uneventful occupation of girdling the enemy's coast with a system of
blockades, aimed primarily at the restriction of his commerce, and
incidentally at the repression of his navy, which made no effort to take
the sea on a large scale. Under these circumstances the functions of an
admiral were mainly administrative; and if Saumarez and Pellew
possessed eminent capacity as general officers on the battle-field, they
had not opportunity to prove it. The distinction of their careers
coincides with their tenure of subordinate positions in the organisms of
great fleets. With this in common, and differentiating them from Howe
and Jervis, the points of contrast are marked. Saumarez preferred the
ship-of-the-line, Pellew the frigate. The choice of the one led to the
duties of a division commander, that of the other to the comparative
independence of detached service, of the partisan officer. In the one,
love of the military side of his calling predominated; the other was,
before all, the seaman. The union of the two perfects professional
character.

The question may naturally be asked,--Why, among types of naval
officers, is there no mention, other than casual, of the name of Nelson?
The answer is simple. Among general officers, land and sea, the group to
which Nelson belongs defies exposition by a type, both because it is
small in aggregate numbers, and because the peculiar eminence of the
several members,--the eminence of genius,--so differentiates each from
his fellows that no one among them can be said to represent the others.
Each, in the supremacy of his achievement, stands alone,--alone, not
only regarded as towering above a brilliant surrounding of distinguished
followers, but alone even as contrasted with the other great ones who in
their own day had a like supremacy. Such do not in fact form a class,
because, though a certain community of ideas and principles may be
traced in their actions, their personalities and methods bear each the