Nelson & His World

Discussion on the life and times of Admiral Lord Nelson
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:26 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Midshipman -> Able Seaman -> Midshipman
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
Can anyone tell me why, having first been rated Midshipman in the Seahorse in October 1773, Nelson was later rated Able Seaman in April 1774, and then again as Midshipman in October 1775?

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Tony:

Just musing here: I wonder if the term 'rated' has two different interpretations here - one meaning 'rank' and the other meaning 'specialisation'.

So - Nelson was rated midshipman on joining the Seahorse. Sugden notes that he received two months' pay of £4.11s.0d (before deductions) which was the going rate for a midshipman whereas a seaman received only £1.13s.6d.

Sugden also notes that Nelson was 'rated able seaman on 5 April and sent to watch from the foretop. The reason for this is not clear, but the weather had got squally and gusty again and there was much to be done aloft. Visibility was often poor, and the day before Nelson got his fresh rating the ships had lost sight of each other.....Conceivably [Captain] Farmer decided new eyes were needed aloft.'

Could one infer from this that Nelson's new rating of able seaman was to recognise a special skill in conjunction with his rating as midshipman, rather than to supersede it? It would be possible for Farmer to do this since midshipmen, though officers in the making, were rated by the captain, as seamen were.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
£1.13s.6d was the pay for an able seaman in 1815. It was lower in 1774. I have figures for 1793 which are:

Midshipman in a 1st Rate: £2.5s.0d
Midshipman in a 5/6th Rate: £1.10s.0d
Able Seaman: £1.4s.0d

As the Seahorse was a 6th Rate 24-gun frigate, Sugden's figure of £4.11s.0d looks too high for two months pay as a midshipman. It is just over three month's pay at the above rates.

Nelson's rating in the ship's muster would not have altered his duties or his training. "Officers in the making" were treated the same (if old enough) whether rated as midshipmen, able seamen, or captain's servants. His rating in the ship's books would however have affected his pay - The Admiralty would pay according to the rating in the ship's books, and there were limits on the number of midshipman that a captain could appoint. Being re-rated as able seaman would have resulted in a drop in pay.

The most likely reason I can think of is that he wished to rate somebody else as a midshipman, and there was no vacancy, so had to re-rate an existig midshipman.

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Sugden gives a precise reference for Nelson's two months' pay as a midshipman - the Seahorse pay book ADM/34/749. The money was distributed by naval commissioner James Gambier on the afternoon of 6 November. Total pay £4.11s 6d, but deductions for the Chatham Chest And Greenwich Hospital left Nelson with just £2.5s.0d. It was this precise reference that made me realise another 'musing' of mine was also wrong - that perhaps Nelson had been rated a 'midshipman ordinary', that is a boy who had been made up to the rank but not the post by the captain. He did the work of a midshipman but received the pay of an able seaman. (Source: Historical Maritime Society www.hms.org.uk/nelsonsnavypay.htm)

Had Nelson been a midshipman ordinary the re-rating as able seaman would have allowed the captain to juggle appointments, for the reason you suggest, but this would not have resulted in a drop in pay for Nelson. But Sugden's figures seem to confirm that he was a midshipman and would have therefore lost pay by the re-rating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Tony:

I've just finished reading Clennell Wilkinson's biography of Nelson (Harrap, 1931) in which he says:

'He [Nelson] was first rated as a midshipman, and sailed as such when the squadron left England in November 1773. After reaching the East Indies, his rating was changed to that of able seaman, not through any fault of his own, but to make room among the midshipmen for one of the captain's sons. As an able seaman, stationed in the foretop, he attracted the notice of the master, Surridge, and at his intercession, was again rated midshipman.'


Wilkinson gives no sources, unfortunately. As I said on another thread, the book is listed as one of Michael Nash's Top Twenty in his essay on 'Building a Nelson Library in Colin White's 'A Nelson Companion'.

_________________
Anna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:17 pm
Posts: 217
Tycho

I think your quote to Tony from C Wilkinson's biography of Nelson has the answer to this problem.

The fact is, that titles and ranks in the navy were far from fixed (as Jack Aubrey pointed out in another context). When a captain took 'young gentlemen' to sea under his patronage, how they were rated in the ship's books was somewhat abitrary - 'captain's servant', 'able seaman', 'midshipman' all served and were presumably used in the ship's books really for the purpose of justifying pay. Everyone on the ship knew what they really were - namely young gentlemen being trained to become commissioned officers. The number of midshipmen of a warship was fixed; thus - as appears to have happened in this case - if the captain found himself forced to oblige an influential person by accepting a son or relative as a Mid when the number was filled, he merely re-rated an existing young gentleman into any rank that was handy. The duties would have varied; but the status would have been the same.

I doubt if the story of Thomas Surridge noticing Nelson's ability when he was an AB is more than a romantic and improbable guess on Wilkinson's part. Since Nicholas Rodger we know much more about how the navy worked in terms of rate and patronage than Wilkinson knew in 1931. John Sugden shows that Nelson enjoyed Surridge's support (at the request of friends) before Seahorse even sailed, and that Surridge recalled Nelson as a fresh faced youth in his classes on lunars and navigation not as an AB in the Foretop.

Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Thanks for that clarification, Brian.

C Wilkinson also notes that Nelson had Surridge's support before he came to the Seahorse:

QUOTE

In the Colonial Magazine for July 1841 there was published a curious letter addressed by one Mr Bentham, of the Navy Office, to a Mr Kee, a Navy agent, who 'he understands is agent to Mr Surridge, the master of the Seahorse,' and 'should be obliged to him for a recommendation in favour of Horatio Nelson, a young lad, nephew to Captain Suckling, who was going in that ship.'

_________________
Anna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
Thanks, Anna & Brian, for a very comprehensive answer to my original question.

I don’t know that there was anything curious about Bentham’s letter. This was Suckling asking Bentham to arrange a letter of introduction to Surridge for Nelson on his appointment to the Seahorse. As Brian suggests, it is more likely that it was this letter and Surridge’s own hopes of promotion (later realised) that encouraged him to look for reasons to give Nelson his support. Presumably there was some etiquette in play that meant Bentham didn’t address a letter directly to Surridge?

The story of Surridge noticing Nelson's ability in the foretop seems to originate from Clarke & M’Arthur: “Nelson was stationed in the foretop of the Seahorse at watch and watch, as it is termed; and his exemplary conduct whilst on that duty, soon attracted the regard of his friend the master of the ship, in whose watch he was”. I don’t believe this means he was posted in the foretop as a lookout for hours on end. “At watch and watch” means the ship was on a two watch system rather than a three watch system, which does of course mean he was off duty for only a maximum of four hours at a time. My understanding is that midshipmen and young gentlemen (however rated) were assigned to various stations including the mast-tops as well as the quarterdeck. I think his responsibility in the fore-top would have been to supervise the fore-top-men in setting and reefing sails etc., and to check the men were in place before relaying orders. As Brian says, whether he was rated Able Seaman or Midshipman would have made no difference, and he would have been giving the orders as a young gentleman in training for an officer. I don’t suppose the mast-hands would even have known how Nelson was rated in the ship’s muster. Presumably both Nelson and the fore-top-men would only go up the mast when adjustments were needed, but I imagine that during an extended period at sea on a two watch system, this might be the least desirable of the midshipmen’s stations.

What Clarke and M’Arthur got wrong was saying that his subsequent rating as midshipman was his first, but there is a footnote in the 1810 edition that suggests possibly they knew this not to be true although misinterpreting the circumstances: “It is a singular fact, and which deserves the attention of our government, that Midshipmen possess only a nominal rank in the service: as they receive no Commission they may be disrated at the pleasure of a Captain, and be made to serve before the mast.”

Nelson’s sketch of his life says: “I was placed in the Seahorse of 20 guns, with Captain Farmer, and watched in the foretop; from whence in time I was placed on the quarter-deck” – presumably “and [was] watched in the foretop” means his station was the foretop.

I have certainly come across examples of fairly random moves between ratings of Able Seaman, Midshipman, Masters Mate and all the way back again, depending on the places available, but usually on changes of ship, rather than in the same ship. That Nelson was making way for the captain’s son does indeed seem to answer my original question.

I have come across an example of a re-rating from Midshipman to Master’s Mate, then back to Midshipman, then back to Master’s Mate a year later, all while in the same ship.

I also seem to recall a suggestion that as a captain, Nelson himself at some stage shared round available midshipmen’s places amongst his protégées so that they all acquired the minimum two years as midshipman needed to pass for lieutenant. However I don’t recall where that came from, so perhaps I am imagining it?

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
Midshipmen or young gentleman being described to be 'at watch and watch' is often in the context of this being a strict, or severe, or maybe even penal, regime for midshipmen.

Does anyone know whether it was common for midshipmen to be given more time off duty? Obviously, there could often be more midshipmen in a watch than were actually needed on duty.

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 104 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