124 Naval War of 1812 



ment of the guns in the row-galleys, we get a broad 

 side of 1,192 Ibs., exactly as I have given it above. 

 There is no difficulty in accounting for the difference 

 of tonnage as given by James and by the Americans, 

 for we have considered the same subject in reference 

 to the battle of Lake Erie. James calculates the 

 American tonnage as if for sea-vessels of deep holds, 

 while, as regards the British vessels, he allows for 

 the shallow holds that all the lake craft had ; that is, 

 he gives in one the nominal, in the other the real, 

 tonnage. 



This fully accounts for the discrepancy. It only 

 remains to account for the difference in the num 

 ber of men. From James we can get 772. In 

 the first place, we can reason by analogy. I have 

 already shown that, as regards the battle of Lake 

 Erie, he is convicted (by English, not by Ameri 

 can, evidence) of having underestimated Barclay's 

 force by about 25 per cent. If he did the same thing 

 here, the British force was over 1,000 strong, and 

 I have no doubt that it was. But we have other 

 proofs. On p. 417 of the "Naval Occurrences" he 

 says the complement of the four captured British 

 vessels amounted to 420 men, of whom 54 were 

 killed in action, leaving 366 prisoners, including the 

 wounded. But the report of prisoners, as given by 

 the American authorities, gives 369 officers and sea 

 men unhurt or but slightly wounded, 57 wounded 



