themerchants bad produced, was very ignorantly and unadvisedly inserted, tlve fact being entirely wrong ;the lords committees thought fit to be informed how that passage came to be put into the Gazette;and upon examination it appeared, that Mr. Stepney, the 12th of May, new stile, wrote a lettetfrom Antwerp to the earl of Sunderland, at the solicitations of some considerable traders there, repre-senting the hardships they lay under for want nf convoy from Ostend, (though it had been promised,and several times notified on the Exchange of London), to their great loss and discouragement, andwhat was like to have an ill influence on that trade, which was in a way of being better es-tablisliedthan ever : and that afterward, upon the arrival of that fleet at Ostend, Mr. Stepney wrote anotherletter to the carl of Sunderland, dated the 14th of May, new stile, the very words of which secondletter are those transcribed into the Gazette.

The complaint of the merchants, in relation to tire Virginia trade, consisted of many particulars,none of which seem to tlve lords committees to be answered, or excused, by what is alleged by the22d, 23d, or 24th paragraphs of the answer; nor by the paper to which the 23d paragraph doesrefer.

The 25th and 26th paragraphs of the answer, which relate to the complaint of Mr. John Woodof the difficulties and delays he met with in getting his vessels, laden with corn, to Portsmouth,containing nothing in particular besides one matter of fact, viz. that the Charles galley and theGosport, the two convoys for tire corn-ships na .Spitliead, were so for froau rustling from the trade,as was falsely and TnaHcioosJy insumaJcd by Mr. Wood, that dicy kept ihc merchant-slaps com-

pany,

m