THE MARINES IN THE GREAT MUTINIES OF 1797-1802. "I never knew an appeal made to them for honour, courage to England they will be found the Country's Sheet Anchor."-Lord St. Vincent. HE general tradition in the Corps of Royal Marines is to the effect that their ancestors remained absolutely loyal throughout the whole of the great mutinies that cast a deep shadow over the brilliancy of our naval prestige at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th. It is, however, to be feared that this tradition is not entirely correct, though it may be considered to be true of the corps in general, the exceptions being merely sufficient to prove the rule. With regard to the mutiny at Spithead in the spring of 1797 a recent naval historian1 goes so far as to say:-"It was absolutely unanimous, the Marines joining eagerly with the sailors." But we may be excused if we prefer to accept the testimony of Captain Pelham Brenton, a naval officer who was present at the mutiny at the Nore, which took place later in the year, and who wrote a history of the Navy, in which he says:" The Corps of Marines maintained its good character to the last, and, had they been supported, would have infallibly quelled the mutiny in the North Sea Fleet." 1 James Hannay-"A Short History of the Royal Navy." Vol. II. We cannot suppose this officer to have been unacquainted with the details of the previous outbreaks at Spithead, and had the Marines, as alleged by the first writer quoted, made common cause with the seamen, he could hardly have spoken so decidedly as to the temper and loyalty of the Corps. What it could and did do to maintain order when properly and resolutely utilized and backed up by the naval authorities was fully demonstrated by Lord St. Vincent in the Mediterranean Fleet in 1798, and there is little doubt that similar action would have reduced the mutinies at Spithead and the Nore to a mere flash in the pan. Mutiny had been sporadic in the Navy1 since the days of James I. The Stuart Governments do not seem to have had the faintest idea of attempting to treat the seamen of the nation with anything but the extremity of meanness and injustice. The primary cause of nearly all the mutinies that took place in their time-and indeed later was the badness and insufficiency of the provisions issued on board ship and the withholding of some or all of the very meagre pay which had become due to the ship's companies. Charles II.-that "Merry Monarch" who "never said a foolish thing and never did a wise one "-recognized this, but evidently thought that there was no possibility of setting it right. Says Pepys in his Diary:-"18th March, 1668. -To Whitehall where we and my Lord Brounker attended the Council to discourse about the fitness of entering men presently2 for the manning of the Fleete, before one ship is in a condition to receive them. Sir W. Coventry did argue against it. I was wholly silent because I saw the King, upon the earnestness of the Prince, was willing to it, crying very civilly, 'If ever you intend to man the Fleete without being cheated by the Captains and Pursers, you may go to bed and resolve never to have it manned.'" 66 His Majesty might well have gone higher than these officers, for in those days the very highest personages were on the make," and if any money passed through their hands some of it stuck to their fingers. So the seamen came off very badly and mutinies were by no means rare-except under the Commonwealth, which very early recognized that it paid to treat its fighting men well and fairly. During the reign of Charles I. the crew of the Swiftsure mutinied and came ashore in a body with the full intention of deserting. Their Captain-Pennington -a notable sea-officer of his day-went after them and succeeded in inducing them to return on board, but he has left it on record that "their cases are so lamentable that they are not much to be blamed." Not long afterwards the crew of the Lion at Portsmouth also landed under the same circumstances, with the intention of marching to London, because "their wives and children were starving and they perishing on board." About this time, too, the crews of the Vanguard and Reformation also mutinied, being "in want of food, clothing, firing and lodging-by being forced to lie on the cold decks." 1 Mutinies were not, however, confined to the Naval Service. They were by no means unknown in the Army, at any rate during the 18th century. In 1763 nearly the whole garrison of Quebec, consisting of the 15th, 27th and 2nd Battalion 60th, mutinied because a stoppage of 4d. per diem for rations was instituted. Then there was the famous mutiny of the Athol Highlanders (77th) at Portsmouth in 1783. This was occasioned by the regiment being ordered to India. The 68th and 81st were also implicated. Recruits awaiting draft for Indian service seem generally to have been quartered-or rather confined-in the Savoy and constantly mutinied. The Western Fencibles mutinied at Edinburgh in 1779, and in 1803 there was a serious mutiny at Gibraltar in the course of which twenty-five men were killed and three executed. 3 Viz., 'at once." The ship's company of the Assurance deserted in a body, and the sailors in Plymouth were stealing the soldiers' arms to sell for bread, there being no money forthcoming to pay their wages. There were several other mutinies at this period, all attributable to a like lack of common humanity on the part of the Government, but in no case does there seem to have been any violence offered to the officers, which, considering Charles II.'s dictum, is very much to the credit of the aggrieved seamen. During the Commonwealth, when the men were much better treated, there were but two cases of mutiny of any importance: one in 1650, on board the Hart, when, the captain and officers being ashore, twenty-six out of her crew of sixtyeight made themselves masters of the ship, either with the intention of taking her over to Charles in Holland, of turning pirates, or because they were drunk. Very probably the latter cause had the most to do with it, as the mutineers soon fell out amongst themselves, and so allowed the ship to be recaptured by the rest of their shipmates. The other case referred to, which took place in 1653, was, perhaps, hardly a mutiny, but would be better described as a riotous assembly of seamen in London which was occasioned by the non-payment of prize-money that had become due, and which necessitated the employment of military force to disperse it. 66 At the Restoration all the old abuses were revived, and so wretched became the lot of our seamen that discontent was always rife, reaching such a pitch that some even forgot their patriotism and joined our enemies, the Dutch. "Many English sailors," says Pepys, recounting the destruction of the British shipping at Sheerness and Chatham in 1667, were heard on board the Dutch ships, crying 'We did heretofore fight for tickets-now we fight for dollars.' The tickets referred to were the paper promissory notes issued in lieu of hard cash, and which could only be turned into money at a ruinous rate of exchange-if at all. In this connection it is interesting to note that a Navy Office Letter of October 27th, 1666, prays the Commissioners of the Ordnance to order that "twelve well-fixed firelocks, with a supply of powder and bullet" be delivered to Wm. Griffin, housekeeper of the Navy Office," for the defence of the said Office," the Commissioners of the Navy being of opinion that "the present great refractoriness and tumulttuous(ness) of the seamen" make it needful that the Navy Office "should be provided with armes for its defence and securitie against any outrage in case of a mutiny.”1 Later on, in the time of William II., things were not so very much better, for we find that in 1693 the House of Commons "granted four hundred thousand pounds by way of advance, to appease the clamours of the seamen, who were become mutinous and desperate for want of pay; upwards of one million being due to them for wages." 2 During the earlier part of the 18th century there were not a few mutinous outbreaks, but space forbids their enumeration. Two only may be glanced at, on account of the peculiar circumstances which attended them. The first is, perhaps, one of the most extraordinary on record, the ringleaders being two commissioned officers, the first lieutenant of the ship and her lieutenant of Marines, who, inducing a portion of the ship's company to join them, took possession of H.M.S. Chesterfield, then stationed on the West Coast of Africa, at a time when the captain and most of the other officers were on shore. These unworthy members of the Navy and of the Corps paid the full penalty of their crime, both being shot at Portsmouth a year later. It is impossible to assign a motive for their conduct, unless it may be ascribed to drink and the hot climate combined. to have The ship seems only to have been in commission about a year as the detachment of "A lieutenant and 39 men" were only ordered "to march to Deal to embark on board her on the 25th December, 1747. The lieutenant of Marines at once put in a complaint about his "berth on board," as an Admiralty letter dated 1st February orders Admiral Stuart to enquire into the matter. Both he and the 1st Lieutenant-a most a most contemptible contemptible character-appear allowed themselves to be made the tools of the carpenter's mate-one John Place, an ex-pirate, who might have been a prototype of John Silver, in "Treasure Island.' The ship was recaptured from the mutineers by the boatswain assisted by the loyal members of the crew remaining on board, including, probably, all the Marines present: since although four of them were tried with other ratings for mutiny, all four were acquitted.1 The other mutiny to which reference has been made occurred on board H.M.S. Namur just ten years later. Seventy of her men broke out of the ship in Portsmouth Harbour and marched to London to lay their complaint before the Admiralty. Fifteen of them, who seem to have behaved rather like Suffragettes in attempting to force their way to an audience, were put in irons and carried back on board. Tried by court-martial on board the Newark, they were all sentenced to be hanged, but at the last moment a reprieve arrived for fourteen of them, lots being thrown to select the fifteenth, who was forthwith hanged at the yard-arm. Curiously enough their grievance was not at all of the usual nature. The only cause of their irregular procedure is said to have been "the dislike they had to quit the Namur, on board which ship Admiral Boscawen, when he . . . . . hoisted his flag was to bring the crew of his former ship with him.”2 Coming to the latter half of the century we find the spirit of discontent among the seamen to have gained strength, for in March, 1783, there was a mutiny of such extent at Spithead that it can only be compared with the great outbreaks of 1797. Some of the ships' companies, notably those of the Ganges, Janus and Proselyte, threatened to run their ships on shore and destroy them unless their wages were instantly paid and themselves discharged. Personal threats were addressed to the commander-in-chief and the commissioner, and matters became so serious that a Cabinet Council was held which decided on sending Admiral Lord Howe down to enquire into the complaints of the mutineers, to see what could be done in the matter, and to report whether any redress was due to the seamen, who, it appears, were principally influenced in their mutinous conduct by their ships being 1 A fairly full account of this remarkable mutiny will be found in "The Gentleman's Magazine for July, 1749, "Annual Register," 1758 ordered off again on service after a long commission in the West Indies. His lordship seems to have been rather a persona grata with the seamen, and, going from ship to ship, was received with great respect by the mutineers, even in the Portland and Janus, which had been the scenes of some of the worst outbreaks. The captain of the latter had been ashore at the time of the mutiny, and after the officers had done all they could to induce the men to return to their duty, but in vain, they asked them to hoist out a boat to bring him off. They refused, saying that "they might take the long-boat and man her with Marines, but not a seaman would get into her." Probably this was done, for the captain contrived to get off to his ship. Lord Howe, having promised that the Janus and other ships should be paid off, the men returned to their duty-having gained their point. But, some delay occurring, the crew of the Janus, at any rate, broke out again, and in the confusion which supervened, the ship caught fire in the sail-room, and was with difficulty saved from destruction. Lord Howe then wrote that if the men were so impatient for their discharge they must be content with bills or notes instead of money, which had not yet arrived from London. Upon this the mutineers once more returned to their duty, and the mutiny came to an end. at It is on record that "in all the mutinous and disorderly proceedings Portsmouth, none of the Marines joined in that disgraceful affair; on the contrary, they conducted themselves in so becoming a manner (when both Navy and Army shook off all discipline) that they were employed in keeping the peace and guarding the town, for which their officers were particularly thanked by Lord George Lennox, who commanded. The Commanding Officer, having acquainted the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty with this, received instructions to assure his men that their Lordships highly approved their conduct.1 Nor was this the first time that their steadiness caused them to be selected for police work, for in "Lloyd's Evening Post," January 7th, 1763, we find :"Portsmouth. Robbing increases here every night; on which account, two additional guards are to be mounted by the Marines, one on the Common, the other at the Point." There We come now to the famous mutiny at Spithead, in April, 1797.2 is little doubt that the root of the whole matter can be traced to the same, or similar, causes which were responsible for the outbreaks in the days of the Stuart Kings and their immediate successors. It is not in the least likely that the men were at this period "cheated by their captains," though possibly the pursers were still, to a certain extent, indulging in their old practices of peculation; but "although very much underpaid, if the market value for a seaman was to be measured by the wages paid in the merchant service, there were limitations and regulations which deprived them even of the lower pay which was due to them.”3 But the comprehensive nature of the outbreak was probably due to the presence of men in the Fleet such as Parker, the ringleader in the Nore mutiny, who had 1 Beatson's "Naval and Military Memoirs," 1804. 2 There had been one or two mutinous outbreaks not so long before. One took place on board H.M.S. Culloden, in 1794, and it is recorded in The Times (December, 13th 1794), that "During the time the ship was in this mutirous state the crew flogged several Marines because they would not join them." 3 Hannay's "Short History of the Royal Navy," Vol. II. |