possession.  Two baidars belonging to the port, and hauled on shore at
    a low sandy point of land, would be an additional proof of the infancy
    of this colony; if, at the same time, you did not perceive the wreck
    of a three-masted ship, bearing evident marks of having been in its
    present condition for some years.  This is the Slawa Rossi, the ship
    which Captain Billing commanded, but which, after the completion of
    his voyage, foundered in the harbour from want of care.  The appearance
    immediately brings to mind the celebrated Behring, who, seventy years
    before, commenced his voyage of discovery from this port; But not only
    the two baidars, but the sinking of the ship itself, are too clear a
    proof that the nautical concerns of this colony are still in a state
    of infancy.”  Krusenstern’s descriptions, we see, come after King’s,
    somewhat in the manner of Holbein’s Dance of Death, after whatever was
    promising or agreeable!—­E.

[85] In Mr Coxe’s work, we have accounts of three voyages subsequent to
    Synd’s, viz. those of Shelekof, of Ismaelof and Betsharoff, and of
    Billings, all of which were performed betwixt 1778 and 1792.  The
    second of these, according to Mr Coxe’s opinion, is by far the most
    interesting of any yet made by the Russians.  The last, which was of
    very long continuance, and occasioned an enormous expence to the
    government, did not fully answer the expectations entertained of it. 
    The commander, an Englishman, is not spoken highly of by Krusenstern,
    who tells us, indeed, that, among the Russian naval officers, there
    were many who would have conducted the expedition much more creditably
    than he did.  This may, no doubt, be very true.  But how comes it, that
    they were not known in time to be employed?  Or, admitting that they
    were known for superiority of talents, but that some reasons,
    independent of any consideration of respective qualifications, decided
    against their being employed, who was to blame, it may be asked, in
    selecting an incompetent, or at least an inferior person, for the
    command of so important an undertaking?  Captain Krusenstern may be a
    very able officer; indeed, no one can read his work without
    entertaining a high opinion of his moral and professional character. 
    It is shrewdly to be suspected, however, that he is somewhat deficient
    in that prophetic eye of wise policy, which at one glance can
    ascertain the effects and consequences of one’s own assertions and
    reasonings.  It is not thought advisable to enter upon the
    consideration of the subject now adverted to by Captain King, as a
    fitter opportunity will in all probability present itself for the
    necessary discussion.—­E.