had freshened, and at 5 the "Chesapeake" took in her royals and topgallant sails, and half an hour later, she hauled up her courses. The two ships were now about 30 miles from the light, the "Shannon" under single-reefed topsails and jib, and the "Chesapeake" under whole topsails and jib, coming down fast. As the "Shannon" was running with the wind a little free, there was an anxious moment on board of her during which it was uncertain on which side the "Chesapeake" was about to close, or whether she might be disposed to commence the action on her quarter. But Captain Lawrence chose to lay his enemy fairly alongside, yardarm and yardarm, and he luffed and ranged up abeam on the "Shannon's" starboard side. When the "Chesapeake's" foremast was in a line with the "Shannon's" mizzenmast, the latter ship discharged her cabin guns, and the others in succession, from aft forward. The "Chesapeake" did not fire until all her guns bore, when she delivered a very destructive broadside. For six or eight minutes the cannonading was fierce, and the best of the action, so far as the general effect of the fire was concerned, is said to have been with the American frigate, though it was much in favor of the enemy in its particular and accidental consequences. While passing the "Shannon's" broadside, the "Chesapeake" had her foretopsail tie and jib-sheet shot away. Her spanker-brails also were loosened and the sail blew out. These accidents occurring nearly at the same instant, they brought the ship up into the wind, when taken aback, she got sternway and fell aboard of the enemy, with her mizzen-rigging foul of the "Shannon's" fore-chains. By some accounts the fluke of an anchor on board the "Shannon" hooked in the rigging of the "Chesapeake." Whatever may have served to keep the ships together, it appears to be certain that the American frigate lay exposed to a raking fire from the enemy, who poured into her the contents of one or two carronades that nearly swept her upper deck. . . . . When Captain Lawrence (who had been wounded) perceived that the ships were likely to fall foul of each other, he directed the boarders to be called (but unfortunately this had to be done by verbal orders). . . . . At this critical moment Captain Lawrence fell with a ball through the body. .... The upper deck was now left without an officer above the rank of a midshipman. It was the practice of the service, in that day, to keep the arms of the boarders on the quarter-deck and about the masts; and even when the boarders had been summoned . . . . they were without arms; for by this time the enemy was in possession of the "Chesapeake's" quarter-deck. .... As soon as the ships were foul, Captain Broke passed forward in the "Shannon," and to use his own language, "seeing that the enemy were flinching from his guns," he gave the order to board. Finding that all their officers had fallen, and exposed to a raking fire, without the means of returning a shot, the men on the "Chesapeake's" quarter-deck had indeed left their guns. The marines had suffered severely, and having lost their officers, were undecided what to do, and the entire upper deck was left virtually without any defence. When the enemy entered the ship from his fore-channels, it was with great caution and so slowly that twenty resolute men would have repulsed him. The boarders had not yet appeared from below, and meeting with no resistance, he began to move forward. This critical moment lost the ship, for the English, encouraged by the state of the "Chesapeake's" upper deck, now rushed forward in numbers and soon had entire command above board. The remaining officers appeared on deck and endeavored to make a rally, but it was altogether too late, for the boatswain's mate mentioned had removed the gratings of the berth-deck and had run below, followed by a great many men. Soon after the Chesapeake's" colors were hauled down by the enemy, who got complete possession of the ship with very little resistance. Captain Broke, in his official report of this action, observes that after he had boarded, "the enemy fought desperately, but in disorder." The first part of this statement is probably true as regards a few gallant individuals on the upper deck, but there was no regular resistance to the boarders of the "Shannon" at all. The men of the "Chesapeake" had not the means to resist, neither were they collected nor commanded in the mode in which they had been trained to act. The enemy fired down the hatches and killed and wounded a great many men in this manner, but it does not appear that their fire was returned. Although the English lost a few men when they boarded, it is understood that the slaughter was principally on the side of the Americans, as might be expected, after the assault was made. Few naval battles have been more sanguinary than this. It lasted altogether not more than fifteen minutes, yet both ships were charnel houses. The "Chesapeake" had forty-eight men killed and ninety-eight wounded, a large proportion of whom fell by the raking fire of the "Shannon," after the "Chesapeake” was taken aback, and by the fire of the boarders. The "Shannon " had twenty-three killed and 56 wounded, principally by the Chesapeake's broadsides." It was impossible for ships of that size to approach so near in tolerably smooth water and to fire with so much steadiness without committing great havoc. Perhaps the capture of no single ship ever produced so much exultation on the side of the victors, or so much depression on that of the beaten party, as that of the "Chesapeake." The American nation had fallen into the error of their enemy, and had begun to imagine themselves invincible on the ocean, and this without any better reason than having been successful in a few detached combats, and its mortification was in proportion to the magnitude of its delusion; while England hailed the success of the "Shannon as a proof that its ancient renown was about to be regained. It has always been a prevalent illusion among the people of Great Britain to believe themselves superior to most other nations in pure personal prowess, and the "Chesapeake " having been taken by boarding, this peculiar disposition was flattered with the impression that they had prevailed in a hand-tohand conflict, and that their seamen had only to go on board the American ships in future in order to be triumphant. This error, in the end, lost them several vessels, for a more hazardous experiment cannot well be made than to attempt carrying a ship of any force by boarding before she has been virtually beaten with the guns. It is scarcely exceeding the truth to say that such a circumstance never occurred. In the ancient navies of Europe, in which men obtained commissions on account of their birth, and captains have been often known to allow their inferiors to give orders in the heat of a combat, anything may happen, for a ship without a commander is like a man without a soul; but no experienced seaman will ever expose his people unnecessarily in this manner against an enemy that he feels to be prepared to receive him. In America reflection soon caused the mortification in a great measure to subside, as it was seen that the capture of the "Chesapeake" was owing to a concurrence of circumstances that was not likely again to happen. It was soon understood that the closeness and short duration of this combat were actually owing to their own officer, who brought his ship so near that the battle was necessarily soon decided, while its succeeding incidents were altogether the results of the chances of war. At the moment when the English boarded, the total loss of the "Shannon" in men is believed to have been at least equal to that of the "Chesapeake," and yet the former vessel was deprived of the services of no important officer but the boatswain, while the "Chesapeake " had lost those of her captain, two of her lieutenants, master, marine officer and boatswain, including every one in any authority on the upper deck. These fortuitous events are as unconnected with any particular merit on the one side, as they are with any particular demerit on the other; and the feelings of the Americans gradually settled down into a sentiment of sincere respect for the high-spirited Lawrence, and of deep regret for his loss.J. FENIMORE COOPER. O name was more conspicuous for gallantry in the annals of the old American navy than that of Stephen Decatur. He was of Huguenot descent, his grandfather, a native of famous Rochelle, having emigrated to America on the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. An officer in the French navy, he devoted himself to maritime pursuits in his new home. His son, Stephen, born at Newport in 1751, removed to Philadelphia, and became captain of a merchantman at an early age. During the Revolutionary war he commanded privateers, and captured many British vessels. In the troubles with France in 1798 he was made a post-captain and cruised in the West Indies, where he captured French privateers. For a time a squadron of thirteen vessels was under his command. Discharged from the service under the peace establishment of 1801, Captain Decatur engaged in business at Philadelphia, and died in 1808. Honorable as had been the career of the father, its glory was eclipsed by that of his son, bearing the same name. Stephen Decatur the younger was born at Sinnepuxent, Maryland, on the 5th of January, 1779. The family resided in Philadelphia, but when the British occupied that city had taken refuge in Maryland. At an early age he accompanied his father to sea, and at nineteen he was made a midshipman under Commodore Barry on the frigate "United States." His handsome appearance, graceful manners, and chivalrous temper won him favor from all classes. His first cruises were in the West Indies, where French privateers were preying on American commerce. His good judgment in matters of seamanship was frequently displayed. Thus when the frigate "United States" disabled a French privateer which had tried |