and reports her 467 tons." (In the Navy Archives, "Masters'
Commandant Letters," 1814, i. No. 125.) For a full discussion of
tonnage, see Appendix, A.]

Among the stock accusations against our navy of 1812, were, and
are, statements that our vessels were rated at less than their
real force, and in particular that our large frigates were "disguised
line-of-battle ships." As regards the ratings, most vessels of
that time carried more guns than they rated; the disparity was
less in the French than in either the British or American navies.
Our 38-gun frigates carried 48 guns, the exact number the British
38's possessed. The worst case of underrating in our navy was the
_Essex_, which rated 32, and carried 46 guns, so that her real was
44 per cent, in excess of her nominal force; but this was not as
bad as the British sloop _Cyane_, which was rated a 20 or 22, and
carried 34 guns, so that she had either 55 or 70 per cent, greater
real than nominal force. At the beginning of the war we owned two
18-gun ship-sloops, one mounting 18 and the other 20 guns; the
18-gun brig-sloops they captured mounted each 19 guns, so the
average was the same. Later we built sloops that rated 18 and
mounted 22 guns, but when one was captured it was also put down in
the British navy list as an 18-gun ship-sloop. During all the
combats of the war there were but four vessels that carried as
few guns as they rated. Two were British, the _Epervier_ and
_Levant_, and two American, the _Wasp_ and _Adams_. One navy was
certainly as deceptive as another, as far as underrating went.

The force of the statement that our large frigates were disguised
line-of-battle ships, of course depends entirely upon what the
words "frigate" and "line-of-battle ship" mean. When on the 10th