![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anteros_lmcContinuing the story of Commander The Honorable George Cadogan and the Ferret Mutiny, West Indies Station 1806.
On the basis of the Admiralty court martial transcript it appears that Guterridge is correct to state, in Mutiny: A History of Naval Insurrection, that the Ferret mutineers lacked intent, they certainly presented little resistance when confronted. However it is equally clear that the mutiny was planned and premeditated and that the objective of the mutineers, or at least their instigator, was to hand the ship over to the Spanish at Porto Cabello or La Guiara. Only one defendant, Edward Jones, stated that the intent was to return the ship to the authorities at Port Royal. It also seems that there was at least an element within the crew who had scant regard for the captain’s life and were quite prepared to kill him if he resisted.
From the court martial transcript alone it is difficult to comment on the charge against George Cadogan of brutality and ill-usage and unfortunately the captain’s log of the Ferret, which should have recorded all punishments in detail, has not survived. However the master’s log is extant and it does indeed reveal that there was a serious discipline problem aboard the sloop. Between the dates of 7th June 1806 and the mutiny on the 26th September Master P. W. Gawthrop records a total of 42 separate incidents of punishment, ranging from 12 to 48 lashes and mostly for insolence, drunkenness, disobedience of orders and neglect of duty. Although Gawthrop does not record the identity of all the seamen punished, the names of several of the mutineers do appear in the log, including Armstrong, Whitfield, Lee, Powell and Sybelle. The most severe punishment recorded is an astonishing 90 lashes for drunkenness which was meted out to Edward Jones, the self confessed mutineer who did not stand trial. The master’s log also reveals that the misdemeanour for which Boatswain Thomas Simpson was reprimanded was neglecting to square the yard before the wind, contrary to express orders.
The rate and severity of the punishments handed out on the Ferret is indeed harsh, particularly in comparison to a ship like the Indefatigable were punishments were few and far between. However Pellew, who led by example and had a disinclination to resort to corporal punishment, was the exception rather than the rule. More often than not captains, and particularly those who were young and inexperienced, enforced discipline by the lash.
It is also interesting to compare the punishment record of the Ferret with that of the Cyane George’s previous command on the West Indies Station. Cadogan captained the Cyane, 18, from August 1804 to May 1805 during which time the sloop took four prizes including the French brig privateer La Bonaparte, 18 guns, 150 men and Spanish privateer Justitia, 7 guns, 86 men. Over this ten month period the log records just seven individual punishments ranging from 12 to 36 lashes for drunkenness, neglect of duty and insolence. A successful command by any measure although the severity of the punishments suggests that George was perhaps already beginning to struggle with discipline.
There is no denying the evidence of the Ferret that George Cadogan was a punitive captain, and perhaps there is some justification for the charges of ill usage and brutality. However the frequency and nature of the misdemeanours recorded also suggests a considerable lack of discipline amongst the men. Indeed it is not too far fetched to suggest that there seems to have been a slow burning war of attrition between the captain and elements of the crew; with Cadogan, struggling to maintain discipline and resorting to brutal measures and the crew responding with insubordination and, ultimately, mutiny.
It is significant that the Ferret was a newly commissioned sloop, fresh off the blocks at Dartmouth, with a new crew, commander and officers. Interestingly the Ferret’s muster reveals that many of the crew came from the Salvador. Presumably this refers to the Salvador del Mundo, a massive 112 gun, first rate ship captured during the battle of Cape Saint Vincent. By 1803 the Salvador del Mundo had been commissioned as a receiving ship at Portsmouth, that is a hulk that housed newly pressed or recruited seamen before they were assigned to commissioned ships. So not only were the Ferrets crew new to the ship and her officers, they were also new to each other. In addition, it is quite likely that a good few of them were indeed “bad spirits”; pressed men, the sweeping’s of the county goals or men that had left other ships for whatever reason. Forming such a mixed bunch into a competent and disciplined crew would have required considerable command and strength of character, which it appears George Cadogan lacked.
The role of the boatswain, Mr Thomas Simpson, appears to be key to both the mutiny and the lack of discipline on board the Ferret. Although he played no active part in the insurrection the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Simpson, the warrant officer who should have been responsible for maintaining discipline among the men, incited them to mutiny instead. Simpson appears to have been careful not to have been seen on the night of the insurrection and to have absented himself after calling the mutinous assembly in his cabin, however the testimony of the seamen is consistently against him and ultimately the court martial condemned him as the ring leader of the mutiny.
It’s possible that Simpson was motivated purely by a sense of injustice and outrage at the captain’s ill-usage of the men. However the evidence put forward at the court martial suggests that the boatswain’s actions were at least partially motivated by a more personal grudge. Simpson had already been removed from duty and was facing the threat of a court martial and disrating prior to the mutiny; although he had not been confined to the brig or his cabin. As the boatswain of a sloop, Simpson would have been appointed by Admiralty Warrant and consequently could not be disrated by the captain alone, hence the necessity for the court martial. Perhaps Simpson hoped to dispose of the captain and make off with the ship rather than face the prospect of loosing his warrant and his livelihood before a court martial.
Whatever the case, any breakdown in the chain of command between the captain and the boatswain on a ship as small as the Ferret would have had a disastrous impact on the discipline of the crew. In the book Frigates, Sloops and Brigs Henderson has pointed out that commanding small ships of war, such as brigs, sloops, barques and cutters, presented a unique challenge. The Ferret, with 18 guns, was a small ship, just 100 feet in length, but she carried a large crew of 121 men with almost a full complement of commissioned and warrant officers including captain, master, two lieutenants, several midshipmen, gunner, carpenter, surgeon, boatswain and a small company of marines. Conditions would have been extremely cramped and as Henderson notes “Discipline in close quarters is always difficult, and depends very much on the personality of the commander.” With officers and men crammed together in such confined quarters it could be difficult to maintain the distance and authority of command. Some men, such as Cochrane, excelled at commanding these small ships, others such as Pigot and Bligh failed and resorted to brutality to enforce their authority. Few men were as gifted as Cochrane or as cruel as Pigot and this is equally true of George Cadogan, though it is undeniable that he was unable to command his ship without reporting to force. Ultimately both he and his crew paid the price for his lack of experience and ability.
In the final six months that Cadogan commanded the Ferret the master’s log continues to record a number of punishments for neglect of duty although their rate and severity diminishes noticeably. This may be due to the fact that the sloop spent considerable time in port from February 1807 onwards, however it is more than likely that the capital sentence handed down to the mutineers discouraged further insubordination. It is also possible that there was less discontent amongst the crew once the “bad spirits” had been removed. However it is telling that Pearman claims in The Cadogan’s at War that the Ferret’s next commander also found her crew to be “obdurate”.
The final installment will provide a rare glimpse of George Cadogan's state of mind at the time of the Ferret mutiny.
On the basis of the Admiralty court martial transcript it appears that Guterridge is correct to state, in Mutiny: A History of Naval Insurrection, that the Ferret mutineers lacked intent, they certainly presented little resistance when confronted. However it is equally clear that the mutiny was planned and premeditated and that the objective of the mutineers, or at least their instigator, was to hand the ship over to the Spanish at Porto Cabello or La Guiara. Only one defendant, Edward Jones, stated that the intent was to return the ship to the authorities at Port Royal. It also seems that there was at least an element within the crew who had scant regard for the captain’s life and were quite prepared to kill him if he resisted.
From the court martial transcript alone it is difficult to comment on the charge against George Cadogan of brutality and ill-usage and unfortunately the captain’s log of the Ferret, which should have recorded all punishments in detail, has not survived. However the master’s log is extant and it does indeed reveal that there was a serious discipline problem aboard the sloop. Between the dates of 7th June 1806 and the mutiny on the 26th September Master P. W. Gawthrop records a total of 42 separate incidents of punishment, ranging from 12 to 48 lashes and mostly for insolence, drunkenness, disobedience of orders and neglect of duty. Although Gawthrop does not record the identity of all the seamen punished, the names of several of the mutineers do appear in the log, including Armstrong, Whitfield, Lee, Powell and Sybelle. The most severe punishment recorded is an astonishing 90 lashes for drunkenness which was meted out to Edward Jones, the self confessed mutineer who did not stand trial. The master’s log also reveals that the misdemeanour for which Boatswain Thomas Simpson was reprimanded was neglecting to square the yard before the wind, contrary to express orders.
The rate and severity of the punishments handed out on the Ferret is indeed harsh, particularly in comparison to a ship like the Indefatigable were punishments were few and far between. However Pellew, who led by example and had a disinclination to resort to corporal punishment, was the exception rather than the rule. More often than not captains, and particularly those who were young and inexperienced, enforced discipline by the lash.It is also interesting to compare the punishment record of the Ferret with that of the Cyane George’s previous command on the West Indies Station. Cadogan captained the Cyane, 18, from August 1804 to May 1805 during which time the sloop took four prizes including the French brig privateer La Bonaparte, 18 guns, 150 men and Spanish privateer Justitia, 7 guns, 86 men. Over this ten month period the log records just seven individual punishments ranging from 12 to 36 lashes for drunkenness, neglect of duty and insolence. A successful command by any measure although the severity of the punishments suggests that George was perhaps already beginning to struggle with discipline.
There is no denying the evidence of the Ferret that George Cadogan was a punitive captain, and perhaps there is some justification for the charges of ill usage and brutality. However the frequency and nature of the misdemeanours recorded also suggests a considerable lack of discipline amongst the men. Indeed it is not too far fetched to suggest that there seems to have been a slow burning war of attrition between the captain and elements of the crew; with Cadogan, struggling to maintain discipline and resorting to brutal measures and the crew responding with insubordination and, ultimately, mutiny.
It is significant that the Ferret was a newly commissioned sloop, fresh off the blocks at Dartmouth, with a new crew, commander and officers. Interestingly the Ferret’s muster reveals that many of the crew came from the Salvador. Presumably this refers to the Salvador del Mundo, a massive 112 gun, first rate ship captured during the battle of Cape Saint Vincent. By 1803 the Salvador del Mundo had been commissioned as a receiving ship at Portsmouth, that is a hulk that housed newly pressed or recruited seamen before they were assigned to commissioned ships. So not only were the Ferrets crew new to the ship and her officers, they were also new to each other. In addition, it is quite likely that a good few of them were indeed “bad spirits”; pressed men, the sweeping’s of the county goals or men that had left other ships for whatever reason. Forming such a mixed bunch into a competent and disciplined crew would have required considerable command and strength of character, which it appears George Cadogan lacked.
The role of the boatswain, Mr Thomas Simpson, appears to be key to both the mutiny and the lack of discipline on board the Ferret. Although he played no active part in the insurrection the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Simpson, the warrant officer who should have been responsible for maintaining discipline among the men, incited them to mutiny instead. Simpson appears to have been careful not to have been seen on the night of the insurrection and to have absented himself after calling the mutinous assembly in his cabin, however the testimony of the seamen is consistently against him and ultimately the court martial condemned him as the ring leader of the mutiny.It’s possible that Simpson was motivated purely by a sense of injustice and outrage at the captain’s ill-usage of the men. However the evidence put forward at the court martial suggests that the boatswain’s actions were at least partially motivated by a more personal grudge. Simpson had already been removed from duty and was facing the threat of a court martial and disrating prior to the mutiny; although he had not been confined to the brig or his cabin. As the boatswain of a sloop, Simpson would have been appointed by Admiralty Warrant and consequently could not be disrated by the captain alone, hence the necessity for the court martial. Perhaps Simpson hoped to dispose of the captain and make off with the ship rather than face the prospect of loosing his warrant and his livelihood before a court martial.
Whatever the case, any breakdown in the chain of command between the captain and the boatswain on a ship as small as the Ferret would have had a disastrous impact on the discipline of the crew. In the book Frigates, Sloops and Brigs Henderson has pointed out that commanding small ships of war, such as brigs, sloops, barques and cutters, presented a unique challenge. The Ferret, with 18 guns, was a small ship, just 100 feet in length, but she carried a large crew of 121 men with almost a full complement of commissioned and warrant officers including captain, master, two lieutenants, several midshipmen, gunner, carpenter, surgeon, boatswain and a small company of marines. Conditions would have been extremely cramped and as Henderson notes “Discipline in close quarters is always difficult, and depends very much on the personality of the commander.” With officers and men crammed together in such confined quarters it could be difficult to maintain the distance and authority of command. Some men, such as Cochrane, excelled at commanding these small ships, others such as Pigot and Bligh failed and resorted to brutality to enforce their authority. Few men were as gifted as Cochrane or as cruel as Pigot and this is equally true of George Cadogan, though it is undeniable that he was unable to command his ship without reporting to force. Ultimately both he and his crew paid the price for his lack of experience and ability.
In the final six months that Cadogan commanded the Ferret the master’s log continues to record a number of punishments for neglect of duty although their rate and severity diminishes noticeably. This may be due to the fact that the sloop spent considerable time in port from February 1807 onwards, however it is more than likely that the capital sentence handed down to the mutineers discouraged further insubordination. It is also possible that there was less discontent amongst the crew once the “bad spirits” had been removed. However it is telling that Pearman claims in The Cadogan’s at War that the Ferret’s next commander also found her crew to be “obdurate”.
The final installment will provide a rare glimpse of George Cadogan's state of mind at the time of the Ferret mutiny.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-02 11:43 pm (UTC)I am imagining how kindly a ship could seem, when all was well, even with the distancing of rank they would know each other well, and come to feel genuine affection and trust. How lonely and frightening it must have been for all of them to be trapped together in a place that had become so hostile.
It makes me think that the boatswain must be a real clue here. I wish we knew more about him.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-03 08:27 pm (UTC)You're right about the boatswain being the key to the whole mutiny I think. We really do need to find out more about him. Warrant officers are much harder to track down than commissioned officers though and unfortunately a name as common as Thomas Simpson is not very helpful. However I'm sure if anyone can find him
no subject
Date: 2011-06-03 08:31 pm (UTC)The whole Ferret thing makes my skin crawl. I just feel so sorry for all of them. (Who was it who said that being on a ship was like prison with the threat of drowning?)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-03 11:06 pm (UTC)Yes, that is a little too close to the bone.
The whole incident is awful from beginning to end but we really felt we had to tell the story as honestly and comprehensively as we could. Sort of putting the record straight in a way.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-04 09:01 pm (UTC)I shall also be posting a small attempt at proper comparison of punishment statistics because at this period they only existed in captains and masters logs and were npt examined .
In fact it was EP who had the idea while C in C in India to instigate quarterly returns and used it to note any over severity - the ADmiralty then took up the idea and - well more of that anon
and as for the boatswain Simpson - because the Ferret was a new ship commissioned with George it does mean that the entry by his name " as per previous warrant " is singularly unhelpful.but I am on the case !
no subject
Date: 2011-06-05 02:08 pm (UTC)I think we'll be lucky to track down Simpson, particularly given that his name is so common. Like I said to