length, fixed obliquely upwards from the bottom of this gallery against this obliquely projecting part of the side, with no more space betwixt them in all directions than should be found necessary for the free movement of men when rowing together, a quincunx or chequer order would be formed, with all the above-mentioned requisites, to the highest degree of advantage which could co-exist consistent with each other.” It is not easy to understand the General’s scheme by this description of it. He lays down, practically enough, some essential points which require to be considered; but while the oar adapted for the lowest banks might be “sufficiently manageable,” the oars of the upper banks, even if well balanced, could not be effectively worked by one man. Nor is it easy to understand what is meant by “rows of horizontal seats, of about two feet in length, fixed obliquely upwards from the bottom of this gallery.” However, the General caused a model of a quinquereme to be erected against a high wall belonging to his house in London, which was of the same proportions as would have been required for a “fifth part of a real galley.” The model is said to “have held, in a very small space, but with sufficient ease, the rowers of five tiers, of six men in each, lengthways, making one-fifth the rowers on each side of a quinquereme, according to Polybius, who mentions three hundred as the whole number of rowers in it, besides one hundred and twenty fighting men.” But this further explanation does not assist in the elucidation of his theory of “one man to each oar.” On the contrary, it rather tends to confuse, unless the General means that there were one hundred and fifty row-ports on each side of the quinquereme mentioned by Polybius, which would be absurd. But the impracticability of the whole plan is shown when an examination is made of the space that would be required to place, single file, three hundred rowers at the oars of a quinquereme.