THAT the British nation is greatly indebted to Mr. James, for the most faithful and unbiassed account of the different actions in which his majesty's ships and vessels have been engaged, does not admit of contradiction. It is true we have other naval histories. One indeed has been undertaken and compiled by an officer of high rank in his majesty's service, and although there is much ability in that history, yet it by no means enters into detail, either of the great actions, or those of single ships, with the accuracy, minutiae, or impartiality which is to be found in the work of Mr. James.

In the first place the Naval history alluded to above, is most particularly inaccurate as to the different events which occurred during the mutiny; and although the historian was himself present on that unfortunate occasion, as lieutenant of one of his majesty's ships at Spithead, in 1797, yet has he contrived to fall into errors, which Mr. James avoided; and has inadvertently stated as facts, what most certainly never occurred. "A letter to Vice-admiral Sir Thomas Byam Martin, K.C.B., containing an account of the mutiny of the fleet at Spithead, in the year 1797, in correction of that given in Captain Brenton's Naval history of the last war," published in 1825, might have convinced the gallant officer of many very important mistakes, especially in regard to the London, the "letter" in question being the pen of the captain of that ship during the mutiny. The reason given by Captain Colpoys for not having written his pamphlet previously to the appearance of the second edition of Brenton's Naval history, is not very flattering to that work."

" Discouraged" (he says page 3) "by the general character of the work in question, for incorrectness and censorious stricture on the conduct of some officers of the highest rank and reputation in our service, I did not look into the book for I believe more than a year after it came out." Captain Colpoy's remarks also, "I was greatly surprised at finding, from the pen of an officer professing to have been an eye-witness, and intimately acquainted with all the circumstances (see vol. i., page 411), so very erroneous a statement of the leading particulars of that event, and more especially of what took place on board the London, of which ship I was captain." If the reader will consult Mr. James on this point, he will see how inaccurate Captain Brenton has been.

For the second and third charges against the historian, not entering into sufficient detail, and being partial ; one instance will suffice. In the first edition of Brenton's Naval history, 339, vol. iii., a long account was given of the action between his majesty's ship Ph�nix, ands the French frigate Didon. In