Nelson & His World

I've just started to read the journal of Augustus Hervey, who was Vice Admiral of the Blue when he died in 1779.

Early in his career, Hervey refused an appointment in the West Indies, a notoriously disease-ridden station.

What exactly was the position regarding accepting/refusing appointments? If an officer held the King's Commission, was he able to pick and choose which appointments he would accept? I assumed that an appointment was an order to serve rather than an invitation that one could decline.

Can anyone comment?

Anna,

In general, an officer could, and occasionally did, refuse an appointment. Obviously this involved an element of risk in that his career prospects could be affected as a result of inevitable administrative inconvenience caused to his masters. There would have been plenty of competitors in a service where supply of officers far outstripped the number of appointments. Officers with influential connections and family (like Hervey) might have felt inclined to take the risk: but those with neither would have been less willing to do so. But then again, it was not as simple as that. if an officer with 'interest' were offered an appointment due to the influence of a powerful patron (as was frequently the case) then refusal might be construed as a personal slight which might deter the patron from offering further favours.

Rank also came into this, Admirals and senior captains might well be choosy in apppintments; but could mere lieutenants afford to be so? And what does the 'King's Commission' mean? My recollection is that - unlike in the army - a Lieutenant's commissions did not appointed him as a 'Lieutenant' as such, but as 'Lieutenant of HMS XYZ'. It would hardly have been wise for him to ask to be superceded if the ship were sent to somewhere uncongenial, especially when they were frequently on the move.

Brian

As Brian says, lieutenants were only given a commission for a specific ship, and this also applied to captains. Once the ship was paid off, or once they were superceded, the commission ended. Thus while on half pay, they did not 'hold the King's commission', and as I understand it, were also not subject to naval law and could not be court-martialled. They could refuse a commission, but once accepted, they could not resign it except by asking to be superceded, which the Admiralty could in theory refuse, and certainly might delay.

Many thanks to you both for those helpful posts.

I've just re-read the introduction to James Anthony Gardner's memoir, 'Above and Under the hatches'. He too, having been appointed, and served as, first lieutenant of the Blonde (a specific ship, as you point out) subsequently, like Hervey, refused to go to the West Indies 'where, as he well knew, the chance of survival after an attack of Yellow Jack was small.'

Unlike Hervey, he did not progress in his career, despite being an able officer, and it is suggested that one of the reasons was, possibly, that 'he was evidently 'too choosey' about his appointments for the liking of his superiors.' He was from a respected, if not distinguished, naval family, so would probably have had some 'interest', but none of the 'pull' of a Hervey, to gain advancement despite having refused an appointment.

Many apologies. On re-reading the passage mentioned above, I now realise that a clumsily-contructed sentence misled me. Regarding the refusal of appointments in the West Indies, the author was referring not to Hervey, but to his close associate Byng, the Admiral who was subsequently shot. Like Hervey, Byng was well-connected, so Brian's comments above - that an officer with 'interest' might have felt able to take the risk of refusing an uncongenial appointment - are equally applicable to Byng.

David Erskine’s commentary and notes on Augustus Hervey’s Journal - still plodding through! - are full of interesting information – new to me, if not to the experts here! He has some illuminating points to make on the subject of refusing appointments, half-pay etc.

When the Navy Bill that included the article that was used to justify the execution of Admiral Byng was going through Parliament, an attempt was also made to introduce another article, namely, that officers on half pay who refused an appointment should be subject to Court Martial rather than simply the stopping of their half pay. There was uproar in the navy, and among the Opposition, who claimed that the article represented ‘a dangerous infringement of the liberties of Englishmen. They argued that half pay was granted as a reward for past services, and not as a retainer for the future. They feared that a vindictive Board might persecute political and service rivals by appointing them to posts unsuitable by reason of rank and seniority, and then have them broken by court-martial for refusing to assume them. By all means let the Admiralty order half pay officers to their duty, they said, but let the punishment for their disobedience be no more than the stopping of their half pay.’

As Brian noted above, well-connected officers with other private means, were in a position to refuse uncongenial service; they could cope with the loss of four shillings a day half pay, albeit at the risk of the disapproval of their superiors.

The opposition was successful, as a result of which officers of the Royal Navy on half pay were never subject to trial by court martial.

Hervey himself was active in his opposition to the proposed article. The Prince of Wales supported him, ‘saying ‘it was shameful for Lord Anson and Lord Sandwich to make so many brave men slaves’ – those were his words.’

Hervey wrote a pamphlet entitled ‘Objections to the 34th Article of the Navy Bill’. We get a flavour of the tone of the content from the following quotation from it in which he described the Admiralty Board as ‘a medley of Court nobility, broken squires and now and then a solitary nominal sea officer or two, who sit there and sleep for their salaries.’