official accounts when they can be reached, except in the case of
the _Java_, which seem garbled. That such was sometimes the case
with British officials is testified to by both James (vol. iv,
p. 17) and Brenton (vol. ii, p. 454, note). From the "Memoir of
Admiral Broke" we learn that his public letter was wrong in a number
of particulars. See also any one of the numerous biographies of
Lord Dundonald, the hero of the little _Speedy's_ fight. It is
very unfortunate that the British stopped publishing official
accounts of their defeats; it could not well help giving rise to
unpleasant suspicions.

It may be as well to mention here, again, that James' accusations do not
really detract from the interest attaching to the war, and its value for
purposes of study. If, as he says, the American commanders were cowards,
and their crews renegades, it is well worth while to learn the lesson that
good training will make such men able to beat brave officers with loyal
crews. And why did the British have such bad average crews as he makes
out? He says, for instance, that the Java's was unusually bad; yet
Brenton says (vol. ii, p. 461) it was like "the generality of our crews."
It is worth while explaining the reason that such a crew was generally
better than a French and worse than an American one.]

Again, the armaments of the American as well as of the British
ships were composed of three very different styles of guns. The
first, or long gun, was enormously long and thick-barrelled in
comparison to its bore, and in consequence very heavy; it possessed
a very long range, and varied in calibre from two to forty-two
pounds. The ordinary calibres in our navy were 6, 9, 12, 18, and
24. The second style was the carronade, a short, light gun of
large bore; compared to a long gun of the same weight it carried