ne; his self-complacency was exceeded by his wonderful
ability. He quoted Cooper's 'Naval History' as if it were 'Blackstone;'
he indulged in reminiscences; he made digressions and told anecdotes; he
spoke of the manoeuvres of the vessels, of the shifting of the wind, of
the course of the fight, like one whose life had been passed on (p. 218)
the quarter-deck. No greater evidence of self-reliance, of indifference
to the opinion of the world, and to that of his countrymen in
particular, of the rarest descriptive talent, of pertinacity, loyalty to
personal conviction, and a manly, firm, yet not unkindly spirit, could
be imagined than the position thus assumed, and the manner in which he
met the exigency. As we gazed and listened, we understood clearly why,
as a man, Cooper had been viewed from such extremes of prejudice and
partiality; we recognized at once the generosity and courage, and the
willfulness and pride of his character: but the effect was to inspire a
respect for the man, such as authors whose errors are moral weaknesses
never excite."

On the 16th of June the referees rendered their decision on the eight
points submitted to them for adjudication. In regard to five of these
they were all in full agreement; but in three instances one of the
referees dissented from certain portions of the report made by the other
two.

The first point was whether, according to the evidence and the rules of
the law the plaintiff would be entitled to the verdict of a jury in an
ordinary suit for libel. They agreed that he would, and accordingly
awarded the damages that had been fixed by the original stipulation.

The second point was whether in writing his account of the battle of
Lake Erie, Cooper had faithfully fulfilled his obligations as an
historian. The majority of the referees decided that he had so done. Mr.
Foot dissented to this extent, that Cooper had intended to do so, but
that from error of judgment or from some cause not impugning the (p. 219)
purity of his motives, he had failed in one specified point. This was
that the narrative gave the impression that Elliott's conduct in the
battle had met with universal approbation, which it had not. The
arbitrator added, however, that this was the only particular in which it
appeared to him that the historian had failed in fulfilling the high
trust he had taken upon himself.

The third point was whether the narrative of the battle of Lake Erie was
true or not in its e