Nelson & His World

Discussion on the life and times of Admiral Lord Nelson
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:44 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 'Influence' and string-pulling
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Brian alluded to 'influence' in the sense of 'string-pulling' on the Peter Parker thread. 'Interest' was another term to describe the helping hand from those in power. Many able officers such as Nelson must have benefited from such favour; but inadequate officers might well have been promoted beyond their abilities (e.g. Josiah Nesbitt, Nelson's stepson). From your vast knowledge, Brian, can you give us more examples of officers whose undeserved promotions proved disastrous to themselves and/or the navy? I find these 'human interest' stories endlessly fascinating.

_________________
Anna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 'Influence' and string-pulling
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:17 pm
Posts: 217
Anna!
You pose and interesting and unusual question – namely ‘how many naval officers who received promotions through high level ‘interest’ proved disastrous to themselves and/or the navy?’ Other forum members may had different ideas, but my feeling is that the answer is ‘very few.’ Obviously some fell fowl of drink or were tyrants or had limited ability – but these rare defects were was not restricted to those with noble patrons.

It is true that ‘interest’ – that is, patronage and the exercise of personal influence over appointments and promotions - was the oil that lubricated the machinery of the Georgian state and that whatever his merits, no individual could get either unless he had influential friends and sponsors lobbying on his behalf (or, in the navy, he showed conspicuous and successful bravery in action.) No doubt this meant that a number of people held government jobs for which they were unsuited and at which they were pretty useless.

Supporters of the system – Lord Palmerston is said to have remarked that ‘favouritism means efficiency’ – argued that in general terms it worked well because no patron would want to make himself look foolish by nominating a useless candidate, and that, when appointed, every such nominee would work especially hard so as not to let his patron down.

In the case of the navy there were extra safeguards.
First, it was a service that demanded technical competence. An inefficient officer on a ship was a danger to all and was speedily got rid of, however elevated his social origins.

Second, the Admiralty was run by professional naval officers who protected naval appointments from purely political or social pressures and ensured that basic rules (such as the minimum age and sea time for promotion to lieutenant) were observed, and that the often extravagantly rapid promotion of sons and friends made by local commanders-in-chief were monitored. Fortunately the sons and friends of the most expert string-pullers - Alexander Cochrane, Sir Peter Parker and Edward Pellew - were talented. But where the beneficiary was talentless, the Admiralty resorted to the simple expedient of never employing them. This is what happened to the clearly incapable Hon. John Rodney who thanks to his father (the corrupt Lord Rodney) was made a lieutenant after 1 year at the age of 15 and, 5 weeks later, was promoted first to commander and then to post-captain on the same day. If an officer’s patron was so influential that non-employment was impractical, then he could always be side-lined. The Hon Philip Perceval, son of a First Lord, could not be prevented from becoming a post-captain, but he was never trusted with any responsibility - or as far as one can see - allowed to go to sea and spent 35 years commanding yachts in harbour.

Third, an important safeguard lay in the level of competition and the admiralty’s consequent ability to make choices. In 1809, for example, there were only enough jobs available for half the commanders and two thirds of the lieutenants on the Navy List. Likewise the number of patrons pushing their candidates far exceeded the number of opportunitues available. Between 1771 and 1781, for example, Lord Sandwich as First Lord received 923 letters lobbying for promotions to post-captain (207 from noblemen) when only 73 could be made. On average, only one fifth of those attempting to exercise ‘interest’ could be obliged. St Vincent found a similar situation in 1802. As Sandwich ruefully remarked, for every friend made by making a promotion, he made 19 enemies.

This situation was not helped by the arrogant attitude of some aristocratic officers and sponsors who seemed to think they were doing the admiralty a favour by offering their services. This lay at the root of Lord Cochrane’s groundless vendetta against St Vincent and the admiralty. His grievance was not that he had been denied promotion or constant employment in prize-rich seas (he had plenty of both), but that the promotion had not been fast enough and the ships not good enough to match his talents!

Inevitably, there were always exceptions to prove the rule. One such was Charles Maulton, who at the age of 18 became a lieutenant and 8 years later in 1814 a commander. Collingwood - intervening to stop him being court martialled - called him ’entirely useless… the kind of person who causes all the accidents, the loss of ships….mutinies, insubordination and everything bad…I cannot move him because no-one will take him.’ Alas, Collingwood seemed unable to take action because Maulton was the protégée of his Northumbrian neighbour and early patron, Admiral Robert Roddam. Presumably he could not bear to disappoint the old man.

But compare the situation in the navy with that in the army. There, the purchase of a commission required no previous knowledge at all, and once a man had become (say) a captain in the Xth of Foot by purchase, the regiment and the army was stuck with him. Fortunately, his presence did not put his comrades in danger except on the battlefield and there presumably his major and lieutenants could cover for him. This situation did not seem to be confined to the British Army. I seem to recall that von Clausewitz in his monumental ‘On War’ explains somewhere that he has written the book for the guidance of army officers, many of whom (he says) have no skill or understanding of their profession! Lucky navy!


Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 'Influence' and string-pulling
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:11 am
Posts: 1376
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Brian,

This forum member's ideas are similar to yours, regarding technical competance. The naval officer was employed in a 'hands on' profession, so if any candidate didn't demonstrate the required standard this would be spotted fairly early on and he would be removed out of harms way and most likely encouraged to go elsewhere.

_________________
Kester.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 'Influence' and string-pulling
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Many thanks for your reply, Brian. Comprehensive and authoritative as always!

_________________
Anna


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by p h p B B © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 p h p B B Group