prize-ring, and as much labor would be needed to disprove it. In
other instances it is quite enough to let his words speak for
themselves, as where he says (p. 155) that of the American sailors
one third in number and one half in point of effectiveness were in
reality British. That is, of the 450 men the _Constitution_ had when
she fought the _Java_ 150 were British, and the remaining 300 could
have been as effectively replaced by 150 more British. So a very
little logic works out a result that James certainly did not intend
to arrive at; namely, that 300 British led by American officers
could beat, with ease and comparative impunity, 400 British led by
their own officers. He also forgets that the whole consists of the
sum of the parts. He accounts for the victories of the Americans
by stating (p. 280) that they were lucky enough to meet with frigates
and brigs who had unskilful gunners or worthless crews; he also
carefully shows that the _Macedonian_ was incompetently handled,
the _Peacock_ commanded by a mere martinet, the _Avon's_ crew
unpractised weak and unskilful, the _Java's_ exceedingly poor, and
more to the same effect. Now the Americans took in single fight
three frigates and seven sloops, and when as many as ten vessels
are met it is exceedingly probable that they represent the fair
average; so that James' strictures, so far as true, simply show
that the average British ship was very apt to possess, comparatively
speaking, an incompetent captain or unskilful crew. These
disadvantages were not felt when opposed to navies in which they
existed to an even greater extent, but became very apparent when
brought into contact with a power whose few officers knew how to
play their own parts very nearly to perfection, and, something
equally important, knew how to make first-rate crews out of what
was already good raw material. Finally, a large proportion of
James' abuse of the Americans sufficiently refutes itself, and