Nelson & His World

Does anyone have any biographical details of John Yelland, Lieutenant aboard the Monarch at Copenhagen? I should like to know more if there is information available. He comes over as such an engaging and courageous character in Dudley Pope's book, mentioned on another thread. He is listed in the index as 'Yelland, Lt. (later Captain)' so he clearly got his promotion eventually. There was great disappointment that Sir Hyde Parker (according to Pope) speedily promoted his own favourites, some of whom were nowhere near the battle, while heroes like Yelland were overlooked.

Fourteen of the First Lieutenants of the ships engaged at Camperdown, including Yelland, were promoted to Commander in April, 1801. Yelland had to wait another five years to be made Post.

Nelson does not mention him in his report to Parker following the battle but Hyde Parker was most complimentary of Yelland in his Dispatch and recommended him to Their Lordships. Yelland was the only First Lieutenant mentioned. Judging by Midshipman Millard's description of him, he would have been of a mature age at the time of Copenhagen, but then an "old gentleman" in the view of a seventeen year old could mean anything.

Yelland was a lieutenant of 1783. Subsequent to his service in the MONARCH he commanded the bomb vessel FURY in 1805.

He died in 1828, having been an out-pensioner of Greenwich Hospital from 1809.

Anna,

I found this notice of his death in the Gentlemen's magazine for December 24th, 1828. It gives short details of his appointments:
http://books.google.se/books?id=3Prv5fo ... &ct=result

I agree, he comes over as a likeable and active character, but then there were so many that didn't get much recognition.

Hyde Parker's promotion of lieutenants from the ships of his squadron, which of course didn't take any part in the battle was a fact. Rather than being just a disappointment, it caused justifiable anger and disbelief amongst those who had done the actual fighting! This was just another example of Hyde Parker being the wrong Admiral for the job, but which was unfortunately a political appointment. The King in particular didn't want a war with another crowned head of state, to whom he was also related, but in appointing HP he and the government seemed to completely have misread the situation, in holding out for a diplomatic solution. HP would have been the ideal candidate if that had happened! However more down to earth officers, such as Nelson, probably knew that the Danes were not the sort of people to give up without a fight, as they held rigidly to the view that the British 'stop and search' policy was illegal, and that they themselves were neutral.

That the fighting was very bloody, as you allude to over on the book thread, was largely due to the fact that the British and the Danes seemed to hold different opinions as to how to conduct a battle. The British view was that once a ship, or fighting battery in this case, had surrendered and her flag had been hauled down, she had ceased to fight. The Danes on the other hand, on many occasions renewed the fighting and rehoisted colours aboard vessels which had initially surrendered, and in many cases were actually being taken possession of. In the interrim, between them surrendering and the British boarding, these vessels then received fresh men (many idealistic students) from ashore to renew the fighting. This defiance not only caused many of the casulties on the British side, but meant that the British used excessive force and killed many more Danes than was neccessary. Nelson alluded to this in his famous letter to the Crown Prince.

In light of the above Bligh's request to Nelson might be seen as reasonable but, so far as I know, he was the only officer to approach him in this odd way.

Many thanks for both replies.

Here is Dudley Pope's version of Yelland's fate after Copenhagen:

'It was customary whenever possible, to promote officers who had distinguished themselves. For many men without influence, like Lt Yelland, who had commanded the 'Monarch' with distinction for the whole battle after Capt.Mosse's death, it represented almost the only chance of making the jump from lieutenant to Captain.......Although in any case he deserved immediate promotion for the way he had taken command of the 'Monarch', his application to Sir Hyde was backed up by Nelson. But it was refused; instead, as Midshipman Millard put it, 'a stranger was sent on board us, who 'had borne none of the heat and burthen of the day', and Mr Yelland was told he might take the place of [the London's] first lieutenant, who was promoted, and await another opportunity. He very properly considered this an insult, and preferred being first lieutenant in the ship he had fought......'

The Great Gamble, Ch 29, pp. 443-4

Midshipman Millard's complete narrative has a revelatory passage on Yelland and his treatment after the battle which clears up the apparent confusion.

Yes, as Vela says, he was speedily promoted after Copenhagen, but what seems to have caused anger was that the promotion was not immediate , in recognition of Yelland's heroic conduct after Captain Mosse was killed.

'But I have a charge against Sir Hyde which I can substantiate, and for which he ought not readily to be forgiven. Mr Yelland fought our ship like a lion through the whole action, as we have seen; he had been twenty years in the service, and, according to established usage, had an undoubted claim upon the Commander in Chief for immediate promotion. He applied, and Lord Nelson applied for him, but a stranger was sent among us.....'

'On his arrival in England, Mr Yelland was made Master and Commander; but having no recommendation from the Commander in Chief he remained some time out of employment. I understand he is since made post captain.'

So it seems that Sir Hyde may well have commended Yelland's bravery, but did not promote him immediately or recommend him for an appointment in his new rank.

I should add that in the introduction to the article, Millard's son comments 'The criticisms passed on the Admiral's conduct must...be taken as merely representing so much of the current gossip in Lord Nelson's division as was likely to reach a midshipman's ears'; but this refers to Sir Hyde's conduct of the battle, not his mishandling of the promotions.

As we have seen earlier in this thread, far from not recommending Yelland, Parker did name him in his despatch - and he was the only First Lieutenant recommended to Their Lordships. In other words, Millard's comments are what one would expect from a young midshipman. If criticism can be levied at anyone , it would be Nelson's omission of Yelland's performance from his report to Parker.

A promotion by Parker would not be absolute. All such "promotions" were subject to Admiralty approval, including those made from the flagship. Looking at the realities of the period, we should remember that Parker probably had a list of Lieutenants posessed of "interest" whom he was obliged to promote at the first oportunity (in addition to his own followers) and he would be well aware of the probability of a general promotion to Commander of First Lieutenants of the ships engaged (as had happened at the Nile, Camperdown and similar occasions). The only promotions to Post Captain stemming from the battle were the Commanders of three sloops of Nelson's squadron.