Nelson & His World

There are numerous anecdotes of Lady Hamilton interceding, with the best of intentions, to upset the disciplinary regime of Nelson's squadron whilst at Naples and Palermo between 1798-1800.

An interesting tale is told by a nameless seaman/officer (oh no, another anonymous storyteller!) who goes by the initial 'M', and I would very much like to discover if the story bears out.

In June 1799, a seaman by the name of Fletcher stood accused of the rape of a Sicilian woman and was sentenced to be hanged from the yard-arm of HMS Swiftsure.

The plight of the man elicited sympathies around the squadron, as apparently the woman was of low virtue and had sworn away Fletcher's life because he had not enough money to pay her.

Sam Hood, then present at Palermo in command of the Zealous, took it upon himself to write a letter requesting Lady Hamilton's intercession with the Admiral to save Fletcher's life. 'M' himself delivered this note to Lady Hamilton on the pier, where she was already awaiting Nelson's barge to take her on board the Foudroyant. She was extremely nervous about the request, explaining that the Admiral would abuse her for intefering in his duty and that she felt she could do no good. Tears were shed, and she was eventually persuaded to speak to Nelson on the matter, promptly wrapt up in 'Ms' boat cloak and taken off.

Despite Nelson roughly questioning 'M' about he and Hood's knowledge of Fletcher's character, swearing that the man must hang and stamping his feet, she carries the day and the sentence is quashed. 'M' transmits the news to Lt. Parker and the signal to commute the sentence is hoisted.

In the researches I've done so far, all the ships named were present at Palermo by the 1st June (HN actually transfered his flag to the Foudroyant on the 8th - and 'Ms' recollection is dated 1st June - so Nelson being then on board the Foudroyant doesn't quite fit)

All the people mentioned, likewise, were present, although 'M' and Fletcher are unaccounted for. It seems that Fletcher may have been serving on board the Zealous - hence Hood's testimony to his character and desire to see the sentence quashed. However, the punishment was to be meted out on board the Swiftsure commanded by Ben Hallowell.

Is there/would there be any trace of the trial that took place to condemn Fletcher?

Is there/where would I find any trace of a seaman named Fletcher on board the Zealous or Swiftusre, or another of Nelson's squadron at Palermo at this time? I have a list of all ships present.

There is mention of yellow flags flying all around the fleet - what were the usual formalities around the trial and sentencing to death of a seaman for such an offence?

The mysterious 'M' mentions that he had carried Lady Hamilton on board the flagship and back onshore a hundred times, but it seems that he may not have been serving on Nelson's ship at this time.

Might there be any way of identifying who he was? From the coxswain searches carried out a while ago, we have identified that Nelson's Boatswain between 24th Jan 1798 and 7th June 1799 was a Michael Austin. Could this be him, an officer, or another 'M' involved in carrying passengers to and from Nelson's ship (Vanguard.) Perhaps the still myserious 'tall and noble looking' coxswain?

It's a fascinating story I've not encountered before, and one that encapsulates much of what was said about Emma at the period when she was called the 'patroness of the navy' and 'much liked by all the fleet, except Captain Nesbit (sic), Lady Nelson's son.' Perhaps Captain Hardy wouldn't have been best pleased by this latest escapade either!

Mira,

I can't give any precise answers to your questions, but perhaps can give a few pointers which may help.

Just prior to this Nelson, in the Vanguard, was at sea with the fleet in order to raise the blockade of Malta, but was willing to continue it should Alexander Ball and the Maltese desire it with a smaller force. The ships thus freed were to join his own squadron to cover the blockade of Naples, being stationed at Palermo. The Vanguard herself reaches Palermo on 29th May and in a letter to St Vincent, dated the 30th, Nelson writes that 'the Vanguard anchored here yesterday; but it has been so calm, that, except the Emerald, none have yet got in.' As you say though, the rest of the ships appear to have joined him by 1st June. My observation here is regarding the 'yellow flags' that were observed being flown by the ships. I would suggest that these were nothing to do with Fletcher's court martial but rather, seeing that the ships had just returned to harbour, that they were the signal to declare they were free of any infectious disease and which they were bound to fly. These flags were of some considerable size, larger than the ordinary signal flags, and so would have been quite prominent and thus perhaps they were remarked about. I would imagine that individual signals may have been flying for some time, before each ship could be given a clean bill of health, at which time the flag was hauled down.

The signal for a court martial was normally for the Union Flag to be hoisted at the peak of the mizzen gaff, of the ship where the court was to sit, and where the ship's ensign was normally hoisted when at sea. (Since the ship was now in port, the ensign would probably have been flown at the ensign staff on deck, over the taffrail.) Rape would certainly have been an offence punishable by death according to the Articles of War, and thus would have been put before a court martial. It is probably partly why Nelson (a stickler for the navy's rules) thought that the man should hang, but he was also very likely annoyed (as evidenced by his behaviour) that this case should come before him at this moment, when he had things of far more importance with to deal with. The offence was usually brought to the notice of the commander-in-chief by the offender's captain and the presiding officers, between five and thirteen, would have been appointed from amongst the senior officers on the station. Since the commander-in-chief, in this case Nelson, convened the court he would not normally take part in the proceedings. The offender was usually held in irons and under guard on board the ship concerned, often for many weeks, but obviously this was not the case with Fletcher. As the letter was written by Hood, captain of the Zealous, Fletcher was presumably one of his ships' company and obviously he thought highly of him, hence the letter to Emma.

As regards the identifiaction of 'M' I'm not sure that it would have been Michael Austin, since the handling of the ship's boats was not normally one of the boatswain's duties. You mention also a boatcloak, which was the normal outer wear of an officer. The fact that he had 'carried Lady Hamilton on board the flagship and back onshore a hundred times', rather points to the boat's coxswain, who was often a midshipman. I imagine 'M' to be the first letter of his surname - although of course it is also the first letter of midshipman!

Kester's suggestion that 'M' may have been a midshipman raises a likely candidate in John Mitford, midshipman in the Zealous at the time.

Later discharged from the navy as insane, he took to journalism and drink (source: DNB), and was the author of 'The Adventures of Johnny Newcome in the Navy'. Of specific relevance here is his letter to the Morning Post in defence of Emma Hamilton against Brenton's accusation that she insisted on being rowed around La Minerva for another look at Caraccioli hanging from the yard-arm. See Nicolas v3 p521: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hlUB ... J&pg=PA521 . M's comments on his own situation at the time of writing also ring true for John Mitford.

I have skimmed through the musters for the Zealous and Swiftsure from the time of the Battle of the Nile a year previously, and did not spot a Fletcher in either. According to 'M', Fletcher had served three years with Samuel Hood, but that could of course have been earlier still. (John Mitford does show in the muster for the Zealous.)

There should be records of any court martial at TNA, and also some mention of it in the various ships' logs.

This story is very similar to the case of John Jolly, a marine sentenced to death just a month later on 6 July 1799 for striking a lieutenant and threatening to shoot him. Nelson wrote to Troubridge, ordering him to proceed with the execution, but Jolly wrote to Emma petitioning her to intercede on his behalf. Three days later Nelson wrote again ordering Troubridge to stage a last minute reprieve. Nelson then subsequently obtained a royal pardon for Jolly, which came through the following May.

In this case there is no cause for doubt at all, as Nelson’s two letters to Troubridge are documented, and Jolly’s letter to Emma is at the NMM. Sadly there is no record of any tears and stamping of feet!

But is the Fletcher story a re-telling of the John Jolly story, altered to include a central role for a midshipman of the Zealous? How many last minute reprieves did Emma achieve? I shall await the results of a trawl through the records with great interest.

Nelson’s second letter went as follows:

May I digress for a moment with a question here?

I have seen the comment that Nelson's instruction that all preparations for Jolly's execution should be made and the reprieve announced at the last moment was indicative of his histrionic nature. However, I am sure I have read that another captain (was it Troubridge?) gave similar instructions for a last minute reprieve but cannot now locate it. Maybe there were other examples of last-minute lenity. They must have been rare, though, otherwise there was the risk that the whole structure of discipline would collapse.

It might be instructive here to include the original letter from Nelson, regarding Jolly:

To Thomas Troubridge, esq,. Captain of HM Ship Culloden, and Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces landed at Naples. Foudroyant, Naples Bay, 6th July 1799.

'Whereas John Jolly, Private Marine, belonging to his Majesty's Ship Alexander, hath this day been tried by a Court-Martial, on charges exhibited against him by Lieutenant Pierce, Second Lieutenant of Marines, for having struck the said Lieutenant Pierce while in the execution of his duty, and threatening to shoot him as soon as he should be released; and the Court finding him guilty of the said crimes, have adjudged the said John Jolly to suffer death, in the manner, and at such time and place, as I might think fit; and, whereas I think it proper in persuance of the said sentence, and to mark the heinousness of the crime he hath committed, the said John Jolly should suffer death accordingly, you are hereby required and directed to cause all the Marine forces that can properly be spared to be assembled at the most convenient place near your Camp on shore, and carry the said sentence into execution upon the said John Jolly on Monday morning next, the 8th instant, by causing him to be shot to death at the head of the said Marine forces, and in the usual manner; a copy of which sentence you will receive herewith.' Nelson.


Interestingly Jolly's execution, according to Nelson's original instructions, was to have been carried out on the 8th. Nelson's subsequent letter to Troubridge was dated the 9th, which presumably means that Jolly must already have had a stay of execution from Troubridge, courtesy of Emma – or Jolly would have been dead by the time Nelson's second letter of reprieve arrived. Conceivably though, Nelson may have learnt pretty soon after his first letter that his orders had not been carried out. Emma must have been very sure of herself to directly go against Nelson's orders in the matter and where again she was meddling in the Navy's business. To pick up on Anna's point, in the final sentence of his second letter Nelson obviously wanted to draw a line under such meddling in the future and could not have been best pleased with her over this matter.

In passing, these days we are finding out rather more about Nelson's character and about other surrounding influences than we were taught at school. I seem to remember that this incident was held up as an instance of Nelson's 'nobleness of heart', (the Victorians again?) whereas in reality it was nothing of the sort.

Jolly was held on board the Foudroyant, pending his execution, and according to the master's log, on Monday the 8th at 5 a.m. he was sent on shore 'to suffer, agreeable to his sentence, at the marine camp.' However he was still alive the following year to receive the royal pardon, so one way or another, Nelson must have made his intentions known to Troubridge.

According to Byrn in 'Crime and Punishment in the Royal Navy', if a reprieve was given, it was standard practice to go through the whole ceremony up to the point of execution and then read the reprieve. Presumably this was designed to instill maximum fear into the condemned man and for maximum impact on others. I think an execution could only be confirmed or reprieved by the commander in chief, and once a sentence was confirmed, a subsequent reprieve would also be subject to a royal pardon being obtained.

However, reprieves were common. Byrn quotes some statistics of just under half of death sentences actually being carried out. NAM Rodger suggests the proportion carried out may have been much lower still, and comments that 'only St Vincent carried out all sorts of sentences in full'.

It's very possible that Nelson took little persuading. - But if so, did he let on to Emma?

There is a story of a Colonel Campbell of the marines who attempted to stage a last minute reprieve, but on pulling the reprieve out of his pocket, his handkerchief came out too, and fell to the ground thus giving the firing party the fatal order they were waiting for.

Kester, Byrn does say that for an execution, 'a yellow flag - "the signal of death" - was flown from the masthead of the ship on which the execution was to take place'. - but not by all the ships of the fleet.

Here's an example quoted by Byrn of another reprieve :

Captain John Harvey recorded in the log of the Amphitrite on 11 June 1801: 'At 6 [am] made the sig[nal] for punishment, at 6.30 read the Articles of War to them and led the prisoner, Mr. John Davidson Acting Boats[wai]n of this ship, to the scaffold, at 7 fired the gun & delivered the prisoner from death by reading his reprief[sic]'.

Wow, thank you so much for all the marvellous contributions to the original question. Kester and Tycho - thank you for helping with the timelines and your insights into Courts Martial and disciplinary levity. John Mitford is a fine fit, and I think you may have uncovered the identity of 'M' here, Tony.

I'm not sure which would be classified as the most despicable tag for readers of the DNB - 'journalism' or 'drink.'

Having a quick look around, Mitford appears to be one of the most tragic figures imaginable. His later life - a disturbed existence, self-inflicted hardship, alcoholism, vagrancy, a stint in Hoxton workhouse (see Lady Hamilton's Black Maid' thread for a peek inside that place), a court case that perjured and disgraced Lady Perceval, who had attempted to frame him, and perversely ended his naval career with the label 'insane'. The case was (in)famous in its day.

I can see where your theory about John Jolly comes in Tony, Mitford certainly had a reputation for colourful embellishment, and elements of that bear out from the little I've read. But I wonder how much of this reputation came from the mouths of the many enemies he seems to have made. An occupational hazard for a journalist and drunkard perhaps.

Reading through his scattered recollections, many of the incidents he recalled of his time at sea - and he was present at the First of June, St. Vincent, Santa Cruz and the Nile - were pronounced by contemporary chroniclers (fellow disreputable writers in many cases - pots and kettles) as the fanciful imaginings of an over-active mind.

Bearing in mind that he lived in close proximity to so much action, in an age of great events, one would have thought that Mitford possessed a veritable storehouse of genuine tales to dine out on from his time at sea. Perhaps his later career as 'journalist', author-novelist and editor of the New Bon Ton Magazine didn't recommend him as a strict teller of the truth, or possibly he'd found his true calling.

TNA should, as you say Tony, contain conclusive evidence and will settle the matter of any Courts Martial held on Fletcher (or another seaman) for the crime Mitford relates in such detail. Many thanks for the signposting.

As far as Emma's intercessions go, there appear to have been many. A few are referred to, and this tongue-in-cheek plea to save the hide of a midshipman, written to Nelson on 24th October 1798, is typical and tells a tale:



George Parsons sums up her impact at the time in his 'Leaves from Memory's Log:'



Parsons then goes on to relate the case of 'Jack Jones', one of Nelson's bargemen, got 'freshish' but not drunk, whose story is far less adventurous than Minton's, but no less interesting for that.

I wonder how blurred was the distinction between Emma as Nelson's intimate friend and influencer, and her role as 'Ambassatrice' the wife of Sir William Hamilton?

Putting together some half-a-dozen contemporary recollections by young officers who were present and recorded their memories at this period, a clearer picture is emerging of life onshore at Naples and Palermo. It's plain that Emma was a highly popular figure amongst them, that the closeness/possessiveness existing between her and Nelson was displayed very much on the surface and not hidden when in their presence, that Emma was always lavishly generous with her time, affection and generosity toward them (with a couple of notable exceptions.)

And that there came a defining tipping point with a number of catalysts which (in more important circles than the young gentlemen's mess) caused Emma's popularity to tumble over the precipice to be dashed on the rocks of disapprobation.

Influence over the Queen (and therefore over the supposedly pliant King), influence over Nelson, influence over her husband. Was there no end to the machinations of this mesmerising woman? Was it really so?

This may be partially explained in another comment by Mitford on Emma found in 'Lewd and Notorious' by Katherine Kittredge:



Perhaps this statement was another of Mitford's over-active imaginings, but it was a canard, with credit attributed to no-one, voiced by so many of Sir William's diplomatic neighbours (and their ladies) that it became common currency, minted in the embassies of Europe and deposited, diplomatically and more often otherwise, into the offices of Grenville and Pitt back home.

Mitford himself was certainly highly impressed by her, and a stout defender of her character and abilities for many years after her death. It's a question how much those who defended her in this way, especially at the time she, Sir William and Nelson were at Palermo, had the opposite effect and caused far more damage than good.

Indeed, did Emma and Nelson's own words (SW is notably more reticent in his correspondence), describing her role "Good Sir William, Lady Hamilton, and myself are the mainsprings of the machine which manage what is going on in this country" condemn her to eternal damnation? And amidst the self-interested, disaster-prone, place-making cronyinsm of the British Diplomatic Corps scattered around Europe at the time, was she, or Sir William for that matter, really that bad?

Or scapegoats for the egg on Grenville's face when the Neapolitan call to arms turned into an embarrassing Roman rout, a controversial revolution and a long campaign with all its attendant costs.

John (or Jack) Mitford is a wonderful character. I came across him some time ago mentioned as a possible author of 'Adventures of a Post Captain', usually attributed to Alfred Thornton. (That book, BTW, is wonderful too, both the text (verse) and illustrations - absolutely essential reading - the tale of the brave Captain Bowsprit, his poor old first lieutenant Mizen, the fair Ellen, and his battles - with the bailiffs of Plymouth Dock as well as with the Spaniards and the Moors.)

What I hadn't quite realised before was how extensive Mitford's sea service was.

I am sure that you are right, Mira, that much of his reputation results from professional rivalries, and I also know that Brenton was particularly vicious towards anyone who contradicted him. Much of what is written is based on his obituary in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1831 (see http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=68qi ... C&pg=PA647 pp.647-8 ), but a fuller version appears in Local Records... (Northumberland, Durham, Newcastle, etc.) by John Sykes - see http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eqQD ... J&pg=PA337 pp. 337-8 . This seems to demonstrate some detailed knowledge about Mitford, and it's interesting that in his final years a shipmate from the Battle of the Nile, James Green, was trying to look after him, funded by Lord Redesdale.

More on the John Mitford / Lady Perceval case mentioned earlier.



Archive.org now carries the following publication from 1814:

"The important trial of John Mitford, Esq. on the prosecution of Lady Viscountess Perceval, for perjury" by the Editor of the News.

Just access www.archive.org and type in the title of the book.

What a fascinating, complicated man!