nation, to forbear exposing their trickery, because it may suit the Americans to invent any falsehoods, no matter how bare-faced, to foist a valiant character upon themselves?"

"The number of prisoners delivered to the agent at Bermuda was four hundred and thirty-four. Add to these, beside the thirty-five acknowledged by the American officers to have been killed, six or seven too badly wounded to be removed, and we have four hundred and seventy-five as the President's complement; just two less than were named in her watch-bill. Yet Commodore Decatur, and two of his officers, swore before the surrogate, that the President had about four hundred and fifty, but certainly not four hundred and sixty men, when the action commenced.' The consequence of this oath this American oath was, that the captors got head-money for four hundred and fifty men only; when there was proof positive (namely, Mr. James's word) that four hundred and sixty-nine, and every probability that four hundred and seventyseven men were in the ship at the time stated."..." However, the American Commodore in all he said was believed, and for all he had done was commended, in the quarter to which alone, beside his own conscience—and that probably was not an over squeamish one-he considered himself responsible." "This moral and religious people actually grew rich, and great, commercially great, at least, out of that which depopulated Europe, which robbed the wife of her husband, and the child of its father." Vol. vi., pp. 78, 106, 366,

14.

...

We need hardly observe that this language is neither appropriate to history, nor likely to gain for its author the respect and confidence of his readers.

The effect of such abusive writing upon the public feeling in this country towards England is, at all times, but particularly at the present moment, deeply to be deplored. It may be doubted how far this sacrifice of decency and truth to the promptings of a spurious patriotism can be justified in the mind of the writer himself; or whether he can escape the upbraidings of his own conscience for having violated the sacredness of history, to gratify a feeling of personal malignity.

Although Mr. James has lost all claim to lenity as well as respect, we cannot withhold our compassion from the man who has passed a large portion of his life in an employment. that has kept his mind in a perpetual fever of malice, converted him into a pander to the worst passions, and even, since it is his object to cherish hatred among his fellow men, into an enemy to his race.

1842.]

His Remarks upon Lord Collingwood.

187

If the opinion of the poet is correct, that "all, all but truth drops still-born from the press," we have nothing to fear from a detraction that has so little regard to her precepts. It may serve for a time to gratify, and perhaps to aggravate the passions to which it is addressed. Unhappily, however, it is more easy to do evil than to do good. The bold invective of Mr. James, like the petty scandal whispered in private, finds an advocate in the human heart, because it is desperately wicked. No doubt a loyal, but ignorant Englishman, may find something in the violent denunciations of our author to soften the mortification of defeats, and may regard the pleasure which he derives from the abuse of American officers, as a proof of his fidelity to his king, and of his attachment to his country.

Mr. James is indebted for his style to ships' log-books. The deeds of neither Lords St. Vincent nor Nelson elevate him for a moment above the dull level of dry and barren statements. His history is a detail of events heaped together with confusion, wanting beginning, connection, and conclusion. It is neither adorned with the graces of composition, nor enriched with lessons of instruction. Nothing but a dispute tempts the author to deviate from his natural dulness. His most animated comment is a warm quarrel, and his highest effort a display of ill-temper. The reader may despair of learning the truth concerning any doubtful matter from one who treats it, not with the calmness of a judge, but with the fervor of a partisan, regarding it as his first duty to support the cause he has espoused, and ready at any moment to sacrifice truth to opinion. In speaking of one of Lord Collingwood's despatches, written after the battle of Trafalgar, he makes the following remarks:

66

"Unfortunately for the fame of those concerned, this soul-inspiring passage contains not a word of truth." Among the numerous omissions and misstatements that pervade the official accounts of this celebrated battle, the most extraordinary, as well as the most unjust," etc. Unfortunately the mere omission of Captain Hardy's name in the public letter of Vice-Admiral Collingwood, is not all the injury done to him. That might have arisen from unintentional neglect, and have been atoned for, in part, by subsequent explanation and apology. But nothing short of the most humiliating acknowledgment could nullify the statement," etc. He adds: "Truth, however, will ultimately prevail."

We do not now recall any one who will have less cause to rejoice in her triumph than our author. Even a senseless picture in the king's palace, an ideal representation of the battle of Trafalgar, is not permitted to pass without passionate vituperation, reminding us of the spleen which undisciplined childhood is sometimes seen to vent on inanimate objects. We may also refer to the whole comment on the battle of Trafalgar, to the defamation of Captain Berkely of the Emerald, after the battle of St. Vincent, and the attempt, for which no other motive appears than a confirmed practice of evil-speaking, to deprive Sir John Duckworth of the merit of his action off the road of St. Domingo, and to show that the gratitude of the inhabitants of the West India islands, the voted vases, swords, etc., of London merchants, and the thanks of parliament, moved in the lords by Lord Grenville, and in the commons by Mr. Grey, were on this occasion unworthily distributed. Attacks, more remarkable for their spirit than their courtesy, upon contemporary historians are scattered throughout the work. It would be easy to multiply instances, but the above, selected from periods of English naval history in which we have no national concern, are sufficient warrant for the opinion that Mr. James has written his book not only in the spirit, but also with the unscrupulous partiality of a party man. For the faithful performance of the historian's duty it is necessary that his mind should be divested of passion and prejudice, and that his judgments, matured by deliberation, should be pronounced with calmness. We have already seen how entirely destitute of these requisites Mr. James is, and we cannot but lament that such a trust should have been committed to a man who insults without any other motive than his own perversity of temper; whose dissent from the highest authority is accompanied by a charge of falsehood, and whose love of argument and contradiction betrays itself in loose attacks. upon officers in the very cases where they have received. from his and their government distinguished attestations to their services and character.

Mr. James commenced his historical labors in 1816 with "An inquiry into the merit of the principal naval actions between Great Britain and the United States." This was followed, in 1817, by "A full and correct account of the chief naval occurrences of the late war," which was subsequently enlarged and extended, so as to embrace the naval operations

1842.]

His Errors as to our Frigates.

189

in British history from 1793 to the bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth, the last being the work now under consideration.

His spite against this country is first shown in his slight notice of the Tripolitan war, in which he gives an account of the forced service rendered to the dey of Algiers by the George Washington, Captain William Bainbridge, in the year 1800, interlarded with his usual sneers, and so related as to cast a signal dishonor upon the American flag. It is well known that Captain Bainbridge, in complying with the dey's demand, however unwillingly, only followed an example set him by Spanish, French, and English men-of-war. We find here, too, the first instance (so far as relates to ourselves) of the use of figures to support his misrepresentations. He states the force of the brig Enterprise, Lieutenant Sterrett, in her action with the ship Tripoli, to have been fourteen guns instead of twelve. For what reason, other than the mere gratification of ill-will, he can have touched upon our first war with Tripoli, we are at a loss to discover, since what he professes to record has no possible connection with British naval history. It is the first shot, however, fired in pure malice of heart, and though we shall not suffer our dignity to be disturbed by misstatements easily corrected, or our temper to be ruffled by sneers and contumely, which on this occasion at least are entirely unprovoked, still less shall we suffer these falsehoods to pass unnoticed and uncontradicted.

Mr. James's sixth volume is the part of his work with which we are principally concerned, and to that our attention is now chiefly directed. It opens with an examination of our frigates built before the war, and enters into a minuteness of detail which, with any other writer, would be taken as a prima facie evidence of its truth. We have not at hand the documents requisite for a strict comparison of all his statements, but it is not difficult to show, by the exposure of some palpable errors, how little they are to be relied on. He asserts that the frigate President was built to mount guns in her gangways, and cites the authority of some officers, not named, (a convenient authority for a writer of Mr. James's character,) to show that she had eight additional guns thus mounted during the war with Tripoli. Having also premised that he speaks from "ocular proof of the manner in which the President was fitted," he continues, "She has fifteen ports, and a bridle, of a side on the main deck, eight of a side

on the quarter deck, and four of a side, without reckoning the chase-port, on the forecastle, making fifty-four broadside ports.' Shortly after, however, he discovers that the "American" forty-four gun frigate, mounted with her thirty long twentyfour pounders on the main deck, eighteen carronades, fortytwo pounders, on the quarter deck, (two more than he has given ports above,) six carronades, forty-two pounders, and two long twenty-four pounders on the forecastle, a total of fifty-six guns." He endeavors to account for this discrepancy by saying that the gangway, or entrance ports, were fitted to receive carronades; yet he admits that she mounted only fifty-two of these guns when captured by the squadron under Captain Hayes, (besides a brass eight-inch howitzer.) As Mr. James professes to speak from ocular proof, (which must have been received after the capture of the President,) as to the number of ports, we are at a loss to understand his pretext for giving her an armament of fifty-six guns at any time. We are, however, at no loss to account for his motive in so doing.

We make no further comment upon the affair of the Little Belt and President than to observe, that the passion evinced on this occasion by the British naval historian in his abuse of Commodore Rodgers, and the ridiculous allegation that he loaded his guns with "every scrap of iron that could possibly be collected," offers a striking contrast to the good temper and fairness of Mr. Cooper, who, passing over the naval importance of the transaction, which had no other interest than to exhibit the precision of American gunnery, discusses at length, and in a masterly manner, the general principles it involved.

The chase of the Belvidera, and that of the Constitution, are the next events of importance. The former is a convenient provocation to Mr. James to traduce the officers and people of the United States. The latter event he ushers in with the beginning of those humiliating confessions and excuses with which he endeavors to soothe the mortification occasioned by that ship's signal victory over one of the chasing squadron.

"The escape of Old Ironsides' is one of the most interesting

* Mr. James tells us that this name originated in the thickness of the Constitution's sides. We pardon his endeavor to discover an origin less painful than the true one.