Nelson & His World

It is well known that Nelson was angry and dismayed at the refusal to grant medals to participants in the Battle of Copenhagen, not least because he was under the impression that St Vincent had assured him that medals would be awarded. His letters on the subject, ‘thunderstruck’ when St V. denied having agreed to the award of medals, still crackle with indignation at what he regarded as bad faith on St V’s part.

Reading the Hamilton & Nelson Papers the other day, I came across a letter [Vol 2. No.761] from Admiral Louis to Lady Hamilton in which he expresses similar dismay at an apparent breach of faith by St Vincent, who had promised to advance the career of Louis’s son, but had subsequently done nothing to help him:

‘……when off Cadiz in the year ’98, I was absolutely promised by Ld St. V. that he would make him [Louis’s son] a captain when he was ready, if his Lordship was living and in a situation to do it. When I found he was gone out without noticing him, it was a death stroke to me. ….his mother and myself have suffered greatly, and, poor fellow, what will be his suffering when he finds all my Lord St. V’s promises are empty air? What are we born for? Surely not to deceive and make our fellow-creatures miserable. The number I have seen placed over my son’s head is too, too bad. Some of them I know, and after leading me astray to attend his whims and caprice at the time when he had no intention to provide for my son. Had he not better have said so to me, when I would have taken him out of the situation he was placed in, and had then to look out among my friends…….?’

From a letter headed: Leopard, Dungeness, June 9th 1804

One of the defining characteristics of a gentleman was the keeping of one’s word; and to break one’s word was correspondingly disgraceful. Two examples seem to reflect badly on St Vincent’s trustworthiness.

I find him an intriguing character: certainly a man of probity in financial matters and, on occasions, great personal kindness; but there is a dark underside that I have never seen fully explored in biographies. I have read the biogs by Admiral James and Evelyn Berckman, but both are, on the whole, flattering and neither writer addresses the issue of St Vincent’s untrustworthiness, nor his tendency to bully underlings without cause. I have not read the latest by Davidson, ‘St Vincent: Saint or Tyrant?’ – it had some poor reviews, I think – however, it is on my reading list. Maybe he addresses the matter.

I think in this instance, I am tempted to give St Vincent the benefit of the doubt. In 1798, when the promise was made, Louis’ son John was a thirteen year old midshipman. The promise (as related by Louis) was to make his son a captain when he was ready. John Louis was made Lieutenant in 1801 at the age of sixteen – presumably nodded through by the examining captains at St Vincent’s Admiralty as appearing to be twenty years of age. When Louis complained in his letter to Lady Hamilton in 1804, John was still only 19 years old. Was he then ready to be promoted commander? He was actually promoted commander a year later, and made Post in 1806 at the age of 21, which was hardly anything to complain about!

Before St Vincent left the Admiralty in May 1804, he made a number of promotions, and this is what had angered Louis. Sir Edward Pellew’s son was made commander and he was a year younger than John Louis, and had been made lieutenant only two years previously. Peter Parker, grandson of Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Parker (and also of Vice-Admiral John Byron), was made commander at the age of eighteen (he had been made lieutenant at almost the same time as John Louis, but at the age of only fifteen, and at the time of his promotion was now a lieutenant in the Victory under Nelson). Thomas Smyth, grandson of the Duke of Grafton, was made commander just before his twentieth birthday, having been a lieutenant only 18 months. Another made commander was John Woolcombe, step-son of Louis’s sister by her husband’s first wife (and also nephew of Samuel Hood). He had been made lieutenant after John Louis in 1801, and his promotion can't have pleased Rear-Admiral Thomas Louis, but I don’t know his age. Another made commander was John Bowen, nephew of Richard Bowen killed at Santa Cruz (a favourite of St Vincent). He had been a lieutenant only two years, but had just led the expedition to establish the first convict settlement on Tasmania, and was some five years older than John Louis. Yet another was George Cadogan, son of Earl Cadogan (and a protégé of Edward Pellew), again a lieutenant only since 1802, but again a couple of years older than John Louis. There were others older than John Louis were also made commander having been lieutenant only three years, and of course there were more promotions for others who had been lieutenant for much longer.

St Vincent had certainly indulged himself in exercising his patronage, and Louis was understandably upset, but perhaps St Vincent was also making some judgements on who was ready for promotion. One or two of the above had already distinguished themselves, although presumably most had not.

Or maybe he just forgot!

Either way, it didn’t hold John Louis back, and he was a full admiral before he died.

Many thanks for that comprehensive and informative reply, Tony.

As you say, St. V. may well have had good reason not to promote John Louis at that particular point. However, I wonder what the term 'without noticing him' implies: that St V. had not promoted him? Or that he had completely disregarded and ignored him, perhaps had not taken the trouble to engage with young Louis or to make any allusion whatsoever to his earlier promises to Louis's father, or given any encouragement that promotion might eventually be his? St. V could be very silky when it suited him and could have soothed young Louis's disappointment with flattering words that promotion would come.

The term “without noticing him” need imply no more than that he had not promoted him. “Notice” was the word conventionally used for promotions. When seeking promotion for officers, Nelson’s letters to the Admiralty contained phrases like “I beg leave to recommend X to their Lordships' notice”.

As First Lord of the Admiralty, St Vincent would not have directly engaged with a young lieutenant such as John Louis, except in very exceptional circumstances, or if he encountered him socially. I think any discussion about the probability of promotion would more likely have been with his father.

What I find interesting is not so much that John Louis wasn’t promoted in 1804, but the contrast between St Vincent’s exercise of patronage before departing the Admiralty and his public stance against patronage when he joined it in 1801. He had made much of his refusal to listen to recommendations for promotion coming from the aristocracy, and his determination to base promotions on merit. For example in a letter of 28 March 1801 to Sir Charles Grey:


Later, in 1806, St Vincent again expressed his view that “this vast overflow of young nobility in the Service makes rapid strides to the decay of Seamanship, as well as Subordination. . .”. In 1807 he is reported as repeating this view to the King: “Sire, I have always thought that a sprinkling of nobility was very desirable in the Navy, as it gives some sort of consequence to the service; but at present the Navy is so overrun by the younger branches of nobility, and the sons of Members of Parliament, and they swallow up all the patronage, and so choke the channel to promotion, that the son of an old Officer, however meritorious both their services may have been, has little or no chance of getting on.”

However, he regarded the sons of officers in the service as the rightful beneficiaries of his patronage: “I hope Your Majesty will pardon me for saying, I would rather promote the son of an old deserving Officer than any Noble in the land.”

His promotions in 1804 indeed did feature many with naval connections, but it seems he also bowed to the pressure of more aristocratic connections for many others.

But for a promotion to commander at the age of nineteen, presumably either Thomas Louis did not rank quite high enough in the service, or his son had not yet proved himself sufficiently. I think it was not that St Vincent had good reason specifically not to promote John Louis, but rather the absence of sufficient good reason to promote him at that exceptionally young age – still below even the regulation minimum age for lieutenant.

Of the two who were "placed over John Louis's head" who were actually as young as him, Peter Parker’s service connections were way ahead of Louis, but Thomas Smyth’s connections seem to have been aristocratic and political – as well as his grandfather being a duke, his father had earlier been a Lord of the Admiralty, but not a naval lord. What their own merits as officers were, I don't know.

Thanks again for that interesting comment.

I note that St V. talks of the Navy 'at present' being 'overrun by the younger branches of the nobility.'

It was always the tradition for the younger sons of the aristocracy to join the army in greater numbers than joined the navy, was it not? I wonder why there was a sudden increase in scions of the aristocracy seeking opportunities in the navy round about this time? Money was usually a driving force for younger sons, so maybe the enhanced chances of prize money at this time was an added lure? Or the kudos of being in an elite force?

A further point:

I wonder how common it was for aristocrats to seek patronage in the navy for their illegitimate sons? The unwritten code was that a gentleman sought secure employment for his illegitimate offspring, so the navy would be a good way of getting them settled, and maybe earn them wealth. Certainly, the Duke of Devonshire's illegitimate son, Augustus William James Clifford, served with Nelson. His mother was Lady Elizabeth Foster,a friend of Emma's, so maybe Lady H. used her influence?

Also, John Beresford, illegitimate son of the Marquess of Waterford, served in Nelson's navy.

Both men ended up as Admirals, also as Sir John and Sir Augustus.

It was no disgrace, apparently, to be a 'by-blow'. When Clifford, the Duke of D's son, discovered his parentage after his father's death, round about the time he was made captain, the double glory seemed to go to his head and, according to Lady Elizabeth's biographer, Caroline Chapman, he acquired airs and graces as a duke's son, and 'took to walking out of rooms ahead of those he deemed to be his inferiors and demanded precedence at table.'