Nelson & His World

One of the definitions of 'masthead' in the Shorter Oxford is a verb: 'to send (a sailor) to the masthead as a punishment.'


Why was this considered a punishment? Was duty at the masthead, though undoubtedly dangerous, not considered to be in the ordinary run of service? Was it particularly unpleasant or feared? Could not other unpleasant duties, like cleaning the heads, have been imposed?

I always thought that men who worked aloft had additional prestige, so why would 'mastheading' be a disgrace?

Was there a point in a seaman's or officer's career when he was not required to go to the masthead as part of his routine duties?

Tycho,

Perhaps the dictionary definition should have said 'midshipman' rather than 'sailor', since mastheading was a customary punishment for one in his position. I believe it was a punishment which was effective but which didn't necessarily demean his status, which cleaning the heads certainly would have done - although I can't say that a midshipman was never given this as a punishment. Ordinary sailors, the preferred term was normally seaman, had the more demeaning punishments such as being manacled, perhaps cleaning the heads, and of course being flogged.

As you say, climbing to the masthead was to be expected when it was required - especially from the topmen or lookout, who wouldn't have considered it particularly dangerous and who were certainly conscious of the attached prestige. I'm not sure there was a 'cut-off point' for officers but they probably didn't go there that often, although junior officers were sometimes sent aloft with a glass if a second opinion of a situation, usually the sighting of a doubtful ship, was sought by the captain. Occasionally more senior officers went there too - and there is the famous instance of a certain Captain Nelson climbing to the masthead of his ship - I forget which one - in a 'race' with a young midshipman who had recently joined, to show him that there was nothing to be feared. (I have not read it anywhere, but I can imagine Nelson holding back to enable the youngster to get to the masthead at the same time, or even slightly ahead of, himself.)

Kester

There was some correspondence on 'mastheading' in the Mariners Mirror in the 1960s. This revealed that the practice of banishing a Midshipman to the masthead was common until quite recently; a Mr Philpott recalled that "...as late as 1928 when serving as a midshipman in HMS Emperor of India, I was sent to the foretop for failing to call the officer of the watch's relief in time; the punishment was to last from the time I was myself relieved as midshipman of the watch until the officer of the watch was relieved....the punishment was by no means uncommon in the 3rd Battle Squadron". Mr Phipps-Hornby also recalled that in the First World War mastheading a midshipman was "quite commonplace".

It was mastheading that led to the sensational 'Midshipmans mutiny' in 1791. It started when a midshipman on the Saturn named Leonard failed to inform the First Lieutenant (Lt Shield) of the firing of a signal gun from the flagship. As punishment he was ordered to the masthead by Lt. Shield, but Leonard refused to go, stating that as Lt Shield was actually on the quarterdeck at the time, he must have heard the signal gun, and no report was required. Shield then ordered Mid. Leonard to be hoisted to the masthead "...Mr Shield directed a gauntline to be sent down from the main topmast head.The Mid was slung in it and triced up to the tune of a pipe by several of the seamen..." In doing this, Mr Leonard suffered injuries to his ribs.

This caused a 'ripple' of discontent amongst the Mids. which spread around the fleet and a letter was written by a group of them complaining of the 'tyrannical and oppressive' actions of Mr Shield.

This brought a swift response; Midshipman Moore of the London was identified as the author and was court-martialled for mutinous behaviour. He was found guilty and sentenced to a month in the Marshalsea prison.

Mid Leonard, encouraged by others, tried to get a court martial on Lieut Shield; he failed in this, but there was an inquiry into the incident which concluded that Shield had acted correctly, and that Leonard was guilty of insubordination.

...and a bit more.

Mastheading was apparently abolished in 1836, but clearly carried on regardless.

Basil Hall in his 'Voyages and Travels' recalled being sent to the masthead for a minor offence "..I made myself as comfortable as possible in my elevated position, and upon the whole rather enjoyed it as a piece of fun".

A Mr Moxly recalled that he had been mastheaded in 1905 for failing to salute his captain...he also tried to enjoy it, as he "took a tin of Cadburys chocolates with me".

and finally Mr Robinson remembered a case in 1941, on a lend-lease destroyer, a Mid being ordered "go to the masthead and stay there' until the end of the watch; his crime was failing to know the bearing of the convoy commodore

I was wondering which masthead was customary for the punishment?

The severity of the punishment must have depended much on the weather and the duration of the punishment - four hours in winter in the Atlantic would be rather different to half an hour in summer in the Mediterranean.

Many thanks to all for those interesting comments. So it seems that 'mastheading' was the naval equivalent of being sent to sit on the naughty step.

We really ought to inform the Oxford Dictionary that their definition is wrong. No kidding! 'Sailor' in that context is inaccurate and misleading.

I'm sure I recall that another punishment for erring mids was to be sent to live and work among 'the people' as the common seamen were called. I think Jack Aubrey spent six months there. (Fiction, I know, but P.O'B's historical details are accurate.) Are there any known factual instances of this?

Tycho,

I'm not sure that being sent to live and work amongst the men would have been seen as that much of a punishment, since mids worked amongst them as a matter of course. On the other hand perhaps, when the men learned they were there for some transgression...

Tony,

I don't know if any particular masthead was specified, but presumably it was up to the captain. Perhaps, if the offence warranted it, the mainmast - it normally being the higher!

Kester

Public reaction to the raising of Nelson's Column was not universally approving. 'The Examiner' of January 1844, purported to quote an old sailor as saying:'My eyes....they've mastheaded the Admiral!' There followed an explanation that 'mastheading' was a common punishment for erring midshipmen.

The article continued, 'The mast is sufficiently represented by the column, and the capital of it is in the closest resemblance to the cross-trees....[it] is much the same thing as putting a grown gentleman into the corner with a fool's cap on his head'.