Part 17

Admiral Bligh, by his marriage, had two sons, who died in infancy, and six daughters, one of whom only, Miss Jane Bligh, still survives. Three of the daughters were married—viz., 1. Harriet, who married Henry Barker, Esq., of Willsbridge, and left issue; 2. Mary, who married, first, Lieutenant Putland, of the family of Putland, of Brayhead, in the county of Wicklow, by whom she had no issue; and secondly, Lieutenant-General Sir Maurice O’Connell, K.C.H., and by him left Lieutenant-Colonel R. O’Connell, R.A., and other issue; 3. Elizabeth, who married Richard Bligh, Esq., barrister-at-law, and left issue.

I cannot conclude without expressing how very much I am indebted in the above particulars to the work entitled, “Pitcairn: the Island, the People, and the Pastor,” by the Rev. Thomas Boyles Murray, M.A., which has had merited success, and which deserves even still more extensive perusal.

The mutiny of the _Bounty_ is an event that should be a solemn warning to every seaman in the navy, showing, as it does, the magic power of discipline, and the misery of insubordination. Bligh, and those who adhered to him, were preserved for nearly 4,000 miles in an open boat by the mere maintenance of discipline; while Christian and most of his guilty comrades, though having an armed vessel of war in their absolute power, perished miserably, because they had forsaken that system of duty and obedience which is the life-spring and the sacred safeguard of their profession.

THE MUTINY AT THE NORE.

On the 14th January, 1797, the glorious battle off Cape St. Vincent had been won by as famous a band of heroes as the world ever saw; and the names and deeds of the victors, Jervis, Nelson, Troubridge, Collingwood, Calder Saumarez, and Parker, were the talk and pride of all England. This naval triumph, in which Nelson boarded one man-of-war of eighty guns, and then another of 112 guns, and captured them both at the edge of the sword,—this triumph, in which fifteen British sail of the line defeated twenty-seven sail of the Spaniards, amongst them one vessel of 130 guns, and six of 112 guns,—this triumph, in fine, which was so completely decisive, made revolutionary Europe quail, and feel it had met its greatest check in the indomitable force and spirit of England on the seas. The general public exultation was natural enough; but, alas! before a few months passed, an event was to happen which was to throw a shadow, fortunately not of long duration, yet of the darkest hue that ever fell, upon the navy of Great Britain. This was the dire and discreditable revolt, known as “the Mutiny at the Nore.”

This criminal insurrection was preceded by a less unjustifiable outbreak at Spithead, caused by the complaints of the sailors being totally and foolishly neglected by the parties in power; for the sailors did, in 1797, labour under many grievances, “which,” writes Mr. C. D. Yonge, in his able “History of the British Navy,” “though they were inflicted on them through neglect and carelessness, rather than from any deliberate injustice, were not the less intolerable on that account. Their pay had not been raised from the sum at which it had been fixed in the time of the Duke of York, afterwards James II., though the price of all the necessaries of life had greatly risen. Their pensions, too, were left at the same amount, though those to which the soldiers became entitled had augmented. What was even more irritating, as carrying with it a greater appearance of intended unfairness, was, that for the provisions served out to them a lighter weight[18] was established than that used in ordinary traffic; while even for that light weight they were wholly at the mercy of the pursers, who at that time were commonly taken from a very inferior class of men, and who cheated and robbed the sailors without scruple and without limit. Other minor causes of complaint related to the general severity of the naval discipline; the constant refusal of leave even to men in harbour; and a variety of trifling matters, which, had they stood alone, would hardly have been thought of, but which no one could deny to be undeserved hardships, and which now served to swell the catalogue of evils which the men were resolved no longer to endure.”

In the month of February, 1797, the crews of four of the line-of-battle ships at Spithead forming the Channel Fleet, the _Queen Charlotte_, the flag-ship, being amongst them, addressed separate petitions to Lord Howe, their commander-in-chief. Lord Howe, being ill, referred the petitions to Admirals Lord Bridport and Sir Peter Parker, who, not inquiring closely into the matter, merely replied, that the petitions were the work of some evil-disposed persons. Consequently, the complete indifference these really peaceable and loyal addresses experienced drove the seamen to extremes. An agitation amongst them being perceived by those in authority, the Admiralty ordered the Channel Fleet to put to sea. On the 16th April Lord Bridport made the signal to prepare to weigh anchor. This led to an open mutiny, the men running up the shrouds and giving three cheers, and then proceeding to take the command of their ships from their officers. Two delegates from each ship were appointed to conduct the entire negotiation with the Admiralty; for throughout, these mutineers showed themselves bent on remonstrance only, and not rebellion. This line of conduct had its effect, for on investigation the lords of the Admiralty admitted the justice and moderation of the seamen’s demands, and on the representation of their lordships, the Government agreed to grant all that was asked. This was done, and a royal proclamation issued, pardoning all such seamen as should at once return to their duty. After some renewal of agitation caused by parliamentary delay in carrying out the measures conceded, Lord Howe brought down a free pardon under the great seal to the fleet, and the men having expressed their contrition, cheerfully returned to submission and allegiance, and in less than a month every symptom of discontent among the two great fleets at Portsmouth and Plymouth had entirely passed away.

Unfortunately, this redress of grievances was obtained by a display of force, and this led other seamen to suppose that further and less reasonable acquisitions might be had in the same way. A fresh and a terrible mutiny broke out in the fleet stationed at the Nore, differing entirely from the revolt at Spithead. In the former instance, in the very height of disobedience, the sailors never lost their reverence for discipline, nor their respect for their superior officers. The mutineers at the Nore were simply rebels, with a very commonplace traitor for their leader. This man, Richard Parker, was just one of those persons who, of humble life and of evil spirit, with a little education, are so often found to be the chiefs of popular insurrections. He was a native of Exeter, where he was born about the year 1765 or 1766. His father, Joseph Parker, was a respectable tradesman, and kept a baker’s shop at St. Sidwell’s, in the bounds of Exeter city. Young Richard Parker received a good education, and in the course of time went to sea, which he had chosen as the scene of his future career. He obtained a midshipman’s berth on board the _Culloden_, but was discharged from her for gross misconduct. He contrived to get similar rank on board the _Leander_, but he was again turned out. He subsequently acted as a mate in the _Resistance_ frigate, but his continued bad behaviour brought him to a court-martial, and reduced him to the position of a common sailor. He quitted the navy invalided, returned home, and married Miss Ann Machardy, a young lady resident in Exeter, but of Scottish origin, being a member of a respectable family in the county of Aberdeen. Her name deserves to be preserved, for her devotion to her husband made quite a heroine of her. This marriage led Parker to remove to Scotland, where he embarked in some mercantile speculations that proved unsuccessful. The issue was, that he found himself involved in difficulties, and without the means to maintain his wife and two children. In Edinburgh, where these embarrassments fell upon him and placed him for a time in gaol, he had no friends to apply to, and in a moment of desperation he took the king’s bounty, and became again a common sailor on board a tender at Leith. When he had communicated to his wife the step he had taken, she was in the greatest distress, and resolved to set off instantly for Aberdeen, in order to procure from her brother there the means of hiring two seamen as substitutes for her husband. Though successful in raising the necessary funds, no time was allowed her to complete her project. On her return from Aberdeen, she was only in time to see the tender sail for the Nore, with her husband on board. Her grief on the occasion was bitterly aggravated by the death of one of her children. Parker’s sufferings were shown to be equally acute by his conduct when the vessel sailed. Exclaiming that he saw the body of the child floating on the waves, he leaped overboard, and was with difficulty rescued and restored to life. In this gloomy state of mind, in the beginning of May, 1797, Parker reached the Nore, or point dividing the mouths of the Thames and the Medway. Probably on account of his former experience and station as a seaman, he was drafted on board the _Sandwich_, which was the guard-ship, and bore the flag of Admiral Buckner, the port admiral. The mutinous spirit which afterwards broke out certainly existed on board of the Nore squadron before Parker’s arrival. Communications were kept up in secret between the various crews, and the mischief was gradually drawing to a head. But though Parker did not originate the feeling of insubordination, his ardent temper, boldness, and superior intelligence, soon became known to his comrades, and made him a prominent man among them. He, cunningly availing himself of their general discontent, and assisted, as there seems no doubt, by agents from some of the revolutionary societies at that time existing in London, hastened the open mutiny, of which he was appointed the chief. The plans being at length matured, the seamen rose simultaneously against their officers, and deprived them of their arms, as well as of all command in the ships, though behaving respectfully to them in all other respects. Each vessel was put under the government of a committee of twelve men, and to represent the whole body of seamen, every man-of-war appointed two delegates, and each gunboat one, to act for the common good. Of these delegates Richard Parker was president. This representative body drew up a list of grievances of which they demanded the removal. Parker signed these documents, and they were published over the whole kingdom, with his name, as well as presented to Port-Admiral Buckner, through whom they were sent to Government.

When these proceedings commenced, the mutineers were suffered to go on shore, and they paraded about Sheerness, where a part of the fleet lay, with music, flags (red in colour—the customary hue of insubordination), and other appendages of a triumphal procession. But, on the 22nd of May, troops were sent to Sheerness to put a stop to this indulgence. Being thus confined to their ships, the mutineers having come to no agreement with Admiral Buckner, began to take more decisive measures for extorting compliance with their demands, as well as for insuring their own safety. The vessels at Sheerness moved down to the Nore, and the combined force of the insurgents, which at its greatest height consisted of twenty-four sail, proceeded to block up the Thames, by refusing a free passage up or down to the London trade. Foreign vessels and a few small craft were suffered to go by, first receiving a passport, signed by Richard Parker, as president of the delegates. In a day or two the mutineers had an immense number of vessels under their detention. The mode in which they kept these was as follows:—The vessels of war were ranged in a line, at considerable distances from each other, and in the interspaces were placed the merchant vessels, having the broadsides of the men-at-war pointed at them. The appearance of the whole assemblage is described as having been at once stupendous and apalling. The red flag floated from the mast-head of every one of the mutineer ships—a sad and a disgraceful sight.

It may be well imagined that the alarm of the citizens of London was extreme. The Government, however, though unable at the period to quell the insurgents by force, remained firm in their demand of “unconditional submission as a necessary preliminary to any intercourse.” This, perhaps, was the very best line of conduct that could have been adopted. The seamen—and it was a palliation of their misguided behaviour—never seemed to think of assuming an offensive attitude, and were thereby left in quiet to meditate on the dangerous position in which they stood in hostility to a whole country. They grew timorous, the more so as the Government had caused all the buoys to be removed from the mouth of the Thames and the adjacent coasts, so that no vessel durst attempt to move away for fear of running aground. The mutineering vessels held together, nevertheless, till the 30th of May, when the _Clyde_ frigate was carried off through a combination of its officers with some of the seamen, and was followed by the _Fiorenzo_. These vessels were fired upon, but escaped up the river. On the 4th of June, the king’s birthday, the Nore fleet showed that loyalty to their sovereign still existed, by firing a general salute. On the 5th another frigate left the fleet, and its place was supplied by a sloop and four men-of-war, which had left Admiral Duncan’s fleet at the Texel to join the mutiny. On the 6th Admiral Lord Northesk met the delegates by desire on board the _Sandwich_, and received from them proposals for an accommodation, to which Parker still put his name as president. The answer was a firm refusal, and this firmness seems to have fairly humbled the remaining spirit of the mutineers. From that time one vessel after another deserted the band, and put themselves under the protection of the fleet at Sheerness. On the 10th the merchantmen were allowed, by common consent, to pass up the river, and such a multitude of ships certainly never entered a port by one tide. By the 12th only seven ships had the red flag flying, and on the 16th the mutiny had terminated, every ship having been restored to the command of its officers. A party of soldiers went on board the _Sandwich_, and to them the officers surrendered the delegates of the ship, namely, a man named Davis and Richard Parker. The latter was confined in the black-hole of Sheerness garrison until his trial, which was preceded by the trials of some others of the mutineers. Two, who, like Parker, suffered death, were tried at the court-martial held on board the _Royal William_, at Portsmouth, on the 21st June.

This court-martial had before it the six mutineers belonging to the _Pompée_. The evidence of all the witnesses, to the number of seventeen, on the part of the prosecution, went strongly to condemn the prisoners Gutherie, Calloway, Ashley, and Johnson; and some circumstances tended to make Davis and Braham more connected with the business. In the course of the evidence called and questioned, it appeared that these disaffected men were not able to get a real seaman to sign their paper, or to take the oath tendered. Such men as took the oath did it through fear, and were the illiterate part of the crew, most of whom could not write their names or understand what they had sworn to. It is but justice to the well-affected part of the ship’s company to admit the propriety of their conduct, in exposing the proceedings of the six prisoners. The conduct of Sergeant Sweet, of the Marines, in giving his evidence, was particularly commendable. The testimony on the part of the Crown closed at four o’clock. Several papers, very essential to clear up this black and mysterious business, had been destroyed; the only thing found was amongst Johnson’s clothes, which was a form of oath, as follows:—“I, ——, do swear to stand true till death in promoting the cause of liberty with equity, while a prospect of obtaining it remains.” Here the paper was torn, which showed there was something more to follow. The trial was so numerously attended from the ship and the shore, that props were obliged to be put under the beams of the _Royal William_, to support the immense number of people who flocked on board.

The court-martial ended on the 23rd June, at half-past six. By the sentence of the court, Calloway, Gutherie, Johnson, and Ashley were to suffer death; but the two former were recommended to mercy. A fifth mutineer was to be imprisoned twelve months, and the sixth acquitted. This sentence was confirmed, and Johnson and Ashley were executed on the 28th June.

The trial and conviction of these men were followed by the more momentous trial of Parker. This took place at Greenhithe upon the morning of the 22nd June, 1797, at ten o’clock. A court-martial was held on board the _Neptune_, in pursuance of an order from the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, for the trial of Richard Parker, a seaman on board the _Sandwich_, upon charges of which the following is the substance:—Making, and endeavouring to make, mutinous assemblies on board the _Sandwich_, and others of her Majesty’s ships at the Nore, on or about the 12th of May; disobeying the lawful orders of his superior officers, and treating his superior officers with disrespect.

Captain Moss, of the _Sandwich_, was the prosecutor; and the court was composed of the following officers:—

President, Vice-Admiral Sir Thomas Paisley, Bart. Comm. Sir Erasmus Gower _Neptune_, 98 Captain Stanhope Ditto „ Markham _Centaur_, 74 „ Williamson _Agincourt_, 64 „ Wells _Lancaster_ 64 „ Lane _Acasto_, 44 „ Sir Thomas Williams _Endymion_, 36 „ King _Syrius_, 36 „ Pierrepoint _Naiad_, 36 „ Riou _Mary Yacht_, 36

Admiral Buckner was the first witness called.

_Q._ “Do you know the prisoner?—_A. Yes._

_Q._ “Does the prisoner belong to the _Sandwich_?—_A._ I heard so; but in what capacity I know not.

_Q._ “Will you report what you know of the prisoner being concerned in a mutiny on board the fleet at the Nore, on or about the 12th of May; or of any instances of disrespectful language or conduct to his officers during the time this mutiny existed?—_A._ The first time I observed anything particular in the prisoner’s conduct, farther than parading about with a vast number of people on shore with a red flag, was on or about the 20th of May, when I went on board the _Sandwich_ for the purpose of making known to that ship and others his Majesty’s proclamation of pardon on their returning to their duty, on the terms granted to their brethren at Spithead, which the delegates, among whom was Parker, had previously assured me they would be satisfied with. On my going on board with my flag in my boat there was no respect shown me whatever. The officers were then without their side-arms, and had no command in the ship. Unwilling to return on shore till an opportunity offered for my speaking to the people, I waited for a considerable time, when Parker, with others, came on the quarterdeck, and said that none other but themselves (meaning, I presume, the ship’s company), should be present. The prisoner then tendered me a paper containing what he called a list of grievances, saying, at the same time, that until those were redressed, they would not give up the power then in their hands. They insisted, also, on the personal attendance of the Admiralty to ratify their demands. Finding my efforts to restore order of no avail, I went on shore. On the 22nd certain troops arrived at Sheerness; on the 23rd my flag was struck on board the _Sandwich_. On the evening of that day I was examining at the Commissioner’s house; and while I was inquiring into complaints laid against two marines by a part of the military, the prisoner and a man whom they called Davies, with three or four others, I believe, came abruptly into the house, and demanded why those men were in custody; telling me, at the same time, that my flag was struck, that I had no authority, and that the power was in their hands. They then took the men away, as they said, to trial. Another expression made use of by Parker was that he was not to be intimidated. About the 4th of June I received a letter from Parker, or rather, I should say, with his signature. In this letter he said that the Administration had acted improperly in stopping the provisions, and that the foolish proclamation was calculated to inflame the minds of honest men. I have nothing more particular to relate.

_Q._ “You have had frequent conferences with the prisoner?—_A._ With him at the head of many others, in order to bring them to a sense of their conduct. He, in general, took the lead as the spokesman, sometimes with a degree of insolence, appealing to the rest whether he was not authorized to speak the sense of the whole, and if it was their wish it should be so. He even prevented one man in particular, whose name I don’t know, from answering a question I had put to him; saying, at the same time, ‘Hold your tongue; if you don’t, I’ll take care of you.’ While I was on board the _Sandwich_, I forgot to mention that I remonstrated with them against keeping those disgraceful ropes, called yard-ropes, hanging; but the delegates, amongst whom was the prisoner, refused to remove them.

_Q._ “In your conversation with the prisoner, did you ever experience any degree of insolence?—_A._ I sometimes did; but generally his deportment was the reverse, and he behaved with a great deal of apparent respect.” (Here were read Admiral Buckner’s letter to the Admiralty informing the Lords Commissioners of the mutiny; a letter from Captain Moss to Admiral Buckner, informing him of certain particulars respecting the mutiny; Richard Parker’s letter to Admiral Buckner, the substance of which was stated in the Admiral’s evidence.)

The prisoner put some questions to show that the Admiral had been treated with respect. The President of the Court advised the prisoner to invalidate, if he could, by any question, that part of the narrative of Admiral Buckner which stated that he had released two marines, and told the Admiral that all his authority on board ship was at an end. The prisoner put no question to this effect. The other witnesses this day examined were—Lieut. Justice, of the _Sandwich_, and Mr. Snipe, Surgeon of the _Sandwich_, who stated that Parker acted as President of the Committee, and leading man on all occasions. The prisoner was about to ask some questions; but, being cautioned by the Court that they might criminate himself, they were withdrawn. Captain Surridge, of the _Iris_, who was present at what passed at Commissioner Hartwell’s, and Captain Dixon, of _L’Espion_, who accompanied Admiral Buckner on board the _Sandwich_, confirmed the Admiral’s evidence. At four o’clock Captain Dixon’s evidence was interrupted, and the Court adjourned to the next day.