very circumstance which obtained for him the appointment to a responsible office in an expedition, which, in its origin, progress, and issue, attracted the peculiar regard of the British government, and the admiration of mankind in general.  Besides this office, it may be mentioned, that in 1745, on his return from the expedition, he was made chaplain of Portsmouth dock-yard, in which situation he continued till his death on March 10th, 1785.  The first edition of the work appeared in 1748; and a fifth being required in the following year, Mr Robins, it is said, revised it, and intended, had he remained in England, to have added a second volume.  This rests on the assertion of Dr Wilson, who published Mr Robins’ works after his death, in 2 vols. 8vo. 1761; and who, in the account of that gentleman’s life prefixed, has been at pains to claim, in the strongest language, the merit of the Narrative for his friend.  A passage or two from that memoir may satisfy the reader as to this part of the evidence, and as to the opinion of Dr W. one of the principal witnesses, respecting the proportional labours of Messrs Walter and Robins.  “Upon a strict perusal of both the performances,” says he, “I find Mr Robins’ to contain about as much matter again as that of Mr Walter—­so this famous Voyage was composed in the person of the Centurion’s chaplain, by Mr Robins in his own style and manner.  Of this Mr Robins’ friends, Mr Glover and Mr Ockenden, are witnesses as well as myself, we having compared the printed book with Mr Walter’s manuscript.  And this was at that time no secret, for in the counterpart of an indenture, now lying before me, made between Benjamin Robins, Esq. and John and Paul Knapton, booksellers, I find that those booksellers purchased the copy of this book from Mr Robins, as the sole proprietor, with no other mention of Mr Walter than a proviso in relation to the subscriptions he had taken.”  Dr Wilson evidently writes under some conviction that his assertions are liable to scrutiny, and that the matter of his remarks is debatable; hence his allegation that other friends of Mr Robins are witnesses as well as himself, and his insinuation that what he testifies was no secret.  But it is obvious, that, were his own assertions of the fact at all questionable, he would be equally obnoxious to discredit in assigning these other witnesses; for clearly, the man who could falsify in the one case, would be capable of doing so in the other.  This may be said without any impeachment whatever of either Dr Wilson or the other friends of Mr Robins.  It is merely a remark on the mode of proof which the Dr has adopted.  As to the insinuation again, of the fact being no secret, all that it may be requisite to say is simply this, that the circumstance of the existence of the counterpart of such an indenture as is mentioned, is a very indifferent proof of publicity; and that even were it otherwise, were it “confirmation strong,” still it might be readily conceived that Mr Robins should be