which that ill-fated vessel was built, now came forward and declared how they had always been of opinion that the construction was faulty, and was certain to lead to the catastrophe that had overtaken her. The very newspapers that had written leading article after leading article to prove that the advocates of the old mode of ship-building knew nothing about the art to which their lives had been devoted, but were mere antediluvian old-fogies, and were influenced in their opposition to the new lines of the Precursor solely by envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, now presented their readers with learned disquisitions on the glaring faults in build of the unfortunate vessel, how her centre of gravity was placed too high or too low, how she was over-masted or under-masted, how she should have had two keels or a broad bottom, or something or other which she either had or had not; for, as they evidently knew nothing at all about ship-building, and least of all about the Precursor's real construction, one thing was just as good as another to allege respecting her. One intelligent writer contended that the principles on which she had been built were the best possible, only that she should have had an out-rigger on either side, to prevent her heeling over in a gale. In short, so much wisdom and prescience—after the event—were displayed on all sides, that it was a wonder to me that the Precursor was ever allowed to go to sea, or, having gone, that she could ever have sailed a mile, or having sailed so much, that she had not stood out against every gale whatsoever; which she would undoubtedly have done, had the advice of these omniscient critics—which was never given—been taken.
Some who had committed themselves too completely to the advocacy of the novel construction of the Pre-
