Admiral Sir John Acworth Ommanney KCB was, on the face of it, a bit of a hero. Having entered the navy as a thirteen-year-old in 1786, he accompanied Lord Macartney to China in 1792, served in suppressing the munity at the Nore in 1796 when the country was trembling at the prospect of the revolution across the water spreading to English shores; and as Captain of the Albion was in the thick of the fighting at the Battle of Navarino, 20 October 1827. The battle saved the fledgling Greek state; Ommanney was made a CB and received the crosses of St Louis, the third class of St Vladimir, and the Redeemer of Greece, from the allies. He was knighted in 1835.
And yet – newspaper reports in the latter part of his career paint a picture of a curmugeonly, ineffective and even despised figure. Here are three examples.
‘There is as much difference between Admiral Ommanney and Admiral Mason in conducting the service as there is between a Hottentot boor and a courtier of the reign of Louis XIV’
From September 1840 to October 1841 John Ommanney was in command at Malta, which is to say that he ran the Royal Navy’s Mediterranean operations during the prolonged absence of the commander-in-chief, Sir Robert Stopford. The following pen-portrait from the Hampshire Advertiser of 18 December 1841 holds no punches:
REAR ADMIRAL SIR JOHN A. OMMANNEY
(from the United Service Gazette)
The last Malta newspapers received are filled with expressions of exultation at the departure of Rear Admiral Ommanney, whose popularity at Malta appears to have been not much greater than his popularity wherever else he may happen to have been stationed. The Mediterranean fleet appears as though relieved of an incubus—an old man more teasing and vexatious than the tormentor of Sinbad. Few commanding officers have ever been so completely disliked, both by his own officers and the inhabitants of the stations on which they have served, as this morose old gentleman. His insulting reception of the deputation that waited upon him in behalf of the starving poor of Malta—his churlish refusal to allow the steamers under his command to convey the mails—and his coarse and unconciliating demeanour towards his officers—have all conduced to secure for him a most unenviable notoriety. Even the ladies of the Mediterranean fleet would not let him depart without communicating to him their opinion of him.
The Advertiser goes on to cite its evidence, which is sufficiently colourful to be worth quoting at length:
The following articles from the Malta Times and Portafoglio will show in what sort of estimation the gallant admiral is held in Malta as compared with his successor : —
“SIR JOHN OMMANNEY AND SIR FRANCIS MASON,
“We have had of late occasion repeatedly to complain, on behalf especially of the commercial communiy, of the little regard and courtesy shown to it, and consequently to the interests of his country, by Rear Admiral Sir John Ackworth Ommanney, in as far as concerns the giving notice of the intended departure of ships of war, and particularly steamers, to places and ports with which there is no regular direct communication, and we took the opportunity of remarking, that the commanders were losers thereby of freight of bullion and specie. Our contemporary, the Portafoglio Maltese, in its number of the 15th inst. avails itself of the resignation of the command by, and departure for England of, Sir John Ommanney, to touch upon the same subject, and his views of it being pretty much in accordance with our own, we lay before our readers the following translation of his article: —
“Admiral Ommanney (says the Portafoglio) took his departure on Thursday last on board the Powerful; he returns decidedly to England, and will no longer hold any command. Is it, perhaps, as it is tried to be made out, to his political opinions that he owes his downfall? Is it, perhaps, from the circumstance of his being a Whig that his recall has been decided upon? Can it be that he is accused of not having manifested
sufficient ability in the command of a larger fleet than it has ever fallen to the lot of a rear admiral to have under his orders? Is it, peradventure, that he has made himself a source of annoyance to his officers? Most assuredly, it is difficult to arrive at the real truth. As for ourselves we cannot deny to have witnessed his departure without feeling any regret, since he has never shown himself obliging or benevolent to this island. We do not for a moment pretend that the admiral of the station should make known to the commercial classes the intended departure and object of the mission of every one of the ships of war under his order—nay, we even go the length of admitting that the interests of the public service may require that the captain himself should not know the place of his destination until he gets out to sea. But surely where was the necessity, as practised by Sir John Ommanney, of adopting this system, and at a moment when no inquietude prevailed, by sending mysteriously to sea three of her Majesty’s ships of the line for Syracuse to water! What we principally reproved Admiral Ommanney for was the not having ever permitted the commanders of steam vessels, whose sole mission was that of conveying to the crews of vessels away from Malta their letters from England, to carry the correspondence of the Malta merchants. Thus, for example, when he despatched a steam frigate to Genoa, to convey thither his family, and even, perhaps, had there been some important despatch to the British Minister at Turin, where would have been the harm had he given an opportunity to commercial interest to profit of the conveyance? When he despatched steam vessels to the coast of Syria, where the English and French packets do not yet touch, what harm would there have been in receiving the letters of merchangs? Every officer should consider himself fortunate, more especially in the time of peace, in having an opportunity of serving the commercial interests of his country and the subjects of his nation. We hope and trust, therefore, that the new admiral, whom we shall never call upon to render an accoun of his secrets, will facilitate, at least, the means of extending and developing our commercial relations. We hope to see him following the example of Admiral Stopford, who, on quitting his command, created strong sensations of regret, which we cannot profess to have felt on the occasion of the departure of Rear Admiral Ommanney. We have much pleasure in bearing witness to the considerate and accommodating conduct of Rear Admiral Sir Francis Mason, the successor of Sir John A. Ommanney, who in direct contrast to the system adopted by this latter, has given timely notice of the intended departure, and permitted post-office mails to be made up for the Phoenix for Candia… In short, there is as much difference between Admiral Ommanney and Admiral Mason in conducting the service as there is between a Hottentot boor and a courtier of the reign of Louis XIV. A rumour prevails that the ladies of several naval commanders on this station who, considering themselves not less than the mercantile classes aggrieved by the suddenly ordering away of their husbands on the eve of their admission to practique after a long absence, without any public or private service requiring such a measure, did, on the departure of Sir John Ommanney, very spiritedly address him rather a sharp but at the same time good-natured reproof, which, after sealing, they facetiously addressed in official style, putting in the left corner ‘Sealed orders for Sir J. A. Ommanney, from the ladies of the fleet, to be opened on his reaching Cape Matafus.’ How far this rumour may be true we cannot say, but ‘Se non e vero e ben trovato’.”
We are enabled to state that the politics of Sir John Ommanney had nothing whatever to do with his recall; and we are further assured that he will never be employed in any command again under the present Board of Admiralty. We trust, however, that their lordships will, before they have done with him, cause him to refund some portion of the great expense to which he has put the public service by enjoying her Majesty’s steam vessels as private packets for the use of his family….
There is reference here to Sir John’s politics, and indeed he was a thoroughgoing Whig, and was therefore liable to draw the criticism of the Tory press, deserved or not.
‘There never was a more abominable falsehood’
Salisbury and Winchester Journal, 11 November 1839
LIBEL ON SIR JOHN OMMANNEY
A rule for a criminal information was on Saturday granted by the Court of Queen’s Bench, at the instance of the Attorney-General, against Alaric Watts, the printer and publisher of the “United Services Gazette,” for having published in that paper a libel reflecting on the character of Admiral Sir John Ommanney, falsely charging him with having deliberately and from the most sordid motives insulted the Queen Dowager on her arrival in the Tagus on her way from Malta to England. The affadavits of Sir John Ommanney and Earl Howe stated, that in the month of April last, her Majesty was expected to come to the Tagus on her way from Malta to England. Sir John Ommanney, whose squadron was stationed there, sent a ship of war to conduct the Hastings, in which her Majesty sailed, into the Tagus, and Sir John Ommanney immediately sent an officer on board the Hastings, wishing to know when he should have the honour of waiting upon her Majesty to pay his respects and receive her commands. Her Majesty replied that she would receive Sir John as soon as the Hastings came to anchor. The Hastings having subsequently anchored, Sir John Ommanney, with all the officers of the squadron, went on board, and the usual etiquette observed on such occasions was strictly attended to. The party was introduced to her Majesty by Earl Howe, and Sir John Ommanney’s further attendance was then dispensed with. Sir John caused a frigate and a sloop of war to be stationed close to the Hastings, and her Majesty afterwards expressed a desire that Sir John Ommanney should be relieved from daily attendance, and directed that the Hastings should communicate by signal her Majesty’s further commands. In the course of a few days, Sir John Ommanney and the officers of the squadron had the honour of dining with her Majesty, and they went in their full uniform. When the Hastings was leaving the Tagus, her Majesty requested that the usual salute might be ommitted. Every thing, however, had been done for her Majesty’s comfort; and to show her respect a Royal salute was fired, and the ships-of-war convoyed the Hastings some distance beyond the limits of the station. Her Majesty was graciously pleased to express her entire satisfaction with the behaviour of Sir John Ommanney and the officers under his command. In spite of this, however, there appeared in a Tory Southampton newspaper a statement that Admiral Ommanney had intended to treat her Majesty with disrespect, had received her with plain clothes, and had omitted firing the usual Royal salutes. Although this was untrue, yet it had been stated in a manner that would not have called for Sir John Ommanney’s interference; but upon the 6th of July there appeared in the United Service Gazette a paragraph which had led to the present application. It first purported to give an extract from the Hampshire Advertiser, under the head of “Sir John Ommanney,” and it then stated that the ommission of the gallant Admiral to fire a Royal salute, as well as his appearing in plain clothes, had been denied, and that, upon making inquiry it was discovered that the denial was confirmed, except that Sir John Ommanney was in an undress instead of being in plain clothes. To this statement was appended a note with the letters “Ed. U.S.G.,” meaning “Editor of the United Services Gazette,” and this note stated that it was part of the duty, if not the only duty of the ancient driveller to insult the Queen Dowager. He knew that his insolence to that distinguished lady would gratify the “Minto gang” at home. He (the attorney-General) hardly need remind their Lordships that Lord Minto was First Lord of the Admiralty, and this charged Sir John Ommanney with having deliberately insulted the Queen Dowager, upon the bare supposition that hereby he would please the Government at home, and further his own promotion. Sir J. Ommanney in his affidavit positively denied ever having done any thing which did not show his anxiety to pay respect to her Majesty. In addition to this, he had the affidavit of Earl Howe, confirming him, and setting out a letter which that Nobleman wronte to Lady Ommanney by her Majesty’s command, which he would read: —“Madam,—I cannot allow a post to leave this place without obeying the command of Queen Adelaide, and hastening to express the annoyance her Majesty has felt at reading in the newspapers the shameful attack made on Sir John Ommanney. There never was a more abominable falsehood than the whole story. The Queen commanded me to say to you, that nothing could be more kind and attentive than Sir John’s demeanour during her Majesty’s temporary stay in the Tagus. That he was particularly anxioius to mark such attention, by directing a part of the squadron to drop down to Belem from their usual anchorage, and afterwards attend her Majesty a considerable way to sea, and that Sir John and all his officers, both in their costume and in firing their usual salutes, did every thing in their power to pay honour to their visitor. Queen Adelaide is most anxious that you should receive the most speedy refutation on the part of her Majesty of these abominable slanders, and anxiously hopes the statement I have made will prove quite satisfactory to your feelings, and those of the Admiral.
“I have the honour to be your Ladyship’s very faithful servant, HOWE.”
The Attorney-General continued.—Here was an attack against an English officer, charging him with having been guilty;
Lord Deman.—Take a rule.
[Queen Adelaide was the widow of George IV. She was known to be strongly Tory, and was suspected by many to have attempted to influence the King politically, particularly in respect of resisting the passage of the 1832 reform act. As a result she became unpopular with Whigs – who included Ommanney as well as Lord Minto, First Lord of the Admiralty.]
Queen Adelaide (1837, engraving after John Lucas)
On its own, this would amount to nothing, but in the context of other evidence, it is notable that Ommanney seemed to have so many enemies.
'This peevish old seaman'
The third example is from 1852, when there was some criticism of the now elderly Ommanney over his apparent lack of action following the sinking of the steamer Amazon:
Westmorland Gazette, 31 January 1852
ADMIRAL OMMANNEY AND THE AMAZON STEAMER
Why did not Admiral Ommanney issue orders that a steamer should be dispatched to the scene of the Amazon’s disaster the instant the intelligence reached Plymouth?
Here is the Admiral’s explanation: — “Mr. Vincent acknowledges to have landed at one o’clock a.m. from the Marsden, and probably left by the express train at ten. During the nine hours, neither did himself, nor any other person, agent or otherwise, come near me to furnish me with any information; therefore I was in total ignorance of what had occurred, except what I had heard from the general rumour.” So during the portion of the nine hours young Vincent and other persons who had been saved by the Marden remained in Plymouth, Admiral Ommanney was aware from public rumour of what had occurred. Why did he not act? Because no one had made an application to him for assistance. Admiral Ommanney is in some respects like the Spanish king who suffered himself to be suffocated in his chair of state rather than any but the proper officer should meddle with the fire. The royal patient, however, devoted himself, not others, at the shrine of etiquette—Admiral Ommanney contented himself with a vicarious sacrifice. During these nine hours, even if the susceptibilities of the great chieftain of the naval hierarchy at Plymouth had been in some degree irritated, surely, where human life was in question, something might have been done. We won’t talk about Mahomet and the mountain, but surely, if Mr. Vincent did not come to Admiral Ommanney, Admiral Ommanney might have sent for Mr. Vincent. He might have rebuked or mastheaded the young gentleman, and have done precisely what his own humour dictated and his dignity required, if he had extracted from him the particulars of the disaster and despatched a steamer to the scene of the action. Was it a time to play the Sir Anthony Absolute when the boats of the ill-starred Amazon were, or might be, floating about helplessly on the great waves of the Atlantic? The transaction, forsooth, must be reported to the admiralty in due form before he could act. To such keeping are the western waters of this island intrusted! Were a French fleet to heave in sight, would Admiral Ommanney consent to take formal notice of the fact before the officer in command had reported himself at the admiralty-house as “safely landed from Cherbourg with guns and military stores?” We cannot admit the Admiral’s plea as any palliation of his neglect. The Amazon was lost; he knew it by general rumour; he did not send aid because no formal application had been made to him by the survivors.
Now what was Admiral Ommanney about all this time? Why, he was grumbling and gossiping with Captain Kennedy, of the Coast Guard, “who brought some vague account.” No attempt was made by the peevish old seaman to arrive at the very truth of the facts. He waited and waited—he and his friend Captain Kennedy—“until some person would have come who would have afforded information, and have solicited assistance had it been required.” Think only of the certain benefit that would have resulted from the application! Admiral Ommanney would, under such circumstances, and upon such contingencies, when the niceties of etiquette had been satisfied, and the applicant had been trotted into his awful presence, have hemmed three times, dilated his cheeks as often, and formally commenced proceedings, “Young man,” he would have said—from this point we copy the Admiral’s letter—“some questions naturally occur to me as a sailor. Tell me as to the place where the accident took place, the state of the wind and the weather at the time, how the wind blew after the people were put into the boat and after the explosion of the vessel.” And what then? What then? Shades of Exmouth and Collingwood—what then? “The answers to these questions may be the groundwork for taking into consideration the necessity of sending out a vessel.” Why not call a court martial to sit upon the question that day week? Why not advertise the resolution “of taking the point into consideration” in three consecutive county papers before proceeding to act upon it? Did Sir John Ommanney and his friend Captain Kennedy make up their minds to sleep upon it for fear of action too precipitate? And all this while the poor creatures who had made good their escape from the Amazon were tossing about in the wild waves in open boats without helm or rudder, drink or food! But, then, Mr Vincent hadn’t called and left a card on Sir John Ommanney—not even a “P.P.C.”—when he was about to leave town.
…Sir John Ommanney—the greater shame to him—left it to our French neighbours to send out a steamer to see if aught could be done to help the survivors. Our own tardy expedition has proved fruitless.
Either the criticism was well-deserved, or Ommanney had an awful lot of enemies. More likely, both. The overall picture is of a boorish man, puffed up with his own importance, and inflexibly wedded to the rules, whatever the cost to others.
No comments:
Post a Comment