tics of eloquence by which weak minds always deceive themselves, and endeavour to deceive others, we will not run the risk of im

pairing its face by reducing its bulk:

"It was deemed expedient that the portraits of Columbus and Vesputíus should be introduced into the present volume. The placing of that of Washington before these, could not have been justified. To commence the volume with it, therefore, was deemed inadmissible. What, then, was to be done? The following simple view of things settled this question; whether correctly or not, the public will judge.

"To be placed in the midst of a crowd, is no mark of distinction. In many, very many kinds of arrangement, the two places highest in honour are the first and the last. This principle was adopted as the rule of arrangement in the present instance. As the portrait of Washington, therefore, could not appear in the first, it was determined that it should occupy the second place of honour-the end of the volume.

"But Washington, during his lifetime, never entered himself into a frivolous contention about rank and station. He was above it; and left such little things' to 'little men.' Place him where you might, he was always first. He honoured every situation. No situation could either honour or dishonour him. On a throne or in a dungeon; in a palace or a cottage, he would have been still himself-the most distinguished of the human race. Call this hyperbolical, or even 'idolatrous' if you please: I pronounce it true."-pp. 16, 17.

Now if, during his life, Washington had chanced to take dinner with our author, we suppose he would have found ample excuse for thrusting him under the table, upon the principle that he never entered himself into a frivolous contention about rank and station.' 'Place him where you might, he would be always first. On a throne or in a dungeon; in a palace or a cottage (on a chair or under the table) he would have been still himself-the most distinguished of the human race.'-But we have a serious answer to all this rhodomontade. How could it escape a thinking intellect, that, after introducing the portraits of Columbus and Vesputius,' there was still a first place for the portraits of distinguished Americans? We cannot believe that he had forgotten the nativity of the two former; and none but a physician, we think, could have 'deemed it expedient' to place the life of Dr. Rush directly subsequent to that of Americus.

We can make but one more general remark upon the pamphlet before us. The style is, we think, much better than that of the Re

pository-though, at the same time, there is an affectation and stiffness and formality about it, which sufficiently indicate the place of its origin. When a writer is determined to be always balancing clauses of sentences, he generally produces ten tautologies for one antithesis. The author before us not only commits this offence throughout the whole of his Reply, but is now and then guilty of another still more inexcusable-that of writing two sentences in direct sequence, which are merely the echoes of one another. Thus, to go no farther than the initial paragraph, the first sentence is, conscious, as you are, that I have received from you, nothing but the extreme of the bluntness of modern manners, you can scarcely, I think, expect from me, the courtly forms of ancient chivalry, in reciprocating your salutation. Nor (as if he had something new to say)-Nor will you be surprised (no, for he had just told us we could not expect' any thing else)-Nor will you be surprised at my unceremonious deportment in returning your assault, (' in reciprocating your salutation' before) recollecting, as you must ('conscious, as you are,' in the other sentence) that, instead of having announced to me, by a knightly summons, the attack you meditated, you apprised me of your intention only in the blow.' Our objection to all this has nothing to do with the meaning or applicableness of the sentiments; for what the author can be alluding to by his knightly summons,' and courtly forms of ancient chivalry,' we are utterly incapable of perceiving. Indeed we suspect this introduction has been appropriated to the wrong book; and, if our author does really imitate Cicero, and some other ancients, in keeping a store of exordiums on hand, we advise him to exercise a little discretion in prefixing them to the works he may have occasion to publish.

We have neither space nor disposition to enter upon the less important topics of the Reply. We have already proceeded too far on this subject: no consideration can influence us to resume it; and if Doctor C. feels inclined to execute his divers menaces, by exhausting another "phial of wrath" upon our heads, we have only to tell him, "pour on-we will endure."

CHRONICLE.

EXPENDITURES OF THE BRITISH NAVY.

In the year 1810, a letter was written to lord Melville, first lord of the admiralty, by Wm. Budge, esq. one of the commissioners of the British navy, pointing out various abuses and mistakes in the administration of that department. It does not appear that his representations were attended to, however; on the contrary, an only opportunity was made use of to get rid of this troublesome commissioner. He was shortly afterwards set aside, as superannuated, while drinking the Bath waters, for some temporary complaint. We will give a few extracts from this letter, as they furnish some valuable hints that may be useful to the naval establishment in this country.

Speaking of building vessels of war by contract, he says— "I have endeavoured to ascertain the probable difference, and I find that a 74 gun ship, of 1741 tons, is estimated, in the king's yard, at 287. 108. per ton, which is 57. less than is paid in the merchants' yards-or 87051. upon the ship: so that if this estimate is correct, the crown will pay 235,0351. more for the twenty-seven seventy-fours yet building in the merchants' yards, than would be paid for building the same number in the king's yards. Besides, the difference of expense in the prime cost of the ships, there is a point connected with the measure, of still greater importance, and that is, the difference in the construction and durability of the ship, which, I am told, may fairly be reckoned at five pounds per ton, at least, in favour of the king's built ship."

After noticing other misapplications of the public monies, he estimates the aggregate loss to the public, in building the twenty-seven seventy-fours, by private contract, at 470,0701.

In noticing the mania for building new ships, at that time, Mr. Budge observes-"In truth it would seem as if we were determined, notwithstanding our immense superiority, to build two ships to one of the enemy." These new ships, he says, "are often laid up after being launched, and sometimes rot at their moorings in our own ports. At this time there is a ship (the Gladiator, a 44, launched in 1783) which has never been at sea. The fact is extraordinary, particularly, as she is built after a good model, and, of her class, is a desirable ship. This is one instance in proof of what may happen, to the prejudice of the public, by ships being forgotten, or neglected, when once laid up in ordinary."" Economy is much talked of," he continues," though I fear the necessity of it is not considered; otherwise, a more minute attention would be given to the navy estimates, which now amount to the sum of 19,826,810l. This is only 120,1901. less than the whole expenditure of the country in 1794."

In the year 1809, he says-" In the article of victuals there was an increase of 1,774,500l. on the sum voted in 1808. The ordinary was also increased by a sum of 265,477.; and there was an increase in the transport service of 242,500; yet all passed in silence in the legislature, without investigation. Another fact, which is equally extraordinary, passed also without being noticed. Under the head of wear and tear of ships, there was a diminution to the amount of 1,704,570. upon the vote of the preceding year. So that it seems to be of no consequence whether millions be added, or substracted from the annual expense of this most important and extensive branch of the public service."" How. this great reduction of expense in the wear and tear of ships can be explained," proceeds the writer, "I cannot conceive, looking at it comparatively with the other heads of expense. It is even 1,387,500l. less than the sum voted for wear and tear in 1806, though the increase upon the whole estimate, for 1809, is 3,709,1261. more than the estimate for 1806."

We have not room for more extracts; but the whole letter is full of practical information, and exhibits sufficient proofs of the abuses that seem inevitably to insinuate themselves into all old systems. If the revolutions of governments did not cost so much blood, the situation of mankind would certainly be bettered if they happened a little oftener. Old systems are like old buildings, which gradually become the receptacle of rats, and various other vermin, that gradually enlarge their holes, to make room for their plunder, until, at last, the old fabric, weakened by their increasing

dilapidations, tumbles about their ears. Those, whose interest prompts them to desert in time, escape; but the clumsy dormice of the pile are buried in the ruins.

LETTERS OF PAUL JONES.

SINCE the publication of our sketch of the life of Paul Jones, we have received, from the hands of a friend, a letter book, containing copies of captain Jones' letters, from March 1778, to July 1779, inclusively. Had we received them before, they would have enabled us to furnish many additional particulars. We shall occasionally insert some of the most interesting of these, not only as they throw light on his character, and prove him in habits of correspondence with persons of the highest distinction, but, in addi tion to this, throw considerable light upon many public transactions of the times; and, from their style, furnish evident proofs of a cultivated understanding. The letter below, addressed to the marquis de Nieuil, is written in the most courtly style.

TO THE MARQUIS DE NIEUIL.

Dauphin Royale, Brest, 9th June, 1778. Were I disposed to be affronted with you, marquis, you have given me a fair opportunity; but, fortunately for you, being at present under a cloud, I am not mounted on Pegasus, nor shall I be satirical in prose.

Since you have endeavoured to prove, by great force of reason and argument, that you have made a bad bargain, I am determined to realise your "dream," as a punishment for your breach of friendship, for you know there is no friendship in trade. I intend to dine with you every day, if possible, and I will bring father John with me too, if I can; so that, as you will not save your wine, you have made a bad bargain indeed.

I thank you for your friendly caution to use the wine you have sent me with moderation. As I am to drink so much on board the Dauphin, and as I do not incline to drink in the morning, your advice shall have its due effect. Some of your champaigne will, perhaps, be reserved to make glad the hearts of our American fair; and I hope, on such occasions, to have so much "remembrance" left, as to propose the health of the giver.

I am, &c.

J. P. JONES.