Nelson & His World

Does anyone know if there was a recognised system for a lieutenant to receive a commission?
It is well documented that Captains would take favoured officers when transferring ship. Did this have to be sanctioned by a senior officer or the Admiralty? I recently researched the career of a lieutenant, who went on to earn the patronage of Horatio Nelson. The manner in which his initial service under Nelson began has always puzzled me.

Prior to the appointment, our lieutenant served on Incendiary- attached to the squadron blockading Malta. His commission on Vanguard commenced following a four day passage to Palermo on board Hyaena. At this point in time Hardy was Captain of Vanguard, and had previously served with the lieutenant. Evidence, albeit circumstantial, suggests Nelson was aware of the lieutenant’s potential, via a meeting at Gibraltar in 1798. The correspondence of Earl St Vincent, dated September 1798, shows that the same lieutenant had attracted his attention.

Was it unusual for a lieutenant serving on a fire ship at Malta, following a four day passage, to be given a plum position on an admiral’s flag ship?

Who from the list of Nelson, Hardy or St Vincent is the more likely to have orchestrated the move?

Would the commission needed to have been ratified by a senior officer, (St Vincent or Nelson) or even the Admiralty?

Any of the above. Movement between ships was at the control of the Admiral in control but that could be initiated by the Admiral or a Captain either requesting a particular officer or alternately requesting a particular officer is superseded. Equally the officer himself could request transfer and if his patronage was good or he was close to the officer in question then that could also cause adjustments. Then you add in officers left behind, on prize crews separated from their main ship and thus available to be poached and you have a very fluid situation.

From what you have said I would guess that Hardy liked the officer and requested him for the flagship when a position came available or through the 'anyone you want on board old chap' type patronage.

Patronage is the key usually as without that then you are likely to stay where you are unless you perform some sort of heroic act..

I was unaware though that Captains took 'officers' with them when moving ship and I would have thought that was quite rare and more along the lines of - replace entire body of officers A with group B. I was under the impression that Captains often took crew with them and would have to later request particular warrant officers and/or officers later on mainly because they are no so easily replaced as say a coxwain/cook or a boats crew of able seaman. Midshipman probably occupy a middle ground as most newly appointed Captains would want to expand their own patronage by bringing in their own.

You should note that the commission itself was controlled by the Admiralty so officers could be promoted to acting lieutenant by a senior rank (anyone commanding a sip and above) but until confirmed by both examination and admiralty he or she would still be acting.

Joss

Hi Richard. Let me first say how much I enjoyed your article about Parker in the Trafalgar Chronicle – it is excellent.

Joss, to amplify what you said, lieutenant’s commissions were for a specific ship, and as you say, were issued by the Admiralty. Therefore I would think that a move between ships ordered by a local commander would be a temporary ‘acting’ order, until confirmed by the Admiralty, and a new commission issued. Although for a simple move between ships, rather than a promotion, I imagine this was a formality.

In this particular case, there is also the question of who was the Admiral in control: Nelson or St Vincent? St Vincent was the Commander-in-chief of the station, and I would have thought therefore had the final say in this case. However, Nelson, as the commander on the spot, may well have issued the order, having gauged that St Vincent would have no objection.

Richard, the muster book may very well show who issued the order, but obviously this still does not answer who initiated the request.

In home ports, my guess is that it was normal for lieutenants' transfers between ships to be by Admiralty order, although that might be initiated by a request via the commander of the fleet. But it is interesting that Thomas Bladen Capel joined the Vanguard as a Lieutenant on 11 April 1798 ‘per acting order from Rear-Admiral Nelson of 5 April 1798’ (from the muster book). At that time, the Vanguard was at St Helens, and Bladen Capel joined on the day she actually set sail for Lisbon. I’m interested to know why he did not hold an Admiralty commission, but then we know Nelson didn’t always do things by the book.

Many thanks for the explanation Joss, it has helped a great deal. Your observation on the exchange of bodies of officers does better fit the examples I had referred too.

Glad you enjoyed the article Tony! As I'm sure you surmised this thread was surrounding Parker's movements. This is one aspect of his story that has nagged away at me. I could never understand how Parker was selected for the position on Vanguard. Influence must have been applied on his behalf but from what quarter. Cases for St Vincent, Nelson and Hardy all look plausible. For the reasons I set out in my article, I still believe it to be Nelson. Yet, on facts alone his would be the least likely.

Hardy's case rests on he serving with Parker-at a very early stage of Parker's career. His actions following Parker's appointment to Vanguard confirm his partiality toward Parker. The two men went on to serve together, often at Nelson's side. Parker even appears in Hardy's personal correspondence, where he describes him as his good friend. A demonstration of Hardy's continued concern for Parker manifests with his visit to Deal in the aftermath of Parker's wounding.

The case for St Vincent is clear enough, reasons for any partiality not quite so.
Parker was transferred from a prestigious position on Princess Royal by order of St Vincent. He then spent one month in command of a gun brig at Gibraltar before transferring to Incendiary. George Barker Captain of Incendiary was a very close friend of St Vincent. Within a short time St Vincent had written to Evan Nepean 'Mr Parker, a very fine young
man'. Could this indicate interest on St Vincent's part. Did St Vincent for-see problems on the Princess Royal, then put Parker out of harms way until he could find a suitable berth in which to continue his promising career?

Thanks once again for the information!

Richard.

Maybe you can read Parker's move from Orde's flagship the Princess Royal to command the gun brig Virago in two ways. Perhaps Parker was seen as part of the cause of the discipline problems on Princess Royal that St Vincent later commented on, and thus it was a downwards step (the calumny he laboured under?) Alternatively, it might be seen as a step up to an independent command. Was the Virago actually a brig or just a small gunboat? Even if just a gunboat, this could have been an important and active role at Gibraltar, as British shipping was constantly harassed by Spanish gunboats from Algeciras across the bay.

It also seems to me that his appointment to the Vanguard must have been ordered before he left Malta, otherwise he would not have left the Incendiary. Presumably also someone had been discharged or promoted from the Vanguard to create a vacancy. As you suggest, this was very likely orchestrated by St Vincent as part of a larger set of appointments. Of course, that still doesn't answer who first suggested Parker for the Vanguard!

I remain open minded to all possibilities, It should be remembered though, Parker's removal from Princess Royal was far from unique during the relevant period. He was the first, but within a short space of time, almost every lieutenant was transferred by order St Vincent. That said, I believe this period is likely to hold the key to 'the calumny'.

If Virago had been a positive step, would he then have been relieved of the command so quickly? Could the next step, exchanging with a lieutenant of a mere fire ship be seen as positive?

The key to that may lay in the identity of the Captain of Incendiary, George Barker. Is it coincidence that two months after Parker had joined Incendiary, St Vincent was writing to Nepean 'Mr Parker, a very fine young man.' Or could St Vincent be confirming Barker's opinion of Parker?

Nelson had written to Barker on Oct 5 1798:
Dear Sir,
I have directed Captain Ball to take you with him, and I assure you I desire an opportunity of proving how much I respect your character, being Lord St Vincent's sincere friend.

Parker's leaving Incendiary coincided with Barker's transfer to Barfleur. Was the two men's transfers part of a larger set of appointments-as you mentioned, quite possibly! Whatever may be the case, I agree Parker's appointment to Vanguard was definitely known before he left Malta. An interesting note appears at the end of a letter Nelson wrote St Vincent, 14 April 1799-the very day Parker joined Vanguard:
I forgot to tell you Mr Stuart cannot find his commission for the Seahorse, nor have I any order of what Lieutenant to remove.

From this it would appear St Vincent was controlling transfers?

So many possibilities!

Richard.

It is certainly intriguing that St Vincent moved all the lieutenants from the Princess Royal. It is well known that there was much resentment towards St Vincent from officers of the fleet, so that could indicate that the Princess Royal's lieutenants were trouble makers who needed to be split up, or that they were good officers that needed to be removed from a corrupting influence, or that it was a deliberate slight on Orde.

Richard, you know far more about Parker and his situation than me, so I am just floating ideas with little to back them up, but Rif Winfield does suggest that gunbrigs presented junior officers with a rare opportunity to hold independent command. But was the Virago active or was she stuck in port with Parker overseeing repairs? That might be a clue. But again, I think Parker's move to lieutenant of the fireship Incendiary might perhaps also be seen as a positive move, as I think he would have been the only lieutenant on board. It was common for junior lieutenants to move to a first lieutenant position in a smaller ship in order to gain experience of a position of greater responsibility, albeit in a smaller ship. There may also have been greater prospects for action and prize money in the Incendiary. But all this is speculation on my part, and I would be interested in other's thoughts.

Parker joined the Vanguard on the day the first lieutenant, Nathaniel Vassall, was discharged for promotion, according to Roger Knight. He wasn't made commander, so I'm not sure what the promotion was, but with the letter you quote, this does seem to suggest a series of transfers ordered by St Vincent.

Tony, many thanks for your continued input! According to a snippet I have just found your idea about Virago being a positive move may be pretty close to the mark. This passage from the O'byrne's entry for lieutenant Hamilton Davies supplies us with a glimpse of service on board Virago:

DAVIES. (LIEUT., 1812. r-p., 19; H-P„33.) HAMILTON DAVIES
Feb. 1797, as Fst.-cl. Vol., the ROYAL SOVEREIGN 100, bearing the flag of Sir Alan Gardner; served next, for 14 months, on board the INCENDIARY fireship, Capt. Geo. Barker, principally on the Jersey and Guernsey station; and on 20 June, 1798, was appointed Midshipman of the VIRAGO gun-brig, Lieut.-Commander Wm. Beard, under whom we find him frequently in combat with the Algeciras flotilla, while in escort of convoys to Gibraltar.

This does not answer whether Parker's time spent in command (before being replaced by Beard) was spent on active duty or making the ship ready for sea. Frustratingly, no logs or musters at the NA cover Parker's time in command. Parker left Virago, 29 May 1798, the above caption does however show that the ship was active very soon after that date.

Your observation about Parker being made first lieutenant of Incendiary also applies in his case. If these appointments were positive moves, which now appears may well have been the case, the assumption that the 'calumny' dates from Princess Royal must also be cast into doubt.

Please keep floating ideas this way Tony, your thoughts are proving invaluable.

Richard.