Is it that the race of kings has degenerated, or that lions have increased in size?

In Edward III.'s reign Dartmouth was strong in ships. In 1347, during the siege of Calais, it furnished 31 ships and 757 mariners, the largest number but that sent by two towns, namely, Fowey and Yarmouth. The former sent the greatest number of ships--47; the latter the largest number of men -1905. There were 84 towns in all that contributed, the last in the list being Mersey, or Merton, which sent one ship and six men only.

In 1377 the town was burnt and destroyed by a powerful army from France, and was again, thirty years afterwards, assaulted by a M. du Chastel and a French admiral. They were received in a way they did not expect; for we are told that the "townsmen and inhabitants behaved themselves so gallantly, and received the enemy with such intrepidity, that they were glad to regain their ships, with the loss of 400 killed and 200 taken prisoners, among whom were several persons of distinction, especially the Lord du Chastel, their commander."

In the fifteenth century there appears no reason, beyond the natural advantages of the port, for its commercial importance; but in the sixteenth we have a clearer cause in view. Probably some of the first or most prominent of the Newfoundland adventurers came from this place. That island was discovered in 1497, and in 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert, who was born on the banks of the Dart, received from Queen Elizabeth a patent conveying to him certain rights and privileges on the island. He died on his way back to England, the vessel having foundered on the banks of Newfoundland.

Dartmouth has always been intimately connected with this island, and to a certain extent is so still; and during the last century some of the largest fortunes amassed in Dartmouth were almost exclusively derived from that source.

Dartmouth does not figure in history from the time of Edward III. or Richard II. till the war broke out between King Charles and his Parliament. Dartmouth declared for the latter, and although badly situated for defence, it held out against Prince Maurice for one month and four days. The town was afterwards garrisoned for the king, and three years afterwards Sir Thomas Fairfax deemed it a place of too much importance to pass by in his way to Cornwall. Sir Thomas halted at Totnes on his way to Dartmouth, and sent two regiments from thence to take the town, which was "stormed by him in person, when it was taken, with its Castle, Town

stal Church, Mount Boone, and Kingswear Fort, assisted by the fleet under Admiral Batten."

BUILDINGS.-There are three buildings in the town that I will briefly notice: they are S. Saviour's Church, the Castle, and the Butter-walk; the last-named was erected by a person named Hayman, in 1635, whose arms still exist in one of the houses. It consists of five houses, forming a sort of piazza, the front being supported by a row of stone pillars, on the tops of which are some of the signs of the Zodiac curiously carved. All these houses formerly communicated with each other, and it is said they were built for five daughters of the designer. The interior is full of quaint carvings and curious ceilings, and will well repay a visit.

S. Saviour's Church is the only one I can recommend strangers to visit. The one at the Castle, S. Petrox, either never had any architectural beauty, or it has been so defaced that it cannot now be seen. There exists there, however, an old Saxon font, specimens of which may be found in some neighbouring churches. It is curious how entirely different the pillars and arches are as you approach the chancel to what they are at the western end. Those which appear the more modern are very curious. The chancel and some part of the church were built by Hawley; and there is supposed to exist a deed, dated 1372, wherein the mayor and corporation agreed to keep it in order. The curiosity of the arches and pillars consists in the arches being rounded like Norman ones of far anterior date; while the pillars are a true type of the 14th century, when this part was built. The screen is very handsome, and is said by some to have been taken from a Spanish ship. It is certainly like many seen in Spain, and its colouring and that of the pulpit is quite in Byzantine style. The pulpit is of stone, and very beautiful. The iron work on the South door is a great curiosity; and is coeval with the church. The date (1639) is wrong, and it is explained in various ways. If restored with its beautifully-laid ground plan, our old church would rank high among the churches of Devon.

FORT. The fort now at the mouth of the harbour is quite modern, though there are remains of old buildings near. There was an old office of Governor of the Castle of Dartmouth, which is now disused. The Prince of Orange when he landed at Brixham gave a warrant (still, I believe, in existence) to one Nicholas Roope to take charge of the castle on behalf of the Prince. The mouth of the harbour was further guarded by a chain stretched across it. In 1725 the

office of Governor was given to Fort-Major Arthur Holdsworth, and it continued in that family till 1860. When the late Governor died the office became extinct. The last Governor held the office just fifty years, though since 1832 no pay has been attached to the office.

With a few words about two great sons of Dartmouth I conclude; they are Newcomin and Hawley. Newcomin was an ironmonger of this town, and was assisted by a plumber of the same place named Cawley. In 1705 they took out a patent, and by 1713 had a really good working engine. It is thus summed up in Reid's work on the steam-engine: "Though now superseded by Watt's, Newcomin's engine ought never to be forgotten; and as the raw material from which Watt constructed his admirable engine, it cannot be too highly estimated. It was used exclusively for sixty-two years, and for a considerable time afterwards was much employed."

For nearly one hundred years it was the chief hydraulic machine for draining mines. The house where Newcomin lived was standing six years ago, but is now pulled down. The carving was taken out by the late Governor Holdsworth, and placed in a room at Brookhill, where it may now be seen in a very interesting state.

John Hawley was born in Dartmouth. Here he traded, and was so successful that the winds, by an old saying, were said to blow always in his favour from every quarter of the world. He is said to have got the lions put in the coat of arms of the town. About this, however, there is a doubt, as the privilege of bearing the lions in their shield was given at too early a date for Hawley to have been able to ask for them. He is said to have been asked by King Richard what reward he would have for some services rendered by him to the State, and he replied that his humble desire was, that his town might bear some badge of Royal bounty.

He was no less a soldier than a merchant, as may be guessed by his being pourtrayed on his tomb like a knight in armour, not in robes of peace. He was twice married, and lies buried within the chancel he built, in a tomb on which is inlaid in brass the figure of himself armed cap-à-pie, between his two wives, each under a very fine canopy of brass, over which were some engraved shields, long since embezzled. He was a man whose name, if it stands not high in the list of warriors, yet does so in perhaps a nobler list,-that of men who have given up private gains for the welfare and advantage of their neighbours.

STRICTURES ON MICROSCOPIC PHILOSOPHIZING.

BY JAMES JERWOOD, M.A.,

Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of South Molton, &c.

Ir a person were to examine an object placed at a proper distance for observation, and another person having the same distinctness of vision were to view it at a much greater distance, and a third person having the same powers of eyesight were to examine it through a microscope, and were each person to describe the object according to the impression which it had conveyed, their descriptions would all differ amongst themselves; and were they each to give their descriptions of the object without stating the circumstances under which they had viewed and examined it, their description would obviously form matter of dispute, not only among readers generally, but also amongst themselves.

Bishop Berkely says: "Take an inch marked on a ruler; view it successively at the distance of half a foot, a foot, a foot and half from the eye, at each of which, and at all the intermediate, distances there shall be more or fewer points discerned in it. Now, I ask, which of all these various extensions is that stated determinate one that is agreed on for a common measure of the other magnitudes?" In this instance, if the inch were viewed at the several distances by different persons having the same clearness of vision, its number of points would appear different to each observer; and were they each to describe the inch as it had appeared, it is quite clear that their descriptions would not agree; very probably each observer would maintain that the others were wrong, and that he alone was right.

What has been said perhaps renders it pretty manifest, that before the observers can agree in their descriptions of an object viewed, they must be brought acquainted with the particular circumstances under which it has been respectively examined, and must modify their descriptions accordingly.

The simple theory of microscopes may be thus briefly explained. If an object be placed in the focus of a convex

F

E

B

lens, and the eye be at a proper distance for vision on the other side, the object will appear distinct and erect, and it will be magnified in the ratio of the focal distance of the lens to the common distance of distinct vision—that is, about eight inches or thus, suppose an object AB to be placed in the focus F of a small glass sphere, and the A eye behind it in the focus G. The object will appear distinct and in an erect position, and it will, moreover, be increased in magnitude in the ratio of ths of EI to 8 inches. Let the diameter EI=th of an inch, then CE=th and EF=CE=; hence CF = : 8: the natural size: the magnified appearance, or 3: 320 :: 1: 1063; that is, the object is magnified nearly 107 times. This explanation applies to single microscopes; but it will be obvious from this simple ex

3 ·

ample that this trifling difference in the power of the lens will very considerably increase or diminish the magnified appearance. The same remark applies, taking their complex construction into account, to the various kinds of compound microscopes which are generally used in philosophical inquiries.

A globular object which is less thanth of an inch in diameter is to most eyes totally invisible; an object which is oth of an inch in diameter subtends an angle of one minute at the distance of 8 inches from the eye: no object, therefore, less thanth of an inch in diameter can be seen by common eyes. (Encyc. Metrop. Optics, p. 425.)

To the generality of eyes the nearest distance of distinct vision is, as before observed, about 8 inches, called the minimum visible. Some eyes, however, can see small objects best at the distance of 6, 4, or even 3 inches; whilst others can see most distinctly at 12 or 15 inches.

Now, suppose the above sphere to be used by each of these persons,

From these very simple illustrations it will be obvious that a small object viewed by the same person through different microscopes will not appear to be the same. Also, that if the