It is to be hoped, therefore, that His Royal Highness the Lord High Admiral will extend to this most important national institution, the School of Naval Architecture, the same vigilant and scrutinizing eye that every other branch of our naval system is at this moment experiencing from him, and that he will extend to it that fair play and encouragement which has hitherto been denied to it. As a seaman, he can fully appreciate and understand how much the bad qualities of a ship may neutralize the best exertions of the most experienced and skilful sailor; and, on the contrary, what a degree of confidence may be insured in naval operations with excellent ships. We feel persuaded, therefore, that he will not allow others to think for him in a matter of so much national importance, and thus allow private ends to interpose to the disadvantage of public views; but that he will investigate and judge for himself. We would humbly suggest to His Royal Highness to inquire into the individual acquirements and productions, both of a _theoretical_ and _practical_ nature, of those who have been educated in this establishment, and he would soon be able to decide whether they be fitting or not for the important task of constructing our ships, and for the confidence and protection which we think we have shown has hitherto been ill-advisedly withheld from them. Such a line of conduct would very soon carry our naval architecture to a pitch of excellence _worthy_ of imitation, and instead of being indebted to foreigners for models, we should be able, with just pride, to point to the productions of British science and intellect in this noble art. FOOTNOTES: [7] By referring to Lloyd’s List, it will appear, upon a moderate average, that _three_ English merchant vessels are lost every _two_ days! [8] See No. II. of the Naval and Military Magazine, published in June last. [9] This will be readily acknowledged by those who will choose to read the “Papers on Naval Architecture,” and the “Essays and Gleanings on Naval Architecture,” two periodical works proceeding from the members of this institution. [10] See the Third Report of the Commissioners of Naval Revision, and the Resolutions of the Society for the Improvement of Naval Architecture, in which the old system of providing ship-builders for the Royal Navy is condemned in the most unqualified terms. [11] Vide No. 1 of the Papers on Naval Architecture. [12] Vide Annals of Philosophy, for November, 1826; No. 1 of the Papers on Naval Architecture, and No. 11 of the Essays and Gleanings on Naval Architecture. [13] Foreign nations, and more particularly the Americans, find their advantage in having swift merchant ships, and therefore our assertion is warranted by facts. [14] Caledonia, length 205 feet, breadth 53.5; Royal George, length 187 feet, breadth 52.33 feet; Queen Charlotte, length 190 feet, breadth 52.33 feet.