" Further than this, the evidence given by the
mutineers, and supported in all essentials by the people cut adrift in the
boat, was to the effect that there had been repeated floggings; that Bligh
had continually used violent and abusive language to officers and men;
that he was a petty tyrant and was guilty of all sorts of mean forms of
aggravation. Here is one instance: he accused officers and men, from the
senior officer under him downwards, of being thieves, alleging publicly on
the quarter-deck that they stole his coconuts.
Against these allegations we have nothing but Bligh's narrative and the
assertions, perfectly true, that he was a brave officer, who afterwards
conducted a remarkable boat voyage and served with distinction under
Nelson,[G] and that such a man could not be guilty of [Sidenote: 1830]
tyranny. We are here discussing the mutiny of the _Bounty_, and not the
revolt in New South Wales, else against this we might remark that he was
the victim of two mutinies against his rule. Bligh was not the only
coarse, petty tyrant who could fight a ship well; Edwards made a boat
voyage scarcely less remarkable than Bligh's, and Edwards unquestionably
was a vindictive brute. However, Sir John Barrow, who, from his position
as Secretary of the Admiralty, was hardly likely to make rash assertions,
in his book, published about 1830, says very plainly that Bligh, upon the
evidence at the court-martial, was responsible for what happened.
Pages:
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229