Alexander Cochrane, in reference to the _Speedy’s_ escape from a Spanish
frigate (see page 100), was written previous to that relating to the
capture of the _Gamo_, but is worthy of record on grounds generally
connected with the naval service.
“MY LORD,—Yesterday we received accounts of your Lordship’s being
placed at the head of the Admiralty, on which occasion I beg to offer
my congratulations. I never subscribed to the opinion that a naval
officer ought not to be First Lord of the Admiralty, and from your
Lordship’s thorough knowledge of the service, we may now hope for that
support on many occasions which we could not look for from those
who—not having borne the brunt of the day, or being bred to the
Navy—could be but bad judges either of officers’ characters, or the
motives which on many occasions actuate them.
“Doubtless your Lordship has already received numerous weighty
applications for the promotion of young men in the service, nor would
I presume to add to their number but from the obliging expressions
your Lordship once made me in favour of Lord Cochrane, had you
remained longer on this station. I have the less reserve on this
occasion, as I think his Lordship has a claim to be made post, from
the presence of mind by which he lately saved H.M.’s sloop _Speedy_,
which he at present commands. This I beg leave to recount.
“He had taken several prizes off Carthagena, when, one morning, he
found himself close under the guns of a Spanish frigate.
“His only chance of escape was, either to board the frigate, in the
hope of finding her unprepared, or to pass off the _Speedy_ as a
Danish sloop of war.
“With one of these objects he stood towards her under Danish colours,
but, on a near approach, found her too formidable to be carried by the
few hands he had on board. On being hailed to know what brig it was,
he gave, through the medium of a Danish quartermaster, the name of a
Danish brig lately arrived on the station. On being ordered to come on
board the frigate with his commission, he informed the Spaniards that
his orders from the court of Denmark were not to send a boat on board
any foreign man of war, but that if they had any doubts of his not
being a Danish sloop of war, they were at liberty to board him.
“On this a boat left the frigate, but just as they were almost
alongside the _Speedy_, they were informed that she was in quarantine,
being only a few days from Algiers, where the plague at that time
existed. On this the Spanish officers in the boat refused to touch a
rope, and returned to the frigate, when her captain told Lord Cochrane
that he knew his brig, and wished him a pleasant voyage.[26]
-----
Footnote 26:
As the reader is aware, we had previously painted the _Speedy_ in
imitation of the Danish brig.
-----
“I have ever been of opinion that rewards for bold services cannot be
too great, and I must confess, that where one of his Majesty’s ships
is saved by presence of mind similar to what I have related, great
praise is due to her commander.
“Your Lordship will, I hope, excuse me for trespassing a little longer
in favour of my nephew, who is now twenty-five years old, a time of
life that promotion can only be of use. His father has expended his
whole fortune in discoveries which will be of great use to the
public—but the real sufferer is Lord Cochrane. The liberality of your
Lordship’s mind will see this in its true light, and also plead my
excuse for the liberty I have taken.
“Hoping that your Lordship’s health is reinstated, &c. &c.
“I am, your Lordship’s, &c. &c.
“ALEXANDER COCHRANE.
“The Right Hon. Lord St. Vincent.”
I was not aware till recently that Sir Alexander had kindly made this
application on my behalf. At the time the preceding letter was written
he did not know of the capture of the _Gamo_; the _Ajax_, which he
commanded, being then before Alexandria. On learning our success, he
again wrote to Lord St. Vincent as follows:—
“_Ajax_, off Alexandria, June 10th, 1801.
“MY LORD,—I some time ago wrote your Lordship in favour of my nephew
Lord Cochrane, recommending his being made post.
“I hope your Lordship received my letter, and that you viewed Lord
Cochrane’s conduct in the light I did. But if my persuasions were not
then judged of sufficient weight, I may now with much confidence come
forward and claim for my nephew the palm of victory in both ways, by
an act hardly equalled in this war of naval miracles, considering the
great inequality of force between the _Speedy_ with fifty-four men,
and a xebec frigate of thirty-two guns and 319 men.
“Well knowing that nothing gives your Lordship more pleasure than
having an opportunity of rewarding merit, let the rank of the person
be what it may, I am confident your Lordship will, on the present
occasion, do every justice to Lord Cochrane, though should his
promotion have arisen from his former exploits it would be more
grateful to my feelings, more especially as his subsequent conduct
will do honour to your Lordship’s appointment.
“I believe I told your Lordship, in my former letter, that Lord
Cochrane has the world before him. He has three younger brothers to
take care of, one of whom boarded at his side[27] when the Spaniard
was carried. Unfortunately he has not served his time; if he had I
dare say your Lordship would think him worthy of promotion for his
conduct on that occasion.
-----
Footnote 27:
Archibald.
-----
“It will give me much pleasure to hear that your Lordship’s health is
quite re-established, and that you may long live to enjoy it, is the
sincere wish of
“Your Lordship’s
“Most obedient and humble servant,
“A. COCHRANE.
“P.S. I wish I could give your Lordship any pleasing intelligence from
this quarter; but ever since the death of Sir R. Abercromby,
procrastination has been the order of the day. Never was a gallant
army so lost as the present. God grant some man of sense may come out
to command them, and save the remnant from destruction. Delay in this
climate is worse than death; five men fall a sacrifice to disease for
one in the field, and yet I don’t think it unhealthy; our troops
suffer from being encamped on burning sands.”
Even this request from a distinguished officer—preferred unknown to
me—failed to obtain what was no favour, but my right according to the
invariable rule of the service. There was even then clearly some
sinister influence at work, of the real cause for which I am to this day
ignorant, and can only surmise that it might have arisen from my, no
doubt, freely expressed opinions on being appointed to convoy the
wretched packet which led to my capture; or perhaps from the still more
indiscreet plainness with which I had spoken of the manner in which the
French fleet had been unfortunately permitted to escape Lord Keith.
Brenton, in his Life of Lord St. Vincent, thus alludes to the delay in
my promotion: “Lord St. Vincent _was so much pressed_ on the subject of
Lord Cochrane’s promotion for taking the _Gamo_, that it became almost a
point of etiquette with the earl _not to make him a captain_! An
illustrious person is reported to have said, ‘My Lord, we must make Lord
Cochrane “post;”’ to which Lord St. Vincent replied, ‘The First Lord of
the Admiralty knows _no must_.’”
There is no doubt that Captain Brenton received this account from Lord
St. Vincent himself, and as the object of his book was to shield his
lordship in questionable matters, we may receive this version as it was
given to his biographer.
The only direct application that I was at the time aware of having been
made was a letter from my father to Lord St. Vincent, _after_ the post
rank had been reluctantly conceded by placing me _at the bottom of the
list_, below others previously my juniors in the service! My father’s
letter and Lord St. Vincent’s reply are subjoined.
“No. 14, Mortimer Street, Sept. 23, 1801.
“MY LORD,—I beg leave, in behalf of my son, Lord Cochrane, who is now
in Scotland, to bring under your Lordship’s view, for your
consideration, some facts and circumstances which may not hitherto
_officially_ have come to your Lordship’s knowledge, from the perusal
of which I flatter myself it will appear to your Lordship that there
are few instances of as much being performed by one individual in the
like space of time, and with a force so inferior.
“When I first heard of Lord Cochrane’s engagement with the _Gamo_, I
reckoned it as a matter not admitting of a doubt that your Lordship
would reward him by immediately appointing him to a post ship, and I
was the more confirmed in this belief from the circumstance that the
_Gamo was not taken by surprise_, but at noonday, after an action of
an hour and ten minutes; during all of which time the _Gamo’s_ yards
were locked with the _Speedy’s_ rigging. The determination of the two
vessels to engage was mutual; Lord Cochrane turned up his ship’s
company at five in the morning, and informed them of his intention to
engage the Spanish frigate.
“The anxiety I must naturally feel for whatever concerns the honour
and rank of my son, led me, on Wednesday last, to inquire at the
Admiralty how his name stood on the post captains’ list. And I must be
allowed to state the surprise and disappointment I felt on finding
several masters and commanders on the Mediterranean station—his
juniors long before, and for several months after, the taking of the
_Gamo_—now placed before him on that list.
“I beg leave to call your Lordship’s attention to what Lord Cochrane’s
feelings must be, and what the situation he will be placed in on
service from this supersession; and whether his being thus postponed
in rank will not have a tendency to detract from the merit of one of
the most gallant actions during this or any other war? And whether it
may not induce the public at large, or the Navy in particular, to
believe that your Lordships have had cause to disapprove of some part
of Lord Cochrane’s conduct?
“If all the circumstances of the engagement had come to your
Lordship’s knowledge in due time, I am persuaded you would have shown
an additional mark of your approbation of Lord Cochrane by making him
post from the date of the capture of the _Gamo_, or, at least, that
you would not have put over him a number of masters and commanders on
the Mediterranean station, who, perhaps equally capable as he of
distinguishing themselves, have not been equally fortunate in similar
opportunities. I am likewise convinced, my Lord, that those individual
officers, who have thus been preferred to him, would not think it any
matter of injustice that Lord Cochrane should retain, as post captain,
the same seniority he held over them, both before and after his
engagement, as master and commander.
“Allow me therefore to request that your Lordship will be pleased to
give Lord Cochrane that rank in the navy which it is presumed he would
have held if the circumstantial accounts of his engagements had
reached your Lordship at an earlier date, or that he had not been so
unfortunate as to have been taken by three French line-of-battle
ships. I cannot suppose any censure is intended to attach to his
conduct on that point; for, in the narrative of his capture, your
Lordship will see that during a chase of several hours upon a wind, he
received the broadside and bow-chasers of a seventy-four gun ship, and
did not strike until, at the distance of musket shot, he received a
full broadside of round and grape from the _Dessaix_.
“I do not, however, my Lord, rest my son’s claim for seniority in
promotion solely upon the capture of the _Gamo_.[28] Although these
particulars, from their being stated in Lord Cochrane’s letters to
Captain Dixon of the _Généreux_, are known to your Lordship, yet I
cannot help here repeating them, as _from their not being published in
the Gazette_ a very erroneous opinion generally prevails that the
_Gamo was taken_ by surprise, and not after so long and close an
engagement as was really the case.
-----
Footnote 28:
“He has,” &c. &c. [Here follows a recapitulation of particulars,
with which the reader is already acquainted.]
-----
“But perhaps, my Lord, I may in the whole of this letter have been
impelled, by the ardour and anxiety of my own feelings, to urge that
which your Lordship’s good intentions may have wholly anticipated
towards Lord Cochrane. If so, my Lord, I have only to entreat your
excuse for a zeal on my part for the honour and character of my son,
for which I hope parental sensations will plead a forcible apology.
“I have the honour, &c. &c.
“DUNDONALD.
“The Right Hon. Lord St. Vincent.”
To this letter Lord St, Vincent next day replied as follows:—
“Admiralty, Sept. 24, 1801.
“MY LORD,—I can have no difficulty in acknowledging that the capture
of the _Gamo_ reflects the highest degree of credit on Lord Cochrane
and the officers and crew of the _Speedy_.
“The first account of that brilliant action reached the Admiralty
_very early in the month of August_ (it was fought on the 6th of May),
previously to which intelligence had been received of the capture of
the _Speedy_, by which Lord Cochrane was made prisoner.
“Until his exchange could be effected, and the necessary inquiry into
the cause and circumstances of the loss of that sloop had taken place,
it was impossible for the Board, consistently with its usual forms, to
mark its approbation of his Lordship’s conduct. Lord Cochrane was
promoted to the rank of post captain on the 8th of August, the day on
which the sentence of acquittal for the loss of the _Speedy was
received_—which was all that could under existing circumstances be
done.
“Having entered into this explanation with your Lordship, it remains
for me only to add that, however disposed the Board might be to pay
attention to the merits of his Lordship, it could not, consistent with
its public duty, give him rank from the time of the capture of the
_Gamo_—a measure quite unprecedented—without doing an act of injustice
to other deserving officers.
“I have the honour, &c. &c.
“ST. VINCENT.
“The Earl of Dundonald.”
I shall not shrink from canvassing this matter, the less because Lord
St. Vincent has been represented as considering himself bored on the
subject. An account of the capture of the _Gamo_ did reach the
Admiralty, though later than it ought to have done, and was
unjustifiably laid aside. Little that I effected was allowed to find its
way into the _Gazette_! Even the log extracts given in the two last
chapters, though relating to matters which occurred sixty years ago,
are, for the most part, news to the public of the present generation.
But supposing that information relative to the capture of the _Gamo_ had
not reached the Admiralty before the news of my being made prisoner,
even then it clearly entitled me to post rank from _the date of my
acquittal_. Lord St. Vincent asserted that it entitled me to promotion
only from the date on which news of my acquittal _was received_!
Reference to the Navy List at the time will show that the postponement
of my rank was rather owing to the bane of the Admiralty—family
influence, and that some of my former juniors were put over my head
because it was politically imperative on the Board to promote others
before me.
That my promotion to post rank for a previous action was impossible,
because I had some time afterwards the misfortune, whilst in a trumpery
sloop, to be captured by three French ships of the line; and therefore
could not be promoted “_until my exchange could be effected_,” was a
subterfuge unworthy of Lord St. Vincent. Had this been the rule of the
Admiralty, officers taken prisoners by the French could neither have
been tried nor promoted, for _there was no system of exchange_, so that
the reward of their services would not depend upon the discretion of the
Admiralty or the generosity of their country, but on the will of the
enemy’s Minister of Marine, who might detain them prisoners till the
close of the war.
By Lord St. Vincent’s interpretation of the Admiralty rule, I should not
have been promoted _at all_, or even tried for the loss of the _Speedy_,
if, as Lord St. Vincent asserted, no promotion could be given till “my
exchange was effected.” The fact is, that I never was exchanged, in the
Admiralty sense of the term; for at that period, as has been said, there
was no exchange of prisoners with France, nor had any previously taken
place for many years. The _Hannibal_ and _Speedy’s_ prisoners owed their
liberation to the fact that the French did not know what to do with
them; and I owed mine to the fact of Captain Keats having, a few days
after I had been liberated on parole, taken a ship of the line, the _San
Antonio_; for whose second captain, by courtesy of Admiral Linois
towards that officer, my liberation was effected.
Still it was not so much the neglect to promote me, of which proper
complaint was made, as the injustice of placing over my head especially,
a younger man and a junior officer, gazetted on the same day for a
subsequent service, to the success of which he in no degree
contributed.[29] Further discussion is unnecessary, my object being to
show the principle, or rather want of it, which prevailed at the
Admiralty where influence was concerned.
-----
Footnote 29:
The action in the Straits of Gibraltar, alluded to at page 128, when
Captain Keats destroyed two line-of-battle ships, and captured a
third, the remainder of the squadron being witnesses only.
-----
It must, however, be explained, that these remarks in no way apply to
the officer promoted, but to the act of promotion. That officer was my
former messmate Lieutenant—afterwards Admiral—Dundas, a truly honourable
man, whom, in later years, I was proud to call my friend. Strangely
enough, the Admiralty which had placed him before me on the list, killed
him in the end through grief at his inability to reform abuses; he
having been called to the Board, where he worked so assiduously in the
vain endeavour to purge the corruption around him, that his health
became undermined, and he was one day found dead in a retiring room of
the Augean establishment at Whitehall.
Before quitting the Mediterranean, a letter was addressed by me to Lord
St. Vincent, requesting him to promote my gallant First Lieutenant
Parker, who, as stated in my despatch, was severely wounded in boarding
the _Gamo_. No answer being returned to this application, up to the
period of my arrival in England, another letter was forwarded to his
lordship, which met with the same reception, and afterwards a third,
which produced from Lord St. Vincent the reply that my application could
not be entertained, for that “it was unusual to promote two officers for
such a service,—besides which the small number of men killed on board
the _Speedy_ did not warrant the application.”
It was impossible not to feel nettled at a reply so unexpected: that
because few men had been killed on board the _Speedy_, her first
lieutenant was considered unworthy of promotion, though terribly cut up.
To argue with a First Lord is no doubt an imprudent thing for a naval
officer to attempt, and my remonstrance in this instance had such an
effect as to get my name placed on the black list of the Admiralty,
never again to be erased.
In my letter to Lord St. Vincent, the following incautious observations
were made, viz. that “his reasons for not promoting Lieutenant Parker,
because there were only three men killed on board the _Speedy_, were in
opposition _to his lordship’s own promotion to an earldom_, as well as
that of his flag-captain to knighthood, and his other officers to
increased rank and honours: for that in the battle from which his
lordship derived his title there was only _one man_ killed on board his
own flagship, so that there were more casualties in my sloop than in his
line-of-battle ship.”
From the receipt of that letter Lord St. Vincent became my bitter enemy,
and not he only, but his successors thought it incumbent on them to
perpetuate his lordship’s displeasure. My reply was no doubt keenly felt
at the time, when it was a common remark in the Navy that the battle of
St. Vincent was gained by the inshore squadron, under Nelson, the
commander-in-chief being merely a spectator, at a distance which
involved only the loss of one man in his own ship.
Notwithstanding this refusal of the First Lord to promote my lieutenant,
my determination was to persevere with the Board collectively, and
accordingly I addressed an official letter to the Secretary of the
Admiralty, Mr. Nepean, embodying Lord St. Vincent’s reply, and
concluding, that “if their Lordships judge by the small number killed, I
have only to say that it was fortunate the enemy did not point their
guns better:” indeed, had I not taken care to place the _Speedy_ in a
position where the Spanish guns went over her, many would have swelled
the list whom it was my happiness to have saved.
This letter was dated May 12th, 1802, and, receiving no reply, the
annexed official letter was addressed to their Lordships on the same
subject:—
“14 Old Cavendish-street, May 17, 1802.
“MY LORDS,—The anxiety I feel for the promotion of a meritorious
officer, Lieutenant Parker, late of the _Speedy_, whose name I have
not seen in the recent list of commanders, even though a very
extensive promotion has taken place, induces me to address your
Lordships.
“Lieutenant Parker served as sole lieutenant of the _Speedy_ at the
capture of the _Gamo_, of 32 guns and 319 men, carried by boarding,
after an action of upwards of an hour; during the greatest part of
which time the yards and rigging of the vessels were locked together.
In boarding and carrying the Spanish vessel he was severely wounded by
a sword, run through his thigh, and a musket-ball lodged in his chest.
“I have always understood it to be an invariable rule with the Board
of Admiralty, to promote officers of unimpeachable character who have
distinguished themselves in action, or who have been first lieutenants
of His Majesty’s ships of war at the capture of vessels of superior
force—especially of a force so very superior as that of the _Gamo_ to
the _Speedy_; the latter, as your Lordships know, mounting 14
4-pounders, having on board only 54 men, whilst the force of the
_Gamo_ was 32 guns, with a complement of men six times greater than
that of the _Speedy_.
“When these circumstances are brought to your Lordships’ recollection,
I am fully convinced that you will see proper to reward Lieutenant
Parker by appointing him to the rank of commander in His Majesty’s
service, which will tend to cherish and promote that spirit of
exertion among the lieutenants, subordinate officers, and crew,
without whose zealous co-operation the endeavours of the captain alone
would prove of small avail.
“I have the honour to be, &c. &c.
(Signed) “COCHRANE.
“To the Right Hon. the Lords Commissioners
of the Admiralty.”
On the 26th of May the following reply was received from the
Secretary:—
“Admiralty Office, 26th May, 1802.
“MY LORD,—I have received and read to my Lords Commissioners of the
Admiralty your Lordship’s letter to me of the 17th inst., and the
representation which accompanied it, and am commanded by their
Lordships to acquaint you that your application to me is perfectly
regular, _but that it is not so for officers to correspond with the
Board_.
“I am, &c. &c.
“E. NEPEAN.
“Captain Lord Cochrane.”
Determined not to be foiled in what I conceived to be the right of
Lieutenant Parker, I replied to the Secretary as follows:—
“Old Cavendish-street, May 27th, 1802.
“SIR,—I have been favoured with your letter acknowledging that you had
received and read to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty my
letter of the 17th inst., and that you are commanded by their
Lordships to acquaint me that my application to you was perfectly
regular, but that it is not so for officers to correspond with the
Board.
“I have, therefore, to request that you will inform the Lords
Commissioners of the Admiralty, that, although I have received your
letter, still I wait in expectation to be favoured with an answer to
the representation which, through you, I had the honour to transmit to
their Lordships.
“I am, &c. &c.
“COCHRANE.
“E. Nepean, Esq., Sec. to the Admiralty.”
The reply to this necessarily cut short all further correspondence.
“Admiralty Office, 29th May, 1802.