Nelson & His World

I've just come across a couple of snippets in Nicholas (Vol. iv p485)
referring to a certain Mr. Hill and an apparent attempt to blackmail Nelson.

Nicholas Notes: ... ... ... Lord Nelson had received a paper entitled, “ Remarks by a Seaman on the Attack at Boulogne,” containing severe strictures on Lord Nelson’s Official Dispatch ; to which was added, “Should Lord Nelson wish the enclosed not to be inserted in the Newspapers, he will please to enclose by return of Post a bank note of £100, to
Mr. Hill, to be left at the Post Office till called for, London.”


[To Evan Nepean]
Amazon, Downs, September 6th, 1801.
Sir,
I send you a paper, and a note at the bottom. I have
answered Mr. Hill’s note, and it will be in London on Tues-
day morning. If their Lordships think it proper to save me
from such letters, they will be pleased to send proper people
to take up whoever comes for Mr. Hill’s letter. I have franked
it with the following direction:

“Mr. Hill,
“To be left at the Post- Office till called for.”

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
NELSON AND BRONTE


[Letter To Mr Hill]
TO MR. HILL.
Amazon, Downs 6th September, 1801.
Mr. Hill,
Very likely I am unfit for my present command, and when-
ever Government change me, I hope they will find no difficulty
in selecting an Officer of greater abilities; but you will, I
trust, be punished for threatening my character. But I have
not been brought up in the school of fear, and, therefore, care
not what you do. I defy you and your malice.
NELSON AND BRONTE.


Presumably this is a reference to the failed attempt to take the French fleet at Boulogne the events of which would undoubtedly have been re written for public consumption.
Obviously HN seems a little peeved about this and after informing Nepean has written a dismissive letter to Mr. Hill.
Does anyone know if anything ever became of this incident or if the mysterious Mr Hill was ever discovered?
Any further refences would be much appreciated.

S.

Mr Hill collected his letter without being arrested, and wrote a further letter, part of which was printed in the County Herald and Weekly Advertiser. In it he criticised Nelson's actions throughout his career, including at St Vincent, Tenerife, The Nile and Copenhagen. He made a further demand for payment, otherwise he would publish a pamphlet containing '...a plain statement of fact, supported by reasoning, the opinion of seamen - so different from that of the newspapers...' There doesn't seem to be any record of the pamphlet being published.

See Terry Coleman, 'The Nelson Touch: The Life and Legend of Horatio Nelson'

It would appear that Mr Hill's blackmail attempt worried Nelson far less than some other negative publicity he received over the failure at Boulogne. Though he says he 'does not trouble his head about these matters' he is clearly rattled. He confided his anxieties in a letter to St Vincent on 23 September about the talk in the 'watering places' and more worryingly for him, his concern that 'the wardrooms will prate'. A further letter to Nepean a little later is even more agitated: 'A diabolical spirit is at work'. He speaks of posters being put up in the streets of Deal, and is again very anxious about gossip in the fleet - 'the subject has been fully discussed in the wardrooms, midshipman's berths etc. etc. ....'that seamen 'were being sent by Lord Nelson to be butchered.'

See Edgar Vincent: 'Nelson: Love & Fame' pp 454-5

Blackmail was quite a profitable concern for some - though usually it was threats by mistresses to 'kiss and tell'. The most famous of these was Harriet Wilson, who gave her ex-lovers a chance of escaping exposure by asking for £200 before publication. Some, like Canning and Brougham, paid up. The Duke of Wellington said, 'Publish and be damned'. presumably the man named in her famous opening sentence of her memoirs was also unperturbed by the threat of scandal: 'I shall not say why or how I became at the age of 15 the mistress of the Earl of Craven......'

Even lost dogs seemed to be a way of making a fast buck. Nelson famously advertised that his dog was lost and offered a guinea and no more as a reward. He was not alone. Other advertisements for lost dogs are similarly worded. Was this to prevent dog-napping and a demand for extortionate sums for their return, I wonder?

In the same letter to Nepean, there is also a very telling sentence where he said 'It seems to be a matter of some doubt whether, if I was to order a boat expedition it would be obeyed, certainly not in such a zealous manner as to give me either pleasure or confidence'.

He clearly believed the publicity and gossip had succeeded in turning opinion in the fleet against him.

Tycho and Tony, many thanks for your responses and the references which I will follow up.

I've also managed to find a copy, published in the The Edinburgh Advertiser of November 3rd 1801 however only the headline points are given but intriguing none the less.

A while ago I was intrigued by the Nelson vs Napoleon exhibition at the NMM and how it showed the various (and often delightfully fanciful) ideas of landing and invasion craft thought to be being readied in Boulogne (also ideas pre-empting the channel tunnel by 200 years as well as air attack by baloon) . Each heavily laden with innumerable french soldiers previously portrayed by Cruikshank et al as marching through Egypt with babies skewered on their bayonets.
Obviously there is a blend of propaganda and in modern terms 'spin' always used by any government or leadership in times of crisis.
In every conflict there are differing views on the many actions and what is oft reported in the media is not always the truest representation of reality.
There are always dissenting voices, always alternative views, always opinions.
Would it be true to say that where the military is concerned these disparate voices would only be heard in quiet corners, or mumbled from the bottom of a tot of rum or glass of ale to a friendly and trusted ear.
I wonder what were the motives behind Hills actions - he hints at having naval connections ("old shipmate")and has obviously some knowledge of the actions in point - an armchair philosopher or old salt, possible one who felt aggrieved at his life at sea, we may never know.
He is obviously a dissenting voice but one with an eye for a quick return.

Does anyone think that it would it be possible to trace this dishonourable gentleman. One clue might be a couple of lines from his letter

"some particulars,
in addition to what I sent you respecting the attack
of Boulogne, which I have learnt from an old ship
mate, wounded on that occasion _such as, that the
divisions not get off together; that instead of its
being very dark, as you say in your letter, and to
which you attribute the failure, that the moon was
up ; the speech you make to Captain Somervilles's
division, &c."

A list of wounded at Boulogne would be a good starting point.

The Nelson & Napoleon Exhibtion at the NMM in 2005 was a tremendous presentation, which we thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated too.

Perhaps a good place to start would be a list of the wounded in Capt. Somerville's division in particular?

The mysterious Mr. Hill appears to be familiar with the environs of London, as the second drop point for the follow up demand with menaces was to be Mr. Jordan  the booksellers (who issued a disclaimer,) of 19 Ludgate Hill, London.

Was it usual for London traders to offer PO Box services to strangers?

I wonder too, whether Mr. Hill was motivated purely by the money. Or whether the blackening of Nelson's name, the possibility of knocking the Commander in Chief off his stride, and compromising military effectiveness, were no more than the incidental consequences of a financially motivated enterprise?

What interesting possibilities you raise, Swiftsure and Mira!

Captain Somerville's division suffered heavy casualties at Boulogne, 8 dead and 55 wounded, and was forced to retreat. (Source: Roger Knight).

Was Somerville himself injured, I wonder? By October 4th, 1801, he is in dire straits: Nelson is writing to Emma, angry and upset that Troubridge is blocking his attempt 'to get something for Captain Somerville, with a large family and only £100 a year'. He told me that if I asked any more, I should get nothing - I suppose alluding to poor Langford [also wounded at Boulogne.]

£100 a year? Why so little? Even half-pay for a captain was surely more than that?

Nelson accepted full responsibility for the failure at Boulogne: as he wrote to St Vincent, 'No person can be blamed for sending them to the attack but myself.' Nelson brooded over the criticisms in the newspapers, and fretted over the damage to his professional standing in the fleet, despite St Vincent's soothing reply: 'Your mind is superior to the mischievous wit of the news writers, which is always directed at the great and good'.

But he seemed little concerned with Hill's blackmail attempt. What was the point of it anyway? Nelson's failure was already in the public domain. Hill says he has information that highlights some discrepancies between Nelson's report and what he claims to be the truth - though the evidence is second hand and its source unspecific - 'an old shipmate'. Yet Nelson was not concerned about suppressing it - he advocated Hill's arrest. One always assumes that fraudsters are clever and wily - well, I do anyway; but maybe Hill was just stupid - and hoping to make a fast buck out of tittle-tattle.

Although not included in the official list of wounded, Nelson himself believed that Somerville had suffered some sort of injury.

He writes on the 24th August 1801 to St. Vincent:

"... I never heard of more firmness than was shown by the good and gallant Captain Somerville. I felt much in sending an Officer who has a wife and eight children, all dependent on his life. Although he has not reported himself injured, yet I fear he has suffered in his head, by the bow-gun of a Brig that was fired over him. Your handsome letter will confirm, to the Officers and the men, when sent on necessary yet dangerous duty, that at least the First Lord of the Admiralty values their exertions, although success may not crown their endeavours. .."

Additional information, provided in Nelson's dispatch, of the officers (but not the seamen) killed and wounded amongst Somerville's division include:

Lieuts: Thomas Oliver and Francis Dickson, Captain Young (Marines), Mr. Francis Burney (Master's Mate), Mr. Samuel Spratley (Midshipman.)

£100 does indeed seem poor for a Captain on half pay, although Nelson refers to him as 'the senior master and commander employed.' Would that be the official rate for an officer of his rank on half pay at that time?

I'm not sure Somerville would have been on half-pay at the time, since he was on active service. As regards half-pay however, Brian Lavery, in his 'Nelson's Navy', cites that the rate for each rank varied with seniority and was payed every six months until 1814, thereafter every three months. For captains, who were divided into three groups, the most senior received 14s 9d per day. The actual rates of pay (1808) for a captain on active service were, again in three rates and connected with the size of ship he commanded: 1st rate £32.4s per month; third rate £23.2s; sixth rate £16.16s. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Mira, are we actually certain that Somerville was a captain in rank, as opposed being called this as a courtesy, such as in the case of 'Captain' Bligh who was actually a lieutenant at the time of the mutiny but who was called captain because he commanded the Bounty. (Even today, the commanding officer of a ship is called the 'captain', even though this may not be his actual rank.) I only mention this since you site Nelson's referring to Somerville as a 'the senior master and commander employed.' There was a rank of Master and Commander until 1794, after which the master part was dropped and the rank continued as Commander, and Nelson may perhaps have been using this out of habit if that were Somerville's actual rank. (It was after all, only six to seven years afterwards).

As regards the actual attack on Boulogne, any operation in the Channel was notoriously difficult due to the strong tides and currents, so any even slight deviation from the plan would have made success difficult to achieve. This is what happened. The French too, perhaps having learnt from the Nile, had moored their brigs and gunboats across the entrance to Boulogne close together and with chains, something which Nelson probably could not have known at the commencement of the attack. As to Nelson himself, he had been appointed as some sort of publicity move, because he was known and would give the public confidence (or some of them!). Perhaps however, he was not actually the right person for the job - commanding a fleet at sea was really his forté - something which I think he alluded to himself. However, as the expression goes, 'orders is orders'.

Kester

Kester

Thanks for shedding light on the question of half pay.

Pettigrew refers to Somerville in the footnotes, and mentions that he was made post in April 1802.

Your analogy with Bligh and the reason Nelson referred to him as 'master and commander' looks to be the answer.

Why did Mr. Hill specify Mr. Jordan's bookshop as the place that Nelson could forward money in his second attempt at extortion?

Hill's second blackmailing letter to Nelson ended "... I shall take it for granted that you have no objection to my printing the pamphlet, because you think your reputation too well established with the public to suffer from any thing I can say. - But a plain statement of facts... so different from that of the newspapers - and the failure at Boulogne may perhaps have more weight than you imagine."

According to Jordan, he had received a different letter, presumably from Hill, in the regular post:

"Mr Jordan is requested to have the goodness to take care of, till called for, a small parcel directed, by mistake, to Mr. R. Hill, at Mr. Jordan's &c..."

Jordan also added "that he is totally unaquainted with the author; and should detest the publishing of any manuscript from a person prompted by such disgraceful motives."

Having recently completed a little research project involving 18th century booksellers/publishers, this had me intrigued, so I did a bit of extra digging to try to find out more about Mr. Jordan and his activities.

Jeremiah Samuel Jordan, it seems, had previously got himself into very hot water by publishing 'seditious works' liable to inflame public unrest. As the country felt the heat of the French Revolution, and republican sympathies in some influential circles ran high , Jordan published numerous diatribes denigrating the King, the Constitution, the Government, the Church and their public servants.

"In England, at least 27 people were tried for seditious words and 14 for seditious libel during 1793. In these trials, the government did not hesitate to use packed juries in order to obtain convictions. In other cases, prosecutors argued that the case was too complicated to be decided by uneducated men, and thence "special juries" of higher-class citizens were necessary, which contributed significantly to the number of sedition convictions reached. An even more effective tool of intimidation was the issuing of ex officio charges, which allowed the government to eliminate a hearing by a grand jury.

"Sedition trials continued throughout the decade, with the 1798 trial of Gilbert Wakefield demonstrating many of the characteristics which so discouraged reformers and radicals of the time, especially since it marked the first major trial in which a publisher was tried even though he admitted the author of the offensive publication. Fox went so far as to label it a "death blow to the liberty off the press"

Wakefield was tried for seditious libel along with several sellers of his book, Joseph Johnson, Jeremiah Jordan and John Cuthell. All were convicted, and the special jury sentenced Wakefield to two years imprisonment, a security of 500 pounds for good behavior for the term of five years, and two sureties in 250 pounds each."

Mr. Jordan was a central figure in two famous sedition cases, and found himself facing trial at the Old Bailey for both of them. He was also the publisher of numerous other critical pamphlets and essays which sailed pretty close to the wind, and counted Charles James Fox amongst his many acquaintances and correspondents.

Briefly from 'The Life of Thomas Paine:

'"The Rights of Man" was printed by Johnson in time for the opening of Parliament (February 1792), but this publisher became frightened, and only a few copies bearing his name found their way into private hands, one of these being in the British Museum. J. S. Jordan, 166 Fleet Street (later of 19 Ludgate Hill), consented to publish it" and Paine, entrusting it to a committee of his friends, fled to France.

It appears that Jordan, although indicted for 'seditious libel,' turned over all the papers concerning the book to the authorities, and escaped further prosecution.

Wakefield served his sentence, and when he was released in the summer of 1801, he was a dying man. Suffering from typhus, he breathed his last on September 9th 1801 (incidentally three days after Nelson's defiant letter to Jordan.)

Jordan was a anti-establishmentarian (never thought I'd get to use that word) publisher, and his vigorous rebuttal in the case of Nelson and Mr. Hill is surely compromised in light of his past (and future) activity in publishing tracts critical of the state.

Criticism of the King and Constitution, and all who served them was what Jordan peddled and (as he admitted at Paine's trial) made a profit from.

Was he complicit or not?

In view of his past brushes with the law, twice indicted and once convicted of seditious libel, Jordan would have been a fool to have involved himself in such a cack handed looking attempt at extortion. The provision of his personal name and address to Nelson, especially in the wake of Nelson's defiant reaction, is odd in the extreme. It could be seen as making Jordan as much a victim of the escapade as Nelson was intended to be.

Perhaps Hill thought the use of Jordan's name and business address would intensify the threat, and indicate that he was serious about publishing, highlighting the public damage his pamphlet could do to Nelson's reputation and the campaign on the coast.

One would also assume that Jordan, a convicted enemy of the state, would have expected a speedy visit from the authorities.

If Nelson himself was unconcerned, I struggle a bit with the thought that the Government, in the midst of a sharp propaganda war and looking for the best peace terms they could lever out of the ongoing negotiations, would have taken the threat lightly.

Possibly this helped to prompt Jordan's public denial of any knowledge of the affair. He had seen first hand what had happened to Gibert Wakefield, and would be keen to keep (just) on the right side of the 'flexible' law practiced by an establishment under threat and at war.

As Kester suggests, Nelson (or Nelson's name and reputation) was a political appointment to support the Government's political ends. I suspect it wasn't so much about conquering the French at sea, but thrashing them around the negotiating table, and Buonaparte definitely had the measure of Addington there. Certainly, the Government could well do without an escalation of public concern in an already sensitive arena.

Smoke and mirrors. From the sparseness of material on the affair, it seems impossible to decypher what really went on. From his letters, Nelson seemed to feel he was consigned to his 'particular service' as a pawn in someone else's game, and he was clearly very unhappy about it.

Hill's second letter to Nelson is rather cryptic. He isn't particularly interested in making money out of it; financial gain doesn't appear to be the name of the game.

'... Small notes, to the amount you may think proper. I leave it to yourself.'

With this second attempt, I'm not at all sure that money was Hill's objective.

A proper little mystery.

A quick question though. Does anyone know if Hill's first blackmailing letter to Nelson was published in the press at the time?

Mira:

all this is most intriguing and what you have discovered certainly suggests that the motive was political rather than financial.

Two interesting snippets from The Times:

23 September 1801 - a report of sneers in an 'Opposition paper', - 'a paper yesterday contains the following paragraph: Lord Nelson and his suite have hitherto lived in a style of the utmost festivity at Deal. On Wednesday his Lordship discharged his bill at the inn for the last 3 weeks which, exclusively of wine, amounted to the sum of £265.'

'Utmost festivity' is a poisonous suggestion - and a politically motivated smear? - in the wake of the Boulogne disaster - and patently untrue. Nelson was frantic with worry about the dying Parker at this time.

On October 30th 1801 Hill's threat was in the public domain, though whether this is a belated report on the first letter or a reference to the second, I am not sure.

'Some vile wretch it appears has been writing a letter to Lord Nelson threatening to expose his reputation as a great naval character unless he consented to send some small bank notes to an appointed rendez-vous. It is hardly necessary to say that his Lordship has treated the writer with the contempt he deserves and sets all his lampoons at defiance.'

I have nothing to compare it with, but was £265 actually that much for three weeks? I'm sure other patrons of the Three Kings at Deal would have had larger bills than that.

Carola Oman wrote that Nelson hired bedrooms sufficient for the party, reception rooms and a gallery overlooking the beach, besides a bathing machine for the ladies, which would have come to quite a bit I would have thought. Regarding the food, I think Nelson would have been pretty abstemious himself, but wouldn't have skimped where others, including the Hamiltons, were concerned - even though it might have cost him. (One can imagine, as soon as Nelson and the Hamiltons had left, that some low life on the paper had approached the hotelier and somehow managed to see their bill - or did the hotelier himself give the paper the information!).

As you say, it sounds political, calculated to smear Nelson's name and at a time when he was worried about Parker and had other things on his mind.

Kester

This would appear to be the hotel today, now known as the Royal Hotel:

http://www.theroyalhotel.com/index.htm

I wonder if they have kept a copy of Nelson's bill? I'm sure, however, that he and the Hamilton's would not have had been in the mood to 'enjoy' the warm hospitality and comfortable surroundings! It's a pity they don't give a little more information about Nelson's stay there, although there is apparently a history of their visit at the hotel. Under accommodation, they say that three of the rooms have balconies with sea views, so presumably one of these would have been the room Nelson hired.

Kester

Kester:

I agree - a bill of £265 was not excessive for three weeks at the hotel.

Nelson's tour of Wales with the Hamiltons lasted from 25 July - 20 August 1802 and the total expenses were £481 3s 10d, but this included travel, entertainment and generous handouts to the deserving, including old shipmates who sought out Nelson.

The accounts for the Wales tour are appended to Hugh Tours' 'Life and Letters of Emma Hamilton' (Victor Gollancz 1963). This lists hotel bills, carriages, hay for the horses etc. There are few extravagances apart from £23 to Dorton's in Oxford for 'dresses', (for that disastrous visit to nearby Blenheim Palace, perhaps?), a visit to the theatre and a tip for the ventriloquist!

So the cost of the stay at Deal would seem to be quite modest for a peer and an admiral. And the suggestion of 'festivity' is belied by Nelson's concern and vigilance over Parker's protracted suffering.