o_199m9vaui14ib1cnu10di10pocoj4h.pdf

THE BOARD IN SHEERNESS 151
sending a deputation from the Board of Admiralty to
Sheerness. 1 The purpose of the deputation, however,
was not to negotiate for the redress of grievances. They
were sent down with a definite mandate in the form of a
royal proclamation.- In the preamble to this document
the various misdemeanours of the seamen were set forth :
persistent mutiny ; firing on other ships to compel their
submission ;
3
blockading the mouth of the Thames; 4 and
keeping back two frigates from the duty assigned to
them. 5 For the rest, there was no mention of concessions,
but only the promise of pardon for those who should
surrender and of punishment for those who should not.
Spencer, Arden, Young and Marsden, the members
of the Board who had gone to Portsmouth at the time of
the first mutiny, were chosen for the unwelcome duty of
visiting Sheerness. They left London on the evening of
27 May—only a few hours after the meeting of the
Cabinet. They spent the night at Rochester, and arrived
at Sheerness the next morning. Commissioner Hartwell's
house was made their head-quarters. The Commissioner
1. Memorandum of Cabinet, 27 May (A.S.I. 4172). The grounds of
the decision were not given, but conceivably it was thought that the
public would thus be satisfied that the authorities were paying due
attention to the seamen ; that the mutineers themselves could no longer
complain that their case was neglected ; and that the Lords of the
Admiralty would be better able to devise plana for the suppression of
the mutiny if they were to examine the conditions for themselves. The
event proved the wisdom of the ministers' decision.
On 24 May the Board had refused to send a deputation to Sheerness
(A.S.M. 137). It may be supposed that the sudden reversal of their
intention was due to the intervention of the Cabinet.
2. The original proclamation is to be found with the memorandum of
the Cabinet in the volume of Secretary of State's letters (A.S.I. 4172).
It is reprinted in Ann. Meg., State Papers, pp. 248-249.
3. This charge refers to the shots fired from the Inflexible at the
San Fiorenzo. I have not found any record of firing on other ships
before 27 May.
4. The accusation of blockading the river is not quite correct.
Certainly the mutiny had interfered considerably with the shipping,
and many merchant vessels were held up for the want of a convoy (see
Buckner's dispatch 26 May, C 340) ; the mutineers had threatened,
moreover, to carry out a blockade ; but the threat was not actually put
into practice until 2 June (see below, p. 181).
5. The reference here is to the San Fiorenzo and the Clyde, which
were under orders to take the Duke and Duchess of Wurtemberg to
Cuxhaven.