founded on the number of decks, and which so particularly characterizes the abstract of 1677, is destroyed.

The number of decks of a fighting ship is generally considered to be a tolerable criterion of her force; and, if every ship of war notoriously mounted the same number and nature of guns upon a deck, the expression, single-decker, two-decker, or three-decker, would be thoroughly understood. By this a deal of circumlocution, and of private, as well as of international bickering would be saved. As, however, ships' decks vary in length from 70 or 80, to upwards of 200 feet; and ships' guns, in caliber and weight, from the 3-pounder of 11, to the 42-pounder of 65 cwt., the simple term, one, two, or three-decker explains nothing. A strong instance, that occurs in the abstract of 1677, will illustrate this. There the three-decker, No. 12, is classed above the two-decker, No. 13 ;* and no one would imagine, that a second-rate, of three decks, was not of greater force than a third-rate, of two decks. The first discovery to the contrary is, that the two-decker mounts the greater number of guns ; but that is only by a seventh : the next discovery is, that, in broadside-weight of metal, she is the more formidable ship by nearly a third ; that of the 64 being 511, of the 74, 751 lbs.

Let us suppose, for argument sake, that some such expressions as these were in use: "A 10-port two-decker," " A 13, or a 14 port two-decker." Anyone of these three terms ought to enable as to get at the total number of guns in the ship, as readily as if, according to the former supposititious case, all ships' decks were armed alike. Take a person, wholly unacquainted with naval technicalities, and, pointing to the ship, No. 7, � as she lies on the water, ask him what number of decks she has. He replies, Two." If he takes the pains to count her guns, he will agree with you, that she is a "10-port two-decker." Show him, next, No. 4, and ask him what she is. After a slight pause, he will say, "A 13-port three-decker, that seems to want four ports in the middle of her upper deck."

You smile at this double mistake of the landman's ; and, as the best mode of convincing him of his error, carry him on board the ship. As he stands on the gangway, looking with wonder above, around, and below him, you, pointing down the waist, ask him what is the name of that deck? He answers you, "The lower;" or, if his eyes can penetrate the hatchway below, or his recollection furnish him with the number of tiers of cannon he counted when on shore, be may reply, "The middle deck." You assure him that the deck he is looking down upon is the upper deck. He raises his eyes towards the deck on which he is standing. You tell him that is the quarter deck. "Quarter!" he may think, if not exclaim, " why it extends over more than half the ship, and only wants planking up in the middle to be the

* See Appendix, No. 1.

� See the short abstract at p. 10