must be taken into dock. Arriving at Deptford for that purpose, it was found necessary to pay her off, and soon after to break her up; and it was ascertained on inquiry, that she had had new decks and top sides, while her bottom was rotten; and that she was not inspected according to the rules of the service, by taking out some of the bottom planks, to look at the state of the timbers. Thus the first cost of the ship

Materials and workmanship
Furniture and stores

2,2417.

8,273

4,731

making the cost of this crazy vessel come to more than a new frigate of thirty-two guns, besides the time lost in equipping her, and the imminent risk of her foundering.

The seventh report takes into consideration the state of the naval hospital at Stone-house, near Plymouth, and the Caton hospital ship, where a scene of fraud was discovered, which could not have been too speedily checked, and proves to what a shameful excess the hope of impunity had carried these servants of the public. None, we think, can read this report, without being convinced of the benefits derived to the service in general, from the patient investigation of these institutions, which from that time, May, 1803, became so cleansed and purified, and thoroughly reformed, that even an officer, be his rank what it may, cannot go to a safer, more certain, or more

comfortable asylum for the cure of wounds or disease, than a royal naval hospital.

The eighth report regards the victualling department at Plymouth, and displays a scene of peculation which could scarcely be credited, and proves the necessity of the most rigid inspection.

The ninth report continues to investigate the receipt and expenditure of stores at the same port; great abuses were discovered in the receipt of the articles of timber, hemp, and coals, and also in the article of paint-work.

The tenth report was one of more than common interest, relating to the office of treasurer of his Majesty's navy, during the time it was held by the late Lord Melville. This report caused the resignation of his Lordship of his office as first lord of the admiralty, which he held at the time the proceedings of the commissioners were laid before parliament, April, 1805. On the 8th of that month, Mr. Whitbread moved his resolutions in the house of commons, which, after one of the most able debates ever witnessed in that house, was carried against Lord Melville by the speaker's vote, there being two hundred and sixteen on each side; in consequence of which, on the 10th, Mr. Pitt acquainted the house, that his Lordship's name was erased from the list of privy-counsellors; and on the 25th June, it was decided that he should be impeached. The process of that famous trial is too well known to be here repeated; his Lordship

was acquitted by the peers, but did not resume his situation as first lord of the admiralty, in which, it must be admitted, he had proved himself a great benefactor to the navy.

The eleventh report related to the issue of navy bills, for the purpose of raising money; loss from the mode of paying the interest on navy and transport bills; and money imprested by the navyboard, for secret naval services.

The twelfth report relates to the purchase of hemp, masts, and fir, for the use of the navy. These two reports disclosed much matter advantageous to the public service, without attaching any great degree of blame to individuals.

The perseverance and fortitude exhibited by the framers of this bill entitle them to the thanks of their country; the ability with which it was carried into effect, and the independence displayed by parliament, have been celebrated even by our political enemies. See Dupin, tom. 3me.

November 21, Vice-admiral Sir William Parker was tried by a court-martial at Portsmouth, on a charge of having sent his flag-ship, the America, of sixty-four guns, and the Cleopatra frigate, to cruise beyond the limits of the Halifax station, on which he commanded. The question arose in consequence of the loss of the America, she having ran on the shoals called Las Farmigas, and having been with great difficulty got into Port Royal harbour, grounded on the mud, and there remained.

The court was of opinion, that the Admiral was justified in sending the ships to the southward, but indiscreet in his detailed instructions for her return within the limits of her station; and declared the general character of Sir William Parker to be such, as to preclude the idea of his having been influenced by any motive unconnected with the good of the service; he was, therefore, most honourably acquitted.

It would now be extremely difficult to divert the services of a ship from her proper station, as the limits of each are so distinctly drawn. We can well remember when it was a practice for the Newfoundland cruisers to run as far to the southward as 17° north, this being evidently an improper practice, was discontinued.

A case of great importance to the naval and commercial world, was decided in the year 1802.

The vice-admiralty court of Nassau, New Providence, one of the Bahama islands, had condemned an American, going from the United States to a port in the Spanish colonies, upon the ground that the articles of innocent merchandise, composing the cargo, though really neutral property, were of the growth of Spain,

This principle having been sanctioned, exposed the American trade, particularly in the West Indies, to continual capture and condemnation.

On the representation of Mr. King, the case was more attentively considered, and the decree reversed at home. The reasons assigned for the

ultimate decision of government are worthy of notice, particularly to the naval reader. The captors, it appears, were vindicated by what was termed the belligerent's right to distress his enemy, by interrupting his supplies; and the law of nations, acknowledged in the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, between the United States and Great Britain, which allows the goods of an enemy to be lawful prize, and pronounces those of a friend to be free.

This Mr. King admitted, but in virtue of the ancient law of nations, claimed the protection of innocent merchandise, while he abandoned to belligerents the goods of his enemy; contending, with strict propriety, that the belligerent had no better authority to curtail the rights of neutrals, than the latter had to infringe on those of the belligerent.

On this subject a letter was addressed by the Duke of Portland to the lords commissioners of the admiralty, with an extract from the report of the advocate-general.

MY LORDS,

Whitehall, March 30, 1801.

I transmit to your lordships herewith, a copy of the decree of the vice-admiralty court of Nassau, condemning the cargo of an American vessel, going from the United States to a port in the Spanish colonies; and the said decree having been referred to the consideration of the King's advocate-general, your lordships will perceive from his report, an extract from which I enclose, that it is his opinion, that the sentence of the vice-admiralty court is erroneous, and founded in a misapprehension or misapplication of the principles laid down in the decision of the