single feather against any one single fact, alleged by Captain, now Admiral, Foote, rable, the indelible, transactions of the Bay of Naples; therefore, as a friend to the British navy, and, of course, in that view of the matter, a friend to Captain Campbell, I take the liberty to recommend to him a plain and full answer to this statement of Mr. Mant.It may be said, that Cap transactions, and from the reading of that paper, I was convinced that the charge against Captain Gampbell was wholly un-relative to the transactions, the ever-memofounded, my judgment, too, being in some degree biassed by the papers shown me with regard to the conduct of Mr. Mant, who had preferred these charges; but, I have now seen lists of vessels and divers other papers, to which, as it appears to me, that letter to the Admiralty does not give an answer; does not, sufficiently, explain.tain Campbell is not bound by any rule of -This statement of Mr. Mant's, in moral action to enter the lists in print with which, I repeat, is contained matter, affect- every person who may chuse to write and ing, and deeply affecting, the vital interests, print respecting his conduct. This is very and still more the honour of the navy and true; but, it appears from Mr. Mant's the nation, is in print, let it be remember- pamphlet, that it was not Mr. Mant who ed. It is in print, and its author pledges began the work of publication: for, Mr. his character for the truth of it. He also Mant inserts the copy of a letter from puts in jeopardy his property and his per- Captain Campbell to him, in which sonal liberty, if it be not true. Therefore, letter Captain Campbell seems clearly to it is very desirable, that this statement admit that he had shown papers, relative should receive a flat and plain contradic-to these transactions, to several persons at tion; or, that it should be shown, that the Southampton, which was a sort of publicastatement, if true, brings to light nothing tion, not so general, indeed, as that of Mr. unlawful.There can, I imagine, be no Mant, but still, it was a publication. And, difficulty at all in proving, by many wit-it was a sort of publication, too, which nesses, the falsehood of such a statement as was calculated better than any other to this, if it be false; and as to the lega- produce all the consequences that have follity or illegality of the acts, that ques- lowed. Captain Campbell, therefore, tion might be settled at once by an appeal must, I think, be regarded as having given to the instructions, or to the act of Parlia- the challenge. He, in some sort, com ́ment, under which these sales of prize-pelled Mr. Mant to publish, and if Mr. goods and these compromises, as they are Mant did publish, it was absolutely neces called, took place. I really should be very sary for him to state the transactions, or at happy to be the means of promulgating least, some part of the transactions, the exrefutation of this statement altogether; for,istence of which gave rise to Captain Campthere does, upon the whole, appear to be bell's charges against him. It appears, something so terrible in the acts alleged, therefore, very clearly that Captain Campthat one cannot think of them without feel-bell cannot refuse to meet Mr. Mant in ing some degree of shame for one's country. print, upon the grounds above stated, and Captain Campbell is an officer of great that his silence cannot fairly be attributed merit in his profession; he long ago distin- to a contempt of his assailant, with respect guished himself by his bravery; he was, I to whom he thought it necessary to proobserved, highly praised in a public dis-mulgate charges. Thus far patch of Lord Collingwood, for his conduct in the Mediterranean; and, as I am informed, he is still very well thought of at the Admiralty. But, though these circumstances have, and ought to have, great weight, they could not, if they were fifty times as numerous and fifty times as strong, do away any one undeniable fact. -The fame of Lord Nelson; all his vigilance, all his skill, all his wonderful activity, all his bravery, all his honours, all his titles, of Baron, Earl, and Duke; yea, the loss of his life in the arms of the most glorious naval victory that ever was won; all these put together, do not, in the mind of any just, any generous, any merciful man, weigh as one -Thus far we have viewed the transactions above mentioned solely, as they relate to the commander; but, upon a supposition, that the statement of Mr. Mant with respect to those transactions, be true; upon the supposition that they were what he states them to have been, and that they were, as he says they were," unwarrantable" and "illegal," we must not omit to observe, and to bear in mind, that Mr. Mant, according to his own account, had a pretty considerable share in them. He was the person who negociated the compromises spoken of; he was the person who sold the prize-goods; he was the person who received the money, and who caused it, as he says, to be trans mitted to his Captain. He lays great stress | grossly and scandalously criminal, as the Discounts, 4. HR statement of Mr. Mant gives us to under- - chargé rests, is a Declaration, upon stamping vessel of about 8 or 10 tons; that, seed paper, and made, apparently, before condly, he was under the influence of one some magistrate or notary in Italy, and it Haire, a person employed by Captain shows, that Mr. Mant received 200 dollars Campbell as a pilot, in Italy, and that "to cause ME," says the Declarant," to this Haire, having been reproved by Mr. "have on advantageous terms the goods 1 Mant some time before for most indecent "bought of him."Mr. Mant first ob- conduct on board the ship, swore, in the serves, upon this document, that it is one hearing of an officer, that he would do Mr. of those very papers which Captain Camp Mant all the injury he possibly could, of bell showed about Southampton, and of the truth of which fact Mr. Mant produces which he was refused a copy; and, that, a proof in a Declaration (legally taken in though Captain Campbell had the paper in London) attested by the said officer, whose his possession for years, while Mr. Mant name it is not necessary to mention; that was in the ship with him, he, Mr. Mant, Haire was, at the time alluded to, become has never been allowed to see the paper the agent in the prize and compromise from the day it was written to the present transactions, and that Jursovich was his hour. He further observes, before enter- assistant in the business; that Captain ing on an inquiry into the nature of the Campbell never even mentioned to Mr. evidence thus furnished, that he often Mant any thing of Jursovich's Declaration, pressed for a formal investigation of his until about a year and a half after it was conduct; that he asked to know and to be made, and after it was in the Captain's confronted with his accusers; and, that it possession; that, at the time when the is very strange that Captain Campbell Declaration of Jursovich was made, the should now think it proper to be his accuser ship was in the Adriatic, and that the and produce documents to criminate him, whole of the parties were then within reach when he never thought proper to be his of the other, and might have been con accuser with the government, never would fronted, but that, at the time, when Capbring the matter to a legal investigation, tain Campbell first talked of the Declaranever would consent to confront the accuser tion to Mr. Mant, the ship was near Malla, with the accused, and would never even and, of course, out of the reach of the show Mr. Mant the document, on which party who made it, as has been before the principal charge was founded.The stated by him in his pamphlet at pages 42 document, upon which the charge is found- and 48, where, together with pages 44 ed, is signed, I think, by Joseph Jurso- and 45, the whole of this matter will, he vich; but of this I will not be certain. Mr. says, be found to be fully explained; that, Mant states, that this was the name of the Captain Campbell never showed the Deman, who, as he was informed afterwards, claration to Mr. Mant; that Mr. Mant was his accuser.The affidavit of Mr. earnestly requested the Captain to cause a Mant positively denies the fact; and to formal investigation of all these matters to that affidavit the impartial reader will give, take place, but that this Captain Campbell of course, all the credit that is due to it, never did, saying, that he was convinced bearing in mind, too, that it has been that the fellow was not to be believed, and made in the place where Mr. Mant resides, that he, Captain Campbell, should destroy aud under the very eye of his circle of the Declaration. Such is Mr. Mant's friends and acquaintances. But, yet, statement in answer to the charge laid this will not be sufficient in the way of ex against him by Jursovich, and such, in culpation; for, if it were, we must adopt substance, is his affidavit. The public, the principle, that the evidence of the ac- like me, will, of course, in estimating the cused is to be admitted in his own defence, value of a declaration of this, or of any, a principle contrary to all the practice of sort, pay attention to the circumstances. the world and to the dictates of reason and under which it was made; and, it must be of nature. Something, therefore, is confessed, that the circumstances here are wanted to show the want of credibility in very material. The character of the perthe evidence, and this, I think, Mr. Mant son declaring, the situation in which he does furnish, and especially if we take into was, his not declaring upon oath, his very view the circumstance of the informer hav close connexion with Haire, his interest ing been a party concerned in the foul conjointly with that of Haire, are all cirtransaction, of which he gives evidence. cumstances, which, unless they can be Mr. Mant states, that this Jursovich proved not to have existed, must neceswas a very low man, the master of a coast-sarily make greatly in favour of Mr. Mant;' is a man, who acknowledge's himself to have committed, for selfish and base purposes, a most roguish act, to be believed against an but, then, it must, on the other hand, be observed, that this is the statement of Mr. Mant himself; it is the evidence of the accused in his own defence; and, it, sup-other, upon his simple declaration, unsupposing it all to be true, rests upon the fact (for which my memory does not warrant me in vouching), that the name of the Declarant was Joseph Jursovich. But, we now come to the internal evidence, not depending upon the word of any man; evidence against the credibility of the Declarant, furnished by the Declaration itself. I confess, that my last article, above referred: to, was sent to the press without sufficient reflection. The documents shown to me produced a feeling in my mind not favourable to the right operation of reason. If this had not been the case, it would have occurred to me, as, I hope, it must have occurred to my readers, who had more time for reflection, that, supposing the document to state truth, the Declarant himself must have been a dishonest man; for, if it was dishonest or dishonourable in Mr. Mant to take the two hundred dollars, it was not less so in Jursovich to give the two hundred dollars. The sum was in the nature of a bribe, and in all cases of bribery, the briber is looked upon as the most criminal of the two. One would, indeed, more readily excuse, or rather, be less disposed to wonder at, such conduct in a man like Jursovich, than in a man in Mr. Mant's situation in life; but, in whatever degree we are inclined to excuse him on account of the groveling nature of his mind and habits, in that same degree we must, in justice to Mr. Mant, deduct from the credit due to the declaration. We know, that the evidence of accomplices is, some times, regarded as suficient, but, then, there must be strong circumstances to back it, and the probabilities of the case must be decidedly in favour of the truth of such evidence, which they certainly are not in the present instance.It is very natural to ask, why the Declarant, who had got, as he says, the benefit of the sale of goods to him, in consequence of a bribe, should go to Captain Campbell and give information of his own rascality; why, he should go and declare himself to have been a villain? It is impossible to suppose that he would have done this, without some very powerful motive, and some motive of self interest, too; and, is it very likely, that a man, who was not ashamed to declare, and put his name to it, that he had been a villain, should scruple to declare what was false? The question is simply this: ported by any other witness, or by any fact time when his accuser might have been confronted with him; that, as the act charged was very criminal, Captain Camp-: bell ought to have caused inquiry to be made into it on the spot, where the parties all were. He asks, who this third person was and I do not recollect; he asks, why Pazzi's evidence was not taken? he asks, if Pazzi refused to sign the certificate, and rejected the offer of the 300 dollars, made by Mr. Mant in person? how could it happen that Mr. Mant should leave the certificate with him, and should not take it away? he asks, if Pazzi carried the certi- . ficate back to the ship, why a declaration: was not taken from him, and why he was not immediately confronted with Mr. Mant? he asks, if Pazzi did not carry it back, who told the Captain that it ever had been pre mass of the transactions, described by Mr. Mant, were such as he describes them to have been, the mere alteration, or even the fabrication, of a passport, or a license, can only be looked upon as part of a widesweeping system, in the carrying on of which he was concerned, but of the illegality of which he solemnly asserts his ignorance. It is the taking of the three hundred dollars for the interlineation; or, more properly speaking, the keeping of them to himself, that forms the sting of the charge, and, especially with those, who are disposed to excuse the transactions in general. -But, even in this light, the charge falls greatly short, in point of dishonesty, of the foregoing one. There he was accused of taking into his own pocket, in the shape of a bribe, money due to his Captain and shipmates. Here he is ac-sented to Pazzi? he asks, whether it be, cused of taking money to himself indeed, but money, which, or the worth of which, his shipmates had never possessed, and would never have possessed, if he had not taken it. This was, as it appears from the representation on the other side, one of those transactions which but too often occur between those who have power and those who have money, and who have a mutual desire to soften the rigour of instructions, regulations, or law. But, still, we must hear the explanation of Mr. Mant; and see on what sort of evidence this second charge is founded. There were, as relating to this transaction, two documents mentioned by me, one in Mr. Mant's hand-writing, but not signed. It was a declaration drawn by him to be signed by Pazzi, the person who had received the interlined license, certifying that Mr. Mant had not received three hun dred dollars from him. This paper, of itself, made nothing at all in support of the charge, and Mr. Mant very naturally accounts for its having been drawn up, and having been put into the hands of Captain Campbell by Haire, or his associates, without ever having been even tendered to Pazzi, who was on shore, and to whom Mr. Mant was not permitted to go. The other document, and the only one in support of this charge is, the Declaration, shown to me, and mentioned in my last Number, of a third party, who declares, that he was present, when Mr. Mant of fered Pazzi to return him the 300 dollars, if he would sign the above-mentioned cer-lificate in the hands of a person, whom he tificate of not having paid them. As to this document, Mr. Mant states, that it ought to have been shown to him at the likely that such an offer should be made in the presence of a third party, especially : when the intention must have been to smother a disgraceful transaction? he asks, whether a man, who, for the sake of lucre, could give 300 dollars, in the shape of a douceur, was likely to refuse to take them back again in the shape of bush-money?: and, above all things, he asks, how Captain Campbell, if he deemed the Declaration of this third party to be good, evidence, i could reconcile it to any sense of his duty as a Cominander, or to any principle of justice. as a man, not to bring him, Mr. Mant, to trial, not to confront him with his accuser, and never, even to this hour, to show him the Declaration, or make him acquainted with the name of the Declarant?-To these questions I can, I confess, see no answer; and, from the very nature of the thing, I think, that it appears that Mr. Mant has given the true history of this paper; namely, that he sent the paper open from the quarter-deck, that it was never presented to Pazzi, and that Haire, or some of his associates, brought the paper on board to Captain Campbell.I am sorry that I cannot recollect the name of the third party; but, the credibility of his testimony is furiously shaken by the circumstances of the case; for, if it be true, Mr. Mant must not only have made the offer in the presence of a third party, a fact hardly to be believed; but, he must also have voluntarily been guilty of that su preme act of folly, the leaving of the cer must then necessarily have regarded as one resolved to give information against him. -This is too much to be believed by |