d by Lieutenant Bligh immediately on his return to England, after one of the most distressing and perilous passages over nearly four thousand miles of the wide ocean, with eighteen persons, in an open boat. The story obtained implicit credit; and though Lieutenant Bligh's character never stood high in the navy for suavity of manners or mildness of temper, he was always considered as an excellent seaman, and his veracity stood unimpeached. But in this age of refined liberality, when the most atrocious criminals find their apologists, it is not surprising it should now be discovered, when all are dead that could either prove or disprove it, that it was the tyranny of the commander alone, and not the wickedness of the ringleader of the mutineers of the Bounty, that caused that event. 'We all know,' it is said, 'that mutiny can arise but from one of these two sources, excessive folly or excessive tyranny; therefore' —the logic is admirable—'as it is admitted that Bligh was no idiot, the inference is obvious.'^[6] If this be so, it may be asked to which of the two causes must be ascribed the mutiny at the Nore, etc.? The true answer will be, to neither. 'Not only,' continues the writer, 'was the narrative which he published proved to be false in many material bearings, by evidence before a court-martial, but every act of his public life after this event, from his successive command of the Director, the Glatton, and the Warrior, to his disgraceful expulsion from New South Wales,—was stamped with an insolence, an inhumanity, and coarseness, which fully developed his character.'

There is no intention, in narrating this eventful history, to accuse or defend either the character or the conduct of the late Admiral Bligh; it is well known his