HISTORY OF MARINE ARCHITECTURE.

3*i

the frame shall be set so close together, that on being caulked they shall becomewater-tight, when the same measure shall also be pursued with the internal lining,the quick succession of heat and cold, wet and dry, become completely obviated,and the cause of destruction being removed, the effect of preservation naturallyfollows. For this reason, Captain Schank delivers it as his serious opinion, thatvessels, constructed with his different improvements, would continue well fit forservice, one-third, at least, if not double the time, longer than they do at present.

It is worthy of remark, that the late Dr. Benjamin Franklin, whose greatphilosophical ingenuity and skill are too w r ell known to render any commentnecessary, in a letter to Alphonsus Le Roy, published in the second volume of theAmerican Transactions, makes a proposal for dividing vessels into compartmentsrendered water tight, almost exactly similar to that suggested by Captain Schank.

While on this topic of sinking,” says the Doctor, “ we cannot help recol-lecting the well-known practice of the Chinese to divide the hold of a greatship into a number of separate chambers, by partitions tight caulked, of whichyou gave a model in your boat upon the Seine ; so that if a leak should springin one of them, the others are not affected by it; and though the chambershould fill to a level with the sea, ( it would not be sufficient to sink the vessel.We have not imitated this practice ; some little disadvantage it might occasionin the stowage is perhaps one reason, though that I think might be more thancompensated bv an abatement in the insurance that would be reasonable, and bya higher price taken of pa sengers, who umuld rather prefer going in such avessel. But our sea-faring peuple are brave, despise danger, and reject suchprecautions of safety, being cowards only in one sense,—that of fearing to heafraid.”—When any new contrivance whatever becomes suggested at the sametime, in different parts of the world, by two men totally unknown to, and nothaving the smallest communication with each other, there arises, in the mostdoubtful cases, a strong presumption as to the propriety of the proposal. In thepresent instance, however, no such doubt can possibly have arisen , and thecircumstance of the two coinciding opinions is mentioned, rather for the purposeof shewing how wonderfully human ingenuity does, on a variety of occasions,tend precisely to the same point, than from any idea of the smallest corrobo-rating proof being necessary, as to the benefits to be expected from the recom-mended measure, which certainly carries with it what is called such internal evi-dence of its salutary use, as must render all argument in its favour tedious, andimpertinent.

The