Nelson & His World

I was intrigued to note Margarette Lincoln's observation that many officers objected to the privilege accorded to seamen on active service of sending and receiving single sheet letters at a low rate of postage fearing 'that it would 'inflame radical tendencies by treating them as citizens rather than subjects'. Collingwood, for example, wrote in 1801, 'The intention was kind and considerate but the allowing seamen's letters to pass free of postage has done infinite harm. Of a hundred letters, not more than five are from friends and relations, but either scrawls from the nannies [not sure what that means] or plans of resistance from other ships'

Is it true that mutinies were planned in this way? Is there any extant evidence?

Tycho,

I note that you mention Margaret Lincoln says letters were 'sent at a low rate' of postage, yet Collingwood mentions that they were 'sent free of postage' - is there a discrepancy here or are we talking about two different periods? If the latter, I would imagine Collingwood had cause for reservation since anything could be, and presumably was since he said so, sent in the mail. I think partly Collingwood's point might have been that if a seamen had to pay for sending his mail, he would prefer to spend part of his meagre wages on a letter home to his family rather than perhaps to another ship with an entirely different and darker message.

I am sure the ways of inciting a mutiny were many and varied. The one thing officers would have been on guard against was mutinous talk and certainly guarded letters, if found and inciting a mutiny, would have been looked upon very seriously indeed. Collingwood would surely have been in a position to know, since he would have regular received reports about everything concerning the ships under his command. His control of a fleet was rather different from Nelson's style and one imagines he might have had cause for concern - wasn't it also just before Trafalgar that one officer implored the powers that be to send them Lord Nelson?

Kester

Kester:

thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. It appears, though, that Collingwood's remark (and slip of the pen?) was a comment on the legislation that allowed the cheap, not free, postage that Margarette Lincoln referred to. But I just thought his assertion rather odd that more men were planning mutiny than were writing home; and if planned mutiny really was as widespread as Collingwood suggests, I wondered whether there would be some record somewhere of such events, and of any interceptions and/or actions taken to discourage them.

I believe the authorities (by which I mean the government and its agencies - including the Admiralty) were very sensitive to "combinations" of the lower orders, whether seamen or not, fearing the influence of the Revolution spreading across the Channel.

The activities of such groups as Corresponding Societies, in particular the London Corresponding Society (LCS) , a group of radicals, particularly exercised them, and there were suspicions that this group had actively encouraged the great mutinies of the fleet at Spithead and the Nore. A report from the Secret Committee of Parliament alleged (in 1797) that ..."The mutiny which took place in the fleet will be traced to an intimate connection with the principles and practices (..of the LCS)..." It was seriously believed (but never actually shown) that the corresponding societies were actively working to coordinate an insurrection. This was done by secret meetings and letters.

The active participation of Jacobin sympathisers in the 1797 mutinies is "not proven"; despite all the fears and beliefs, no letter was ever found to prove it.


Another group under suspicion were the United Irishmen. This group, determined to obtain an Ireland independant of England did have direct links to naval mutinies. The best known is the mutiny in the Defiance. This resulted in 24 Irish seamen and 1 marine being court martialled, with 20 of them being hanged - the greatest number ever so punished - not for a mutiny, but intending to mutiny. It was found that they had met as a group and corresponded with those ashore, and conspired, with the intention of taking the ship into a French port after killing the officers.

Many thanks for that information, PN.

There are numerous reports of meetings of the London Corresponding Society in the Times on-line archive. Though the tone of the Times reports is one of superficial disdain, there is an undercurrent of alarm at the sentiments expressed. It is not surprising that there were fears that the mutinous seamen might be, or possibly were, influenced by them.

On 1 Aug 1797, the Times reported that at a meeting of the London Corresponding Society, there was 'a petition for the remonstrance to His Majesty of the impropriety of the war and the miscondcut of ministers....

Three 'tribunes', though unacquainted with the elements of their native language, are minutely skilled in the motley jargon of revolutionary cant....'

The Times deplored 'the mischiefs that were likely to have arisen from political sentiments which lead to the most dangerous innovations and the subversion of every civil and religious blessing.'

This is a slight digression from the discussion of political mutiny, but I thought this extract from the Times of 13 September 1796 would be of interest. It is Fletcher Christian's report of the mutiny on the Bounty and exonerates Captain Bligh from any of the accusations of brutality which have tainted his name. I don't know whether this is a truthful account or not; but it is interesting.

From The Times of September 13, 1796

'This extraordinary nautical character has, at length, transmitted to England his account of the conduct of the mutiny on HMS Bounty.

We are told, by this enterprising mutineer, that the revolt he headed on board HMS Bounty was not ascribable to any dislike of their commander, Captain Bligh, but to the unconquerable passion which he and the major part of the ship’s crew entertained for the enjoyments which Otaheite [Tahiti] still held out to their voluptuous imaginations. ‘It is but justice, says he, ‘that I should acquit captain Bligh in the most unequivocal manner of having contributed in the smallest degree to the promotion of our conspiracy by any harsh or ungentleman-like conduct on his part. So far from it that few officers in the service, I am persuaded, can be found superior to him or produce stronger claims upon the gratitude and attachment of the men whom they are appointed to command. Our mutiny is to be wholly ascribed to the strong predilection we had contracted for living at Otaheite, where, exclusive of the happy disposition of the islanders, the mildness of the climate and the fertility of the soil, we had formed certain tender connections which banished the remembrance of old England entirely from our breasts.’ After describing the seizure and securing of Captain Bligh’s person in his cabin, Christian thus concludes his account of this brutal revolt. ‘During the whole of this transaction, Captain Bligh exerted himself in the utmost to reduce the people to a sense of their duty, by haranguing and expostulating with them, which caused me to assume a degree of ferocity quite repugnant to my feelings as I dreaded the effect his remonstrance might produce. Hence, I threatened him several times with instant death unless he desisted; but my menaces were all in vain. He continued to harangue me with so much manly eloquence that I was fain to call in the dram bottle to my aid, which I directed to be served round to my associates. This heartened and encouraged me. We went through the business, though on my part, I suffered more than words can express from the conflict of contending passions; but I had gone too far to recede; so putting the best face on the business, I ordered the boat to be cut adrift, wore ship and shaped our course back for Otaheite.’

Tycho,

What a fascinating account, which sounds as though it is from Fletcher Christian, some seven years after the actual mutiny took place. In all that time he must have thought several times about the event and its tragic aftermath and probably wondered if it had all been worth it. The account would also seem to reinforce the different characters of the two men.

The Times says that the account was 'transmitted to England', but what do they mean by that. Presumably it was posted from abroad. If they mean that it was delivered to their offices, one wonders by whom - was it by Fletcher himself, in disguise! A bit far-fetched perhaps (one imagines a hooded figure late one night!) but he did want to return to England to give his version of the story. There were also rumours that he had been seen, I believe near his home in Cockermouth, but these appear to be only rumours. Do we actually know what became of him, seeing that it would have been difficult for him to leave Pitcairn as the Bounty had been burnt?

Kester

Kester:

apologies for this long post - go and make yourself a cup of coffee!

Christian was supposedly shot in a conflict between himself and the islanders on Pitcairn but the rumours that he faked his death and returned to England abound.

I omitted the introduction to Christian's account to save typing it all out! But here it is, from The Times of 13 September 1796:

'He has transmitted his account of his conduct on board the Bounty and a detail also of his subsequent proceedings after he took command of the ship, in which, after visiting Juan Fernandez and various islands in S. America, he was shipwrecked in rescuing Don Henriques, Major-General of the kingdom of Chili [sic] from a similar disaster; an event which, after many perilous circumstances, led to his present lucrative establishment under the Spanish Government in S. America for which he was about to sail when the last accounts were received from him. In his voyage, etc. which he has lately published at Cadiz, we are told, by this enterprising mutineer........' then follows the account given above.

The personal pronouns in this introduction are a little unclear - am I right in thinking that it is Don Henriques who had the 'lucrative establishment' and that he published Christian's account in Cadiz?

It does, in fact, tally with Captain Bligh's account, which was published in The Times of September 7, 1790 which I think is also interesting. What a different picture of his character from the one painted by Hollywood. One gathers that Captain Bligh is at some pains to acquit himself of accusations that he should have been alert to the planned mutiny and thereby taken steps to foil the plot.

'Notwithstanding the roughness with which I was treated, the remembrance of past kindness produced some signs of remorse in Christian. When they were forcing me out of the ship, I asked him if this treatment was a proper return for the many instances he had received of my friendship. He appeared disturbed at my question, and answered, with much emotion, 'That - Captain Bligh - is the thing. I am in hell; I am in hell.'

It will naturally be asked, 'What could be the reason for such a revolt?' In answer to which I can only conjecture that the mutineers had assured themselves of a more happy life among the Otaheitans that they could possibly have in England; which joined to some female connections, have most probably been the principal cause of the whole transaction. The women of Otaheite are handsome, mild and cheerful in their manners and conversation, possessed of great sensibility and have sufficient delicacy to make themselves admired and beloved. The chiefs are so much attracted to our people that they rather encourage their staying among them than otherwise, and even made them promises of large possessions. Under these, and many other attendant circumstances equally desirable, it is now perhaps not so much to be wondered at, though scarcely possible to have foreseen, that a set of sailors, most of them void of connections, should be led away; especially when in addition to such powerful inducements, they imagined it in their power to fix themselves in the midst of plenty, in the finest island in the world, where they need not labour and where allurements of dissipation are beyond anything that can be conceived.......

But if it should be asserted that a commander is to guard against an act of mutiny or piracy in his own ship, more than by the common rules of service, it is as much to say that he must sleep locked up, and when awake, be girded with pistols....

The secrecy of the meeting [to plan the mutiny] is beyond all conception. Thirteen of the party who were with me had always lived forward among the people; yet neither they, nor the messmates of Christian, Stewart, Haywood or Young had ever observed any circumstances to give them suspicion of what was going on. With such close-planned acts of villainy and my mind free of suspicion, it is not wonderful I have been got the better of. Perhaps if I had had marines, a centinel [sic] at my cabin door might have prevented it; for I slept with my door always open that the officers of the watch might have access to me on all occasions. The possibility of such a conspiracy was ever farthest from my thought. Had the mutiny been occasioned by any grievance, real or imaginary, I must have discovered symptoms of their discontent which would have put me on my guard; but the case was far otherwise. Christian in particular I was in the most friendly terms with. That very day he was engaged to dine with me; and the preceding night he excused himself from supping with me on pretence of being unwell; for which I felt concerned, having no suspsicions of his integrity and honour.'

Tycho,

Thanks for posting the rest of the account (phew!).

I have always thought Bligh a much maligned character, if overzealous and a bit nitpicking, and certainly was not the man depicted in films! The mutiny however dogged him for the rest of his life and he seems to have developed a need for having his actions approved - hence his odd request for Nelson to give him a reference at Copenhagen.

Personally I think the Bounty voyage should have been better thought out, perhaps even to having the crew hand picked, and the vessel could have been larger. They should also, as Bligh implies, have carried a detachment of marines. Unfortunately at the time, the Admiralty had other things to think about!

Kester

Kester:

if you have a few hours to spare - and a large pot of coffee! - you might find the following link of interest. Arguments for and against Christian and Bligh etc.

http://www.lareau.org/bounty.html

Tycho,

Thanks for that, it certainly looks interesting. I shall however, probably read it a little at a time!

Like the new opening page by the way. I'm trying to guess who all the pictures are of, without looking in the first instance. I have three at the moment, perhaps four - can anyone do better?

Kester

Kester, I've responded to your last challenge here: http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=155

I've just looked out an interesting article by Colin White which appeared in History Today (July 2005) in which he reveals a more liberal side to Nelson than was previously imagined.

His comment when St Vincent hanged mutineers on a Sunday: 'Had it been Christmas Day, I would have executed them' is a clear indication of Nelson's generally ruthless attitude to rebellion against properly constituted authority. However, CW points out that this reaction was in response to the distinctly political tone that had crept into the attitude of the mutineers. Prior to that, their aim had merely been to protest against harsh conditions and demand improvements, and in that they appear to have Nelson's support. A letter to the Duke of Clarence of 26 May 1797 appeared in Clarke & M'Arthur's autobiography with this significant passage suppressed:

'to us who see the whole at once we must think that for a Mutiny which I fear I must call it having no other name, that it has been the most Manly thing I ever heard of, and does the British sailor infinite honour. It is extraordinary that there never was a regulation by authority for short weights and measures, and it reflects on all of us, to have suffered it so long.'

As CW points, out Nelson's instinctive, initial reaction was to sympathise with the mutineers and to lay the blame for the dispute on himself and his fellow officers for ignoring blatant abuses in the system. It was only when they challenged the system itself that his attitude changed.

There is much more of interest in the article which reveals that there is 'a more complex and liberal side to Nelson than was previously appreciated'. Back copies can be obtained on line from www.historytoday.com. This issue is well worth buying: as well as CW's article, there is another one by David Welch that looks at the celebration of Nelson and Napoleon in contemporary British and French art and an article by the French historian Laurent Joffrin that looks at the paradoxes surrounding Napoleon.