o_199m9vaui14ib1cnu10di10pocoj4h.pdf

;0 THE NAVAL .MUTINIES OF 1797
At length his popularity and his assurances took effect,
and he managed to persuade the seamen that their
grievances really were redressed, so far as Acts of Parliament
and Admiralty instructions could redress them.
But still the mutineers were not satisfied. They
insisted that the officers against whom the ships' companies
had individual complaints should not be allowed
to return. It was an extraordinary demand, and a very
important principle was involved in it. If the Lords of
the Admiralty complied, they would be tacitly admitting
that they had allowed a too harsh administration of the
Articles of War ; and their compliance would be an
earnest that discipline should be more lenient in future.
They would be setting up a strange precedent, too, in
dismissing, at the instance of common seamen, officers
whose appointment they had themselves approved.
But however unhappy the circumstances might be, the
Board were forced to agree to the dismissal of these
officers. Howe found that it was the only means of
bringing about a peaceful settlement. The seamen
refused to serve under officers who had not treated them
fairly ; the officers themselves had no wish to be foisted
on crews which would not obey them ; and Howe
"judged fit to acquiesce in what was now the mutual
desire of both officers and seamen in that fleet." 1
About half the officers who had been sent ashore were
allowed to return to their ships. 2 Many were invited by
their crews to return. The most notable was Admiral
Gardner.
He went back to the Royal Sovereign with a
very bad grace; disappointed because he had not been
allowed leave of absence to recruit his health, 3 and
grumbling because the "cursed yard-ropes" were still
hanging in defiance of his authority. 4 The disposal of
1. Howe to Portland, 16 May (A.S.T. 4172).
2. On 11 May Parker reported that many had already returned
(A.S.I. 1023, A 436).
3. Gardner to Nepean (A.S.I. 107, J 174).
4. Bridport to Nepean (A.S.I. 107, J 293).