Nelson (141 page)

11
. Nelson to Locker, 13/5/1779,
D&L
, 1, p. 27.

12
. Nelson to Locker, 13/5/1779,
D&L
, 1, 27.

13
. The logs of the
Badger
are identical on the destruction of the
Glasgow
. See in addition the
Badger
muster: Nelson’s accounts in
D&L
, 1, pp. 6, 29; Parker to Stephens, 14/6/1779 and 26/7/1779, ADM 1/241;
D&L
, 7, p. 423; James S. Clarke and John McArthur,
Life and Services
, 1, p. 43; Nelson to Lloyd, 24/4/1801, in Thomas Pettigrew,
Memoirs
, 1, p. 10; and especially the minutes of Lloyd’s court martial, 24 July 1779, ADM 1/5311. This was probably Nelson’s first experience of courts martial. The court consisted of Captains Joseph Deane, William Waldegrave, Toby Caulfield, William Cornwallis and Christopher Atkins, with Charles Hamilton serving as Deputy Judge Advocate.

14
. Tom Pocock,
Young Nelson in the Americas
, p. 25.

15
. Nelson to Locker, 28/7/1779,
D&L
, 1, p. 30.

16
. Nelson to Locker, 23/1/1780,
D&L
, 1, p. 32. Collingwood said that he first met Nelson in 1773. He would then have been serving on the
Lenox
ship of the line in the Thames and Medway, when Nelson, of course, was with the
Triumph
and
Carcass
. See Oliver Warner, ‘Collingwood and Nelson’, p. 318.

17
. Dalling to Clinton, 13/8/1779, and Parker’s letters of 12 and 18/8/1779, published in the
London Chronicle
of 11–13/1/1780; Dalling to Germain, 6–23/8/1779, CO 137/75; letter of Samuel Joyce, 10/9/1779, Shelburne papers, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

18
. Dalling to Germain, 28/8 to 9/9/1779, CO 135/75.

19
. Nelson to Locker, 12/8/1779,
D&L
, 1, p. 31; Parker to Stephens, 23/8/1779, and Parker, ‘Arrangement of the Squadron in Port Royal and Kingston Harbours’, ADM 1/241.

20
. Nelson to Locker, 12/8/1779,
D&L
, 1, p. 31.

21
. Parker to Stephens, 13/9/1779, ADM 1/241; Dalling to Germain, 28/8 to 9/9/1779, CO 137/75.

22
.
Hinchingbroke
muster, ADM 36/9510–9511;
Hinchingbroke
pay book, ADM 34/405.

23
.
Gentleman’s Magazine
(1834), ii, pp. 104–6; Bullen’s return of service, 1817, ADM 9/2, no. 22; William O’Byrne,
Naval Biographical Dictionary
, pp. 142–3, 1391.

24
.
Hinchingbroke
log, ADM 51/442. Lieutenant Bullen’s log, running from 18 January 1780, is filed in NMM: ADM/L/H113. There were ten floggings on board the ship, but one was of a sailor convicted by a court martial of an offence unconnected to the
Hinchingbroke
.

25
. Parker to Stephens, 13/9/1779, ADM 1/241.

26
. In addition to the log see ‘List of Vessels Taken’, ADM 1/241, and Nelson to Locker, 23/1/1780,
D&L
, 1, p. 32. Daniel Ross was related to Hercules Ross, the merchant of Jamaica, who unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the subsequent legal proceedings. The log of the
Niger
frigate (ADM 51/637) incorrectly identifies the ships as French.

27
. Nelson to Locker, 23/1/1780,
D&L
, 1, p. 32.

28
. Nelson to Locker, 23/1/1780,
D&L
, 1, p. 32; Robertson,
Spanish Town Papers
, p. 142.

VIII In the Wake of the Buccaneers (pp. 149–75)

1
. Thomas Jefferys,
West Indian Atlas
, p. 10.

2
. Dalling to Germain, 4 and 7/2/1780, CO 137/76. See additionally George Metcalf,
Royal Government
, chap. 8, and Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy,
An Empire Divided
.

3
. Benjamin Moseley,
Treatise on Tropical Diseases
, p. 148.

4
. Ernest A. Cruikshank,
Life of Sir Henry Morgan
, pp. 57–8; Lawrie to Dalling, 2/9/1779, CO 137/76.

5
. Dalling to Germain, 13/11/1779, 4/2/1780, CO 137/76; Dalling’s instructions to John Polson, 1780, CO 137/76:220.

6
. Nelson to Locker, 23/1/1780,
D&L
, 1, p. 32.

7
. Dalling to Germain, 4/1/1780, 28/1/1780, CO 137/76; Thomas Dancer,
A Brief History
, pp. 7–8; testimony in the ‘Report of a Committee’ of the Jamaican assembly, 1780, CO 137/79: 177.

8
. Nelson, 18/1/1780, NMM: Mon/1; order book of the expedition, 15/2/1780,
Collections of the New York Historical Society
(hereafter
Collections
), p. 68; M. Eyre Matcham,
Nelsons of Burnham Thorpe
, p. 284.

9
. Narrative of Robert Hodgson, CO 137/80:322. A political opponent of Lawrie, Hodgson gave a prejudiced assessment of the expedition benefiting from hindsight, but there are valuable details.

10
. For the expedition I have principally relied upon reports and correspondence in CO 137/vols 76–81. Particularly useful are Polson to Dalling, 30/4/1780 (the official report), CO 137/77; Polson’s journal, the best single source for events between 3 February and 29 April 1780, in CO 137/77:166; various statements in ‘Report of a Committee’, CO 137/79: 177; Hodgson’s narrative, CO 137/80: 322; and Dalling’s ‘Narrative of the Late Expedition’, with its numerous enclosures, CO 137/81: 198. Other major sources are the
Hinchingbroke
log; Dancer,
A Brief History
; various documents in
Collections
, including Polson’s order book and Kemble’s journal; and three sets of papers in the William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: the George Germain papers, the Earl of Shelburne papers, vol. 79, and the Stephen Kemble papers. Nelson made some remarks in ‘Sketch of My Life’,
D&L
, 1, pp. 7–8, and his memorandum, NMM: STW/2. See also Hist. MSS Commission,
Stopford-Sackville
, 2, pp. 272–96; C. N. Robinson, ‘Nelson at Nicaragua’; and C. J. Britton, ‘Nelson and the River San Juan’. Secondary accounts have been given by John W. Fortescue,
History of the British Army
, 3, pp. 338–42, and Tom Pocock,
Young Nelson in the Americas
, a comprehensive and well-researched account.

11
. For the Indians and Sandy Bay blacks see Lawrie, ‘General Account of the Mosquito Shore’, 1779, CO 137/76: 208; Dalling to Gleadow, CO 137/78: 172; and
The Present State of the West Indies
(1778).

12
. Order book, 20/2/1780, 1/3/1780,
Collections
, pp. 71, 75.

13
. Dancer,
A Brief History
, p. 10.

14
. Kemble journal,
Collections
, p. 5.

15
. Dalling to Polson, 17/3/1780, and Dalling to Parker, 17/3/1780, CO 137/77.

16
. James Harrison,
Life
, 1, pp. 62–3.

17
. Order book, 21/3/1780,
Collections
, p. 76; information of Todd, 25/8/1780, CO 137/78: 239.

18
. Details of Bartola and the Spanish fort of San Juan are drawn from the journal of Lieutenant Colonel Kemble, who eventually followed Polson upriver. See his journal,
Collections
, pp. 10, 14.

19
. Dancer,
A Brief History
, p. 13; Moseley,
Treatise on Tropical Diseases
, pp. 33–4; James S. Clarke and John McArthur,
Life and Services
, 1. p. 53.

20
. List of prisoners, CO 137/77: 154.

21
. De Galvez to D’Ayssa, 14/4/1781, CO 137/81: 276; Moseley,
Treatise on Tropical Diseases
, p. 167; Pocock,
Young Nelson in the Americas
, p. 156. Dalling subsequently criticised Polson for not storming the fort. He made no reference to Nelson in this context, but in his ‘Narrative of the Late Expedition’ (CO 137/81) said that when MacDonald arrived at the fort with the second division of Polson’s force he offered to storm it with his volunteers.

22
. The army had twenty-four-, twelve-, nine-, six- and four-pounder guns on the expedition (order book, 21/3/1780,
Collections
, pp. 76–8; Dalling’s statement, CO 137/81: 349; lists of military stores shipped in the
Superb
and
Penelope
, CO 137/81: 340), but
only the lighter and more manageable four-pounders appear to have gone forward to the siege. This may have influenced gunnery tactics.

23
. Polson to Dalling, 30/4/1780, CO 137/77.

24
. Return of casualties, 30/4/1780, CO 137/77: 153.

25
. For the reduction of rations see order book,
Collections
, p. 83.

26
. Moseley,
Treatise on Tropical Diseases
, p. 167.

27
. Dancer,
A Brief History
, p. 19; Dalling to Germain, 2 to 20/7/1780, CO 137/78. A messenger who left the fort on the evening of 23 April reported everyone well at that time (
Collections
, p. 5).

28
. Dancer,
A Brief History
, pp. 43, 44, 53.

29
. Clarke and McArthur,
Life and Services
, 1, p. 54. The nature of the diseases that destroyed the San Juan expedition has aroused such disagreement that it is worth devoting some paragraphs to the subject. A traditional opinion that yellow fever (the notorious ‘Yellow Jack’) was involved is untenable. Dancer, who was on the spot, understood at the time that his patients were not displaying typical symptoms of yellow fever (
A Brief History
, p. 53), and later distinguished between yellow fever and the type of ‘intermittent’ disorders he saw in Nicaragua (Dancer,
Medical Assistant
, pp. 65–92, 381–3). Certain defining features of yellow fever, particularly the copious discharges that gave the disease the nickname of ‘black vomit’, were not reported on the San Juan. Moreover, the course of yellow fever tends to be fairly consistent, with a few days of fever being followed by a three- or four-day remission before relapse with the appearance of severe haemorrhages and other symptoms. Finally, the vectors of malaria, which occur in marshy and estuarine areas, fit the illness of 1780 more comfortably than the jungle vectors of yellow fever.

Dr Anne-Marie Ewart Hills, ‘Nelson’s Illnesses, 1780–1782’, advances the improbable theory that the principal illness was tropical sprue. She argues that the expeditionary force was in a pre-scurvy state at the mouth of the San Juan, and low on folic acid as well as vitamin C. Sprue, an intestinal malfunction, incubates in twenty to thirty days and, though chronic, can progress more swiftly in victims deficient in folic acid. Though Dr Hills is a deservedly respected authority on Nelson’s medical history, I do not find this explanation credible at any level. It partly relies upon a statement Nelson later gave Benjamin Moseley, the surgeon general in Jamaica, which said that ‘the fever which destroyed the crews of the different vessels [in the mouth of the San Juan] invariably attacked them from twenty to thirty days after their arrival in the harbour’ (Moseley,
Treatise on Tropical Diseases
, p. 165). However, though interesting, this account does not constitute strong historical evidence. It appears to have been made a good time after the event, and is at best only third-hand. Nelson was invalided to Jamaica, and did not witness the progress of the disease sweeping the ships. He may have received his information from others who had been present (Collingwood springs to mind), but whether he heard or rendered it accurately is questionable. Moseley himself, presumably on the authority of other witnesses, contradicted Nelson’s account by stating that ‘few of the Europeans retained their health above sixteen days’ (
Treatise on Tropical Diseases
, pp. 162–3).

Dr Hills’s belief that the men were in a pre-scorbutic condition, though founded on a reference to scurvy in the log of the
Hinchinbroke
, rests uncomfortably with Dancer’s testimony that the expedition arrived at the San Juan ‘in general good health and in great spirits’ (Dancer,
A Brief History
, p. 10). Moreover, we know from Dancer that at the fort it was the Indians who fell ill first, and enough perished for the British to appropriate nearly £1,000 for the principal purpose of compensating their relatives at a rate of £25 per man (Colville Cairns, proposals of July 1780, Stephen Kemble papers, William L. Clements Library). Yet the Indians had neither been on the ships nor subject to the dietary deficiencies that supposedly primed the sprue. Similarly the immunity of the Bay
of Honduras blacks to the disease (Kemble journal,
Collections
, pp. 15, 24) seems consistent with the resistance some native populations develop to malaria.

The typical symptoms of sprue (weakness, a sore tongue, difficulty in swallowing, fatty stools, weight loss, indigestion, anaemia and diarrhoea) would not, I believe, have generated the description of the disease given by Dancer. In sprue, for example, diarrhoea and dysentery are thought to be precipitating factors for the disease, whereas on the San Juan they were associated with its later phases (Dancer,
A Brief History
, p. 44). Finally, sprue is a chronic rather than an acute, rapidly developing and fatal disease. It attacks individuals sporadically, and is not epidemic. Yet the principal disease of 1780 was so general that Dancer thought it contagious. ‘In the beginning,’ he said, it was ‘dependent on climate &c. and affecting only individuals’ but later it became ‘evidently contagious, and seized almost every one who came within the infection’ (Dancer,
A Brief History
, p. 36). Moseley reported that the expedition eventually cost the British fourteen hundred men (Moseley,
Treatise on Tropical Diseases
, p. 163). That sprue could have simultaneously developed in so many and been so swift and destructive is very hard to believe.

James Kemble,
Idols and Invalids
, pp. 117–19, 120–2, had a stronger candidate in typhoid fever, which incubates in seven to twenty-one days and is clinically difficult to distinguish from malaria. More than one ailment was probably at work, but malaria fits the full thrust of the evidence best. Both the season (the beginning of the rains) and the environment (the marshy margins of the river and estuary) were tailor-made for malaria. Dr Peter Walsh, who served with Kemble’s force, regarded the wet, close weather as ‘the principal cause’ of the fevers (
Collections
, pp. 15–16). Though at that time mosquitoes were not known to be the agents of malaria and yellow fever, they created serious problems for the men on the San Juan. Indeed, they even featured in the articles of capitulation that led to the surrender of the Spanish fort in May, something that may have been unprecedented in military history. Thus, in the eighth article, the British commander, Captain Polson, undertook ‘to do my utmost to keep the mosquitoes within the bounds of moderation’ (Robert Beatson,
Naval and Military Memoirs
, 6, p. 230).