Nelson & His World

Thanks for that information, PhiloNauticus. I guessed it would be nastier than the standard cat, since theft was regarded as the worst crime aboard ship.

Re the transcription of court martial proceedings, in the MacKellar example, it certainly looks as if it was all written up in fair copy after the end of the proceedings, because the verdict appears within the text of the first page.

N.A.M Rodgers, in his book 'The Command of the Ocean' refers to Sir Edward Pellew's brother, Israel Pellew, as 'brutal and incompetent.' His wiki entry notes that he was overshadowed by his more famous brother, but says nothing about his brutality or his incompetence. Does anyone know more?

Admiral Sir Edward Hamilton, who commanded Surprise when Hermione was cut out, was court-martialed for cruelty and dismissed from the service. Though later reinstated (with no loss of seniority it seems) he never again commanded a man-of-war.

This is a fascinating item. It is easy to have views coloured by individual cases; but the picture had many dimensions.

First, I think that one has to distinguish between the small percentage of officers who had sadistic streaks (probably the same as in the population at large) and the generality who were merely enforcing the contemporary codes of justice with the degree of severity (or otherwise) that they thought was appropriate. It relation to the sadists, the remarkable thing is that so many were identified and punished by the system. The Admiralty would have known as well as anyone that a ship commanded in such a way would have been neither happy of efficient.

As regards the severity of otherwise of the system, we have to remember that the prevailing social theory was that a policeless society could only be defended against a minority of habitual criminals by severe and public punishment. The modern notion that criminals were unfortunate rather than evil did not apply. All believed in it: even the mutineers at the Nore and Spithead continued to flog offenders just as their officers had done. On land, as urbanisation destabilised the population, crime increased and punishments became more and more severe in a desperate (and ineffectual) attempt to curb it. In the late 18thC there were 200 capital offences in the criminal code, including things as trivial as theft of an item valued at over 30 shillings. So many people received the death sentence as a result that it was seldom enforced. In 1820, out of 1129 death sentences handed down, only 107 were carried out.

Compared with this, naval justice was comparatively lenient. The articles of war contained only 20 offences punishable by death - all for serious matters like spying, mutiny, murder, cowardice and offences against morality like buggery. And as on land, the system ensured that even those punishments could be moderated if it was needed. In John Byrn's book on the the Leeward Island station between 1784 and 1812, he shows that only 12 of the 26 condemned men were actually hanged.

The problem in the navy was not court martial offences but floggings that were carried out on the orders of the captain without process of law. The admiralty were keen to limit these and replace excesses with a level they thought appropriate. In 1811 captains were required to send in returns of all punishments so their activites could be policed and reprimands were issued if the number of lashes or of punishments seemed excessive. Hardy, incidentally, may have felt it necessary to be severe when a newly appointed captain of a three decker packed with men, but when Commodore of the S America squadron from 1819, he was assiduous in reprimanding captains for excessive punishment - which, the records seem to imply, meant (on a frigate) more than 24 lashes a flogging and more than 2 or 3 men flogged a month. Admittedly that was time of peace when the ships were full of volunteers. In time of war, and manned with the sweepings of the press gang the level of punushment would have had to have been higher.

For interest, Byrn's figures for the Leeward Islands squadron, which deployed a third of a million men in 73 ships during a thirty year period of war and peace, show there were 6776 such floggings, involving only 9 per cent of the men, of which 60 per cent were of 12 lashes or less and 12 per cent of three dozen lashes or more. Interesting in view of the image of naval punishment that 91 per cent of men were never flogged!

Sorry if I have gone on a bit.


Brian

The Pellews (although more particularly Edward, and his relationship with Philemon Pownall) are of particular interest to me.

Colin White’s essay on Israel Pellew in ‘The Trafalgar Captains’ makes no suggestion of brutality or incompetence, but does just concentrate mainly on the Trafalgar campaign.

Rodger’s main source for the suggestions is C Northcote Parkinson’s ‘Edward Pellew’ (1934). On Israel Pellew’s incompetence, Northcote Parkinson is a little less forthright than Rodger, saying for example “Israel Pellew was not especially able, and was soon to prove - to say the least - extremely unlucky”. Edward Pellew was continually pressing first Chatham, and subsequently Spencer, for appointments for his brother. They were always reluctant or slow to oblige, suggesting that they did not hold his brother in such high regard. Israel Pellew’s bad luck or incompetence resulted in a few setbacks. First the Amphion blew up in Plymouth, killing most of the crew. Then the crew of the Greyhound mutinied (more below). In 1800 a boat attack was largely unsuccessful and resulted in significant casualties, and later Cleopatra ran aground in the Bahamas and did not get off for three days.

Rodger’s comment about brutality probably stems from the mutiny in the Greyhound. This was at Plymouth in 1797, when the Spithead mutiny spread to Plymouth and the Nore. The Greyhound was one of the few frigates affected. The crew accused Israel Pellew of tyranny and put him ashore. Sir Richard King, commander at Plymouth, persuaded him to resign his command and he was not immediately offered another ship, despite furious letters to Spencer from his brother. Evidently the mutineers made some accusation that related back to the Amphion, but Northcote Parkinson was unable to establish what it was and commented that 'He was probably innocent enough of any crime but unpopularity'.

His brother Edward Pellew, although having a violent temper, is supposed not to have needed to use harsh punishments, but the regular supply of prize money must have helped. When he was given the Impetueux in 1799, known to be mutinous, he did have to resort to a severe punishment regime to retain control, and the crew continued to be mutinous when admirals rejected Pellew’s applications for a court martial. Only after a court martial finally took place, resulting in three executions and five floggings around the fleet, was he able to relax the punishment regime. Many officers, as you might expect, seem to have behaved differently in different circumstances and at different stages in their career.

As usual, earlier sources on Israel Pellew are eulogistic and it’s hard to know where the truth lies – a brave officer who distinguished himself, or brutal and incompetent, or somewhere in between?

Thanks to everyone for really informative posts on individuals, and to Brian for that fascinating overview of naval discipline in the context of the contemporaneous, very brutal penal code.

I recall from my days at the PRO that the Jail Books were in some cases, quite horrifying, particularly those giving details of sentences of transportation. One, in particular sticks in my mind: a child of eight, to be transported for 'stealing a bottle'. Maybe, though, like the death sentences, they were not carried out?

I am sure someone has mentioned on another thread a brutal Captain Pigot who was killed by his own men.

There is a comment on the nature of Captain Pigot’s discipline made by Dudley Pope in his ‘Life in Nelson’s Navy’. It was the frequency and inconsistency of his punishments rather than the severity that destabilised order on the ship:

QUOTE:

Part of the reason [for his murder] 'was the irrational nature of Pigot’s punishments. If a man decided to get drunk on a Saturday night by hoarding his tot, he expected to get a dozen lashes the following Monday; that was, in effect, the going rate…But Pigot played havoc with these accepted values: he gave a man 36 lashes for desertion. Nine days later, another man was given 24 for the same offence. Ten days later a man received only 12 lashes for desertion and on the same day a man received 12 for disobedience. Thus he showed, on 12 March 1795 that disobedience and desertion were equal in his mind. A fortnight later, he awarded one man 24 for mutiny, another one 24 for desertion and 3 others 24 each for drunkenness. So the men saw that they could mutiny and might only get the same punishment as if they were found drunk. Then, a month later, a man who only attempted to desert was given the most lashes that Pigot ever ordered – 4 dozen. Pigot’s inconsistent punishment meant that the men’s sense of values was given a violent shock.’

I found Pope's "Black Ship" to be very ambiguous on the subject of Pigot. It reads as though the more Pope wrote about Pigot the more disgusted he became. The initial impression one gets is that Pigot is a spoiled rich kid who is smarting under some professional disappointments (a reprimand over having a bosun's mate "start" the master of a US merchantman he was convoying and a court martial gone awry) and is simply not in control of himself. By the time Pigot exits Hermione via the stern gallery there is little doubt one is looking at a sociopath or a man confronting a severe mental problem, be it psychological or some kind of dementia.

Many thanks for that interesting observation. As a relatively new enthusiast I had never heard of Pigot until he was mentioned here, and my quote from Dudley Pope's book was one I came across after a quick 'Google' to see if I could find out more.

I note that The Black Ship was published in 1963, some 18 years before Life in Nelson's Navy, in which Pope's judgement of Pigot seems less harsh, if the extract I quote is anything to go by: ambiguous, as you say.

It would appear that Pigot's mental state worsened with command, which is unsurprising if he was slightly unbalanced to begin with. The loneliness of a captain's position, coupled with the great powers and demanding responsibilities he had, must have taken their toll even on the most stable of men. It is interesting, but possibly useless, at this distance in time, to speculate on the origins of much of the cruelty we have noted on this thread. The true sadists, were mainly rooted out, and others were merely 'enforcing the contemporary codes of justice with a degree of severity', as Brian has noted. But much cruelty and anger stem ultimately, from fear and insecurity. I wonder how many flogging captains were simply overwhelmed by the demands and pressures of their position, particularly if they were promoted beyond their competence by 'interest', and disguised their own lack of control by the excessive control of others, i.e. sad rather than mad or bad.

I think you've hit it directly. Being a captain (post, commander, or lieutenant-commander) was a very high risk activity and every 3 years, or less, you were potentially vulnerable to being beached. I think a lot of inexperienced young men were promoted way before they were ready and used the power given them by the Articles of War and tradition to bully rather than lead.

My personal experience as an infantry officer taught me that 1) no one can detect a fraud quicker than an infantry private and 2) men will accept punishment from a man they respect and vigorously resent even just punishment from a man they don't respect.

In Pigot's case, he doesn't seem to have been a flogger until he exchanged into Hermione. IIRC his predecessor on Hermione was a flogger. He brought a dozen or so men with him to Hermione. Ironically, his personal followers were among the most enthusiastic mutineers.

Pope did a great first cut at unraveling the Hermione story but in my view he ends up asking many more questions than he answers and the story could really benefit from a lot more archival and scholarly research. For instance, Pope did not have access to American records and several of the people he can't account for in the future, such as the wife of the bosun (or gunner, I don't have my copy readily available) left testimony to the mutiny. In her case, if her story is accurate, Pope dreadfully libeled her.

To get back to the basic conversation, I think we read a lot about the worst captains for two reasons. First, our main source of popular knowledge of life at sea, fiction, has used the brutal captain as an archetype since at least Smollett's day. Most of what Americans know is limited to the various remakes of Mutiny on the Bounty. Second, the unusual attracts our attention, not the everyday. There is no way the Royal Navy could have stayed at sea, much less prevailed in virtually every theater, under captains who were brutes and sadists. The crew always had the option of simply not fighting when confronted with an enemy ship.

On the Smuggling thread, I mentioned the Preventive Service, which was stepped up at the end of the Napoleonic Wars to intercept the illegal trade. The Coast Blockade of Kent was commanded by Captain 'Flogging' Joe McCulloch, who sounds like someone out of a rip-roaring sea yarn. Are there any further biographical details available?

See Brian's response on the 'Smuggling' thread about Captain Joe!