t occasion, which was
probably the fairest test during the war. The battle of January 8th was
also chiefly an artillery battle: the main British column never arrived
within fair musket range; Pakenham was killed by a grape-shot, and the
main column of his troops halted more than one hundred yards from
the parapet.

The best test of British and American military qualities, both for men
and weapons, was Scott's battle of Chippawa. Nothing intervened to throw
a doubt over the fairness of the trial. Two parallel lines of regular
soldiers, practically equal in numbers, armed with similar weapons,
moved in close order toward each other across a wide, open plain,
without cover or advantage of position, stopping at intervals to load
and fire, until one line broke and retired. At the same time two
three-gun batteries, the British being the heavier, maintained a steady
fire from positions opposite each other. According to the reports, the
two infantry lines in the centre never came nearer than eighty yards.
Major-General Riall reported that then, owing to severe losses, his
troops broke and could not be rallied. Comparison of official reports
showed that the British lost in killed and wounded four hundred and
sixty-nine men; the Americans, two hundred and ninety-six. Some doubts
always affect the returns of wounded, because the severity of the wound
cannot be known; but dead men tell their own tale. Riall reported one
hundred and forty-eight killed; Scott reported sixty-one. The severity
of the losses showed that the battle was sharply contested, and proved
the personal bravery of both armies. Marksmanship decided the result,
and the returns proved that the American fire was superior to that of
the British in the proportion of more than fifty per cent, if estimated
by the entire loss, and of two hundred and forty-two to one hundred if
estimated by the deaths alone.

The conclusion seemed incredible, but it was supported by the results of
the naval battles. The Americans showed superiority amounting in some
cases to twice the efficiency of their enemies in the use of weapons.
The best French critic of the naval war, Jurien de la Graviere,
said:--"An enormous superiority in the rapidity and precision of their
fire can alone explain the difference in the losses sustained by the
combatants." So far from denying this conclusion, the British press
constantly alleged it, and the British officers complained of it. The
discovery caused