Another and interesting illustration of the injustice a man may thus unintentionally do, through inadvertence, is afforded by Nelson’s accounts of St. Vincent.  There were two drawn up on board the “Captain,”—­one by himself in his own hand; the second simply signed by him, Miller, and Berry.  It is quite evident that the latter is based upon the former, much of the phraseology being identical; but the whole is toned down in many points.  The instance of unintentional injustice is this.  In his autograph account, Nelson, thinking only of himself,[51] speaks of his going with the boarders, and makes no mention of the captain of the ship, Miller, whose proper business it would be rather than his.  In the revision, Miller would naturally feel that his failure to board should be accounted for, and it contains accordingly the statement, “Captain Miller was in the very act of going also, but I directed him to remain.”  Berry’s hand also appears; for whereas Nelson’s own account of boarding the “San Josef” simply says, “I got into her main-chains,” the published copy reads, “Captain Berry assisting me into the main-chains.”

So too with reference to Parker’s controversy.  In the first draft there occurs the unqualified statement:  “For an hour the Culloden and Captain supported this apparently unequal contest.”  The revision reads:  “For near an hour, I believe, (but do not pretend to be correct as to time,)[52] did Culloden and Captain,” etc.  Parker quotes from the revision, which was therefore the one published, but does not quote the words italicized.  Probably, if the “Blenheim” and the “St. George” had had a hand in this revision, there would have been more modification; but Nelson did not realize where he was hurting them, any more than he did in Miller’s case.

The love of glory, the ardent desire for honorable distinction by honorable deeds, is among the most potent and elevating of military motives, which in no breast has burned with a purer flame than in that of Nelson; but it is better that officers leave the public telling of their own exploits to others, and it is evident that Nelson, when taken to task, realized uncomfortably that he had not exercised due thoughtfulness.  Parker refrained from addressing him till he had received the printed account.  This was not till July, and his remonstrance reached Nelson shortly after the loss of his arm at Teneriffe, when on his way home for what proved to be a tedious and painful recovery.  He was then suffering, not only from pain and weakness, but also from discouragement about his professional future, which he thought threatened by disability, and for these conditions allowance must be made; but for all this his reply did not compare favorably with Parker’s letter, which had been explicit in its complaint as well as moderate in expression.  He wrote curtly:  “I must acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th of July; and, after declaring that I know nothing of the Prince George till she was hailed from the forecastle of the San Nicolas,[53] it is impossible I can enter into the subject of your letter.”