Nelson & His World

The Times of 29 October 1801 carries a report, (under Ship News):

'a court martial is now sitting on board the [? illegible*], Admiral Lutwidge, on the Gunner and Boatswain of the said ship on several charges preferred against them for drunkenness, disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, etc.'

Were there protocols about which offences could/should be dealt with by the captain of a ship and which could/should be dealt with by court martial? Do the above offences not come within the remit of a captain's disciplinary powers?

*Re: illegible ship's name above: I tried to copy the link to the original text in the hope that someone might decipher it - but it doesn't work. The name looks like 'Oceryshell' - but it can't be that.

Anna

Ship is OVERYSSEL I believe.

MB

The offences would come under the remit of the Commanding Officer if the offender were a seaman; the accused in this case are Officers appointed by Warrant.

Could the ship have been of Dutch origin, Overijssel is the name of a part (provincie) of Holland.
Sylvia

Sylvia

Yes, it was the former Dutch Overijssel, captured in 1795; she was named Overyssel in British service

Thank you PhiloNauticus for answering my question. It is much appreciated.
Sylvia

Sorry for digressing from the original question - but I wondered what were the circumstances of the capture of the Overijssel.

I found brief details in James's Naval History of Great Britain.

It seems that the ship was "officially" captured in Cork Harbour by the Polyphemus on October 22 1795.

But according to the Times she had been impounded there since January of that year.

Don't know if I have this right but I believe that was when the Batavian republic was formed. It was a "client state" of France and therefore I guess technically at war with England which is why the ship was impounded.

Apologies if I got that last bit wrong.

MB

The ship's commanding officer in this case decided the punishments he had available were not adequate to the offense. He probably wanted them broken. There are a lot of instances of captains punishing warrants short of flogging including lashing them to the rigging for periods of time.

A further, general point on courts martial. Officers found guilty were said to be 'broke'. Was this a generic term for 'found guilty'? The consequences of a guilty verdict seemed to vary: death for the likes of Byng - though this was rare, I think; dismissal from the service, or relegation to boring (and un-lucrative) shore appointments. Captain Layman, Nelson's protegé, was reduced to writing Admiralty pamphlets, or something like that, I believe, and eventually committed suicide.

Was demotion ever used as a punishment?

For what offences, apart from cowardice and murder, was death a possible option? I recall Lt. Parsons records that he was haunted even in old age by his fears after having fallen asleep on watch, an offence for which the death sentence could be imposed - though it wasn't in this case.

Punishments were guided by the Article of War, which famously specified "death or such other punishment" for just about everything.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_o ... Royal_Navy)

For sleeping on watch ...see article 27.

I wonder if punishment warrants were treated or written as seriously in Nelson's days as they certainly were in the sixties/seventies and eighties and presumably nowadays. Were they written and if so, presumably by the secretary?

Robbie:

welcome to the forum! I can't answer your question but maybe someone else can.

Thank you Anna

tycho wrote



Most of the offenses could become capital ones. I link to the Articles <a href=http://ageofsail.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/articles-of-war/>here</a>

I believe to be 'broke' means specifically to be dismissed from the service.