Nelson's lawsuit against St. Vincent

Mira · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 1:50 pm

Can anyone here help with a query?

I would be grateful to know whether Earl St. Vincent is on record anywhere, speaking or writing about the prizes lawsuit with Nelson (between 1800 and 1803?)

There are references in Nelson, Davison and Emma's letters to the ongoing court case, but I have failed to find any reference to the situation by St. Vincent himself.

Did he keep it all under his hat? Did he ever refer to it publicly or in his private correspondence to family, friends or colleagues?

Any pointers will be gladly followed up. Many thanks.

tycho · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 2:30 pm

It just so happens that I have a copy of a letter written by Earl St Vincent to Alexander Davison on the subject of the prize money dispute with Nelson. I attempted to buy the original but, to my chagrin, was pipped at the post by another buyer. However, a fellow enthusiast kindly arranged with the vendor for me to have a copy. I will email a transcript to you by PM and send a photocopy of the original by snail mail.

I wonder if there would be any copyright infringement if I posted it here, since I am sure it would be of interest. I know that it is in order to publish material already in the public domain, but out of copyright. The situation with regard to unpublished material may be different; although, of course, the letter might well have been published, in which case, it would be OK. I'd appreciate guidance.

Tony · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 5:37 pm

After Nelson's meeting with St Vincent on 16 Jan 1801 (shortly after Nelson had actually instigated legal action) in which they did not discuss the issue, St Vincent wrote a couple of letters obliquely referring to it. He suggested in a letter to Nepean that Nelson "appeared and acted as if he had done me an injury, and felt apprehensive that I was acquainted with it", and continued with his famous remarks on Nelson's vanity: "Poor man, he is devoured with vanity, weakness, and folly; was strung with ribbons, medals, etc, and yet pretended that he wished to avoid the honour and ceremonies he everywhere met with upon the road". (St Vincent to Nepean, 17 January 1801, Naval Miscellany II, NRS, 1912.)

In a letter to J Kaye (his lawyer or agent?), he was still more candid:

Quote:

... I am persuaded there is a serpent lurking somewhere determined to create a rupture between Lord Nelson and me. Entre nous, I suspect Lord Hood who has been an adviser throughout. I could discover by the manner of Lord Nelson, when he was here, that he felt he had injured me, but we parted good friends, and as he owes all the fame, titles, badges, and distinctions he wears [to] my patronage and protection, and I still continue kind to him in the extreme, I hardly think it possible he can break with me. He is vain and weak, therefore open to flattery and all its concomitants...
(St Vincent to J. Kaye, 17 January 1801. BL Add 31, 167, f177.)

Martyn Downer says that St Vincent thought Davison's role in the affair was 'offensive', and refers to ADC lot 29 for this (but lot 28 looks more relevant to me). He also says St Vincent's outrage was 'clearly evident in ADC Lot 26 now in private collection'. (The relevant letter from St Vincent to Davison is in the catalogue).

On copyright, Anna, if it is unpublished, copyright expires in 2039. If published, copyright expires 50 years after first publication or 70 years after the death of the author (whichever is later). What is also important is your agreement (if any) with the owner of the copyright - who of course may not necessarily be the owner of the letter! Not sure that helps!

Mira · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 9:25 pm

Many thanks Tycho (PM received ok) and Tony. This info is really useful and appreciated.

Both David and Stephen Howarth, and Terry Coleman, relate that Nelson's solicitor Haslewood met with Lord and Lady N to discuss the St. Vincent lawsuit on the 13th January 1801. I'm dubious about this without a clear source to verify it other than Haslewood's later recollection about Lady Nelson storming out of the house - which may not have happened on that date at all.

The 13th is also the day that Nelson set out for Plymouth, calling to see St. Vincent at Torr Abbey on the way and eliciting the Earl's caustic comments to Nepean and Kaye.

However, I'm wrestling with the question of when and how exactly did St. Vincent hear about Nelson's final decision to go to law?

At the time that he and Nelson met ar Torr Abbey, between the 16th and 17th January, the wranglings in private had been going on for some time.

But by then, had St. Vincent been informed officially that the lawsuit was proceeding? Or might he have had it from an 'unofficial' source?

You're right Tony, St. Vincent's references are very oblique.

tycho · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 10:20 pm

I've just had a look at Evelyn Berckman's biography of St Vincent, 'Nelson's Dear Lord.' The chronology is a bit loose, but she writes that Nelson wrote a letter to Davison in May 1800, astounded that St V was claiming a share of the Mediterranean prize money up to November 1799 when his command had terminated in July.

Discussion of the matter seems to have been conducted through their agents. Nelson clearly instructed Davison to write to St V. 'I am confident the claim will be given up the moment you show his Lordship my manner of thinking.' (undated letter). She adds that 'in defence of his rights [St Vincent] was prepared to be as unyielding as Nelson. Their respective agents invoked the law and the case was set for a hearing in the Court of Common Pleas. Nelson in a letter refers to it as coming up on May 26th 1801; actually, it appears to have been heard on June 19th, about three weeks later than he thought.'

I don't know whether this will be of any help or not.

Another point that Berckman makes is that Nelson did not sue St Vincent by name: 'He was not suing St Vincent, for so great a man's identity must in the interests of decorum be shrouded; he was suing one Benjamin Tucker (actually St Vincent's secretary) as Agent if Mediterranean Prizes, and the plea stated that Tucker had promised to pay the money to Nelson on request.'

However, others were privy to the wrangling. There is a letter in the Osborn Duckworth Papers at Yale, dated 19 March 1801 in which Duckworth mentions the case: he refers to 'the law suit between St Vincent and Benjamin Tucker and a possible suit involving Lord Nelson connected with the Prize Monies.' Only the descriptive list is on line, but I expect Yale would provide you with a copy on request. (I suspect 'the lawsuit between St V and Tucker actually refers to the joint action against Nelson brought in Tucker's name only.)

Scroll down to Page 11 to see the entry:

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:I8 ... en&ct=clnk

tycho · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 6:05 am

Tony:

sorry - I forgot to thank you for your comments on copyright. I think it's probably wiser not to post the letter here as I'm not sure of its status; but if anyone would like to have sight of a transcript, send me a PM.

SEvans · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 11:21 am

Don't know if this will be of help.
Letters of Admiral of the Fleet the Earl of St Vincent whilst First Lord of the Admiralty 1801-1804.
Jervis, John 1735-1823 Earl of St Vincent.
Publisher Naval Records Society Published date 1922,1927
And
At the National Archives, Kew
Benjamin Tucker, 1762-1829
Secretary of the Admiralty,
131124

Tony · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 6:40 pm

tycho wrote:

Another point that Berckman makes is that Nelson did not sue St Vincent by name

Booth & Haslewood appear to have tried to pressure St Vincent into a settlement by threatening that the action would be against St Vincent in name, believing this would be disagreeable to him. I don't know at what stage this occurred.

Interestingly, Sir William Parker had previously sued St Vincent (Sir William Parker v the Right Honourable the Earl St Vincent) for his junior Admiral's share of the Commander in Chief's share of freight money. One third went to the Commander, and one third of his share should have been shared between the junior admirals in the fleet. This case related to St Vincent's share of freight money paid to Captain Mansfield for the carriage of bullion in the Andromache frigate. The court found against St Vincent in June 1800. William Parker was awarded his share of £5 11s!

tycho · **Posted:** Tue May 26, 2009 8:13 am

As I was re-reading Evelyn Berckman’s book, mentioned above, there was another allusion to St Vincent and prize money which, though not bearing directly on Mira’s enquiry, nevertheless throws light on another ‘prize money incident’ involving St Vincent and officers under his command which I thought might be of wider interest:

Among the papers found after Nelson’s death was a document calculated to administer a slight shock, considering that it was dated October 17th, 1797, when the friendship between Nelson and his chief was at its height. The document was an agreement drawn up by the admirals serving under St Vincent. There are four signatures, Nelson’s among them. In brief, the agreement states that certain prize or freight money, traditionally belonging to them, was being ‘arrogated’ by the Earl to his own use. To recover this money, the four signatories bound themselves jointly ‘to have recourse to the laws of our country, to obtain that justice which we are not likely to obtain otherwise,’ and to deposit one hundred pounds apiece for carrying on the lawsuit.

Whether Nelson was constrained to act with his fellow admirals, or whether he gave his signature willingly, we can never know. It is obvious, though, how nervous he was about the whole thing and how much he hated it. First he looked warily over the phraseology of the agreement, crossing out the word ‘arrogates’ and substituting ‘claims’ as less harsh. Then, upon the same document, he jotted down his dubious impression and comments. ‘From inquiry, have my doubts.’ The opinion of three lawyers should be taken, he thinks, ‘before we involve in law.’ His caution is understandable; upsetting, the thought of being pushed by his peers into a lawsuit against his superior and close friend, especially when there seemed even chances of its being unsuccessful. Did Nelson damp his co-signers’ intention, or did his reluctance to come in with them have the same effect? Whatever the answer, the matter was never acted upon. The agreement, forgotten probably, was left among his papers to gather dust.

‘There was no hesitation, however, in Nelson’s actions and intentions of a later date…..’

Tony · **Posted:** Tue May 26, 2009 8:54 am

Anna, was Sir William Parker not one of the signatories? His lawsuit related to the junior admirals' share of freight money in the Mediterranean fleet in 1797 or 1798. His lawsuit (mentioned in my post above) was a test case designed to ascertain the rights of junior admirals - he was only suing for £5 to establish the principle. That looks to me very much like the fruition of the agreement that you mention.

tycho · **Posted:** Tue May 26, 2009 9:07 am

Tony:

I'm afraid Berckman doesn't say who the other signatories were. She writes well, researches diligently, and gives a bibliography and a general list of sources but doesn't give specific references for events, letters etc.

Since the proposed joint action she mentions never came to anything, maybe - it seems more than probable - Parker was a signatory who determined to sue when the others, including Nelson, declined to do so. Or maybe his case was quite separate from the planned joint action? It would be interesting to know.

Tony · **Posted:** Tue May 26, 2009 1:11 pm

The answer is in 'Dispatches & Letters' Vol 2 - p. 459. Sir William Parker was not just a signatory, but actually drew up the document in the first place:

Quote:

AGREEMENT OF THE ADMIRALS SERVING UNDER THE EARL OF ST. VINCENT, TO INSTITUTE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FOR, THE RECOVERY OF PRIZE AND FREIGHT MONEY.

[Original, in the Nelson Papers. This Paper was drawn up by Rear-Admiral Sir William Parker, but it appears that Nelson raised many objections to the proposition.]

October and 13th December, 1797.

We, the undersigned, Sir Charles Thompson, Vice-Admiral of the Blue, the Honourable Vice-Admiral William Waldegrave, Rear-Admirals Sir William Parker, Sir Horatio Nelson, serving in the Fleet, under the command of the Right Honourable the Earl St. Vincent, conceiving, and having no doubt (except the Table-money allowed to the Commander- in-Chief) that all the emoluments—viz, Prize-money and Freight-money, belonging or appertaining to the Admiral or Flag-Officer in a Fleet, where there is only one, must and does by right belong to the Flag-Officers jointly, in a Fleet where there are many, to be divided in proportions, agreeable to his Majesty's Order in Council for the distribution of Prize-money. And as it has been customary to divide Freight-money in this manner, in Fleets where there are more Flag-Officers than one, and been invariably practised in every instance as far back as the highest Officer upon the Naval List, the Earl St. Vincent, notwithstanding, arrogates to himself a right to the whole of the Flag-Officers' share of the Freight-money, as Commander-in-Chief, and retains the same to his own use.

We, the undersigned, do hereby engage and bind ourselves respectively, to have recourse to the Laws of our Country, to obtain that justice we are not likely to obtain otherwise; and as the times of our coming under the said Earl St. Vincent's command has happened at different periods, the proportion of Freight-money due to each of us respectively, of course, is different also; the said Parties do therefore hereby further agree that each and every one shall, immediately upon signing their names to this agreement, deposit the sum of one hundred pounds, and so on, more if requisite, in equal proportions, afterwards, to carry on the Law-suit: but that in the end, upon obtaining a Decree, each Party's expense shall be proportioned according to the sum each respectively recovers— viz., if from the difference of time either party recovers a sum double to that which either of the others recover, that person is to stand at double the expense of the other, and so on, in a like proportion with respect to each other, agreeably to the sums respectively recovered.

To which we hereunto set our Hands and Seals, at the times, and in the presence, as against our names expressed.

[Added in Nelson's handwriting.]

Lord Howe, paid.
Hood, paid, but not certain as to right .
Duncan, ditto ditto.
Hotham, paid.
Harvey, paid.

[In Nelson's Autograph.]

December 13th.—From inquiry, have my doubts.

I think the opinion of three Lawyers should be taken as to our right to share in Freights, if any can be found supposed capable of judging for us, before we embark ourselves in a Law-suit which they are to determine. I recommend asking Admirals Lord Howe, Barrington, Hood, Hotham, Duncan, &c., how they have acted, before we involve in Law. Lord St . Vincent, on being informed of their opinion, will no doubt act accordingly.

Berckman was evidently wrong to say that it never came to anything. A joint action was not necessary. All that was needed was a test case to establish the principle, and then St Vincent would be hard pressed to deny the others' claims. The £5 that Parker won represented a quarter of the junior admirals' share, and presumably the other three were Thompson, Waldegrave and Nelson. It is not recorded in the account of the case, but I think the freight was carried by Mansfield in the Andromache probably around July 1797.

Whether the other three forked out their share of the legal costs is another matter. You may be right that Parker went ahead on his own in the end. Nelson and Sir William Parker were not on the best of terms at the time, with Parker having complained that Nelson had not acknowledged the Prince George's part in the capture of the San Josef at St Vincent, and I think relations only got worse when Nelson was given his independent command in the Mediterranean the following year. It is perhaps surprising that they were able to agree anything in October 1797!

tycho · **Posted:** Thu May 28, 2009 8:32 am

If Parker sued St Vincent on his own, it was pretty brave, I think! Berckman says the agreement was found 'after Nelson's death' so maybe they all backed down, kept quiet and left Parker to go it alone.

Whatever the truth in the case, Nelson, despite his qualms, had no hesitation about initiating the later 1801 lawsuit.

This seems to have been a generally troubled period in the relationship, once so warm, between Nelson and St Vincent. It was round about this time that St V. was reluctant to have Nelson as his second in command when he was given command of the Channel fleet. The 'ships in dreadful disorder' jibe about Nelson also dates from this period, as well as his comment 'He is a partizan' [one who takes sides]. Can this refer to the earlier lawsuit planned with Parker and Co that St V. might have got wind of, and remembered Nelson's involvement? There were also the rumblings in Nelson's personal life at this time; St V. was also deeply disapproving of Nelson's involvement with Emma and was, with Troubridge's connivance, intercepting his mail.

Mira · **Posted:** Thu May 28, 2009 5:22 pm

Many thanks for all this additional information.

It's very interesting to see these early communications that led to Nelson's action against Tucker/St. Vincent.

Is it possible that St. Vincent could view Haslewood's letter:

Quote:

"... when it is mentioned to be disagreeable to you, that the action , that the action for settling the affair should stand in the names of Lord Nelson & Your Lordship, we cannot but regret, that this appears to us to be inevitable...'

as offensive - or even intimidation?

It's also interesting to see Lord Hood's name cropping up repeatedly, as the Davison Lot referred to contains a letter from Hood to Sir Andrew Hammond that includes:

Quote:

"... I never made any claim, although I was under orders to resume the command at the time my Flag was ordered to be struck..."

Perhaps St. Vincent was right when he wrote to Kaye:

Quote:

'... I am persuaded there is a serpent lurking somewhere determined to create a rupture between Lord Nelson and me. Entre nous (keep this under your hat), I suspect Lord Hood who has been an adviser throughout.'

But how would he know? And did bad blood exist between St. Vincent and Hood?

Unfortunately, the Davison Lots contain such brief snippets - and so few dates - that's it's hard to piece the chronology together.

The key document I feel might be Winter and Kaye's letter to Tucker 'advising of Lord's St. Vincent's claim and legal action against him.' But unfortunately no date is listed for this in the Sotheby's catalogue.

I am assuming that Winter and Kaye were St. Vincent's solicitors (they were also the solicitors of the Bank of England at that time.)

Nelson & His World

Nelson's lawsuit against St. Vincent

Who is online