vindicate his conduct, because his captain thought proper to reprimand
him in the order-book. In short, our service has been so much relaxed
during the war, that it will cost many a court-martial to bring it up
again."
The affair above alluded to, which made considerable noise at the time,
appears to have been this: the prince, on going ashore, is said to have
left express orders, that none of the crew should, during his absence,
be permitted to quit the ship. The lieutenant, however, from the general
maxim, that the superior officer on board has a right to exercise
uncontrouled command, permitted a boat to go on shore with some of the
men. This coming to his royal highness's knowledge, who could not
possibly be pleased with what appeared manifestly done in defiance of
his instructions, he adopted the method which has been mentioned of
expressing, in the order-book, his disapprobation of the act.
Captain Nelson proved, by his conduct on the occasion, what he thought
of the business: and, without his knowledge of naval usage, a man at all
conversant in legal constructions, or even the plainest principles of
common sense, must see, if he is not blinded by prejudice, that the
general rule above alluded to could never be intended to overthrow any
positive orders left by a superior officer, at the will of the inferior.
If, indeed, a case of necessity should arise, the latter would have a
right to act according to his discretion; but it must always be at his
peril, if he cannot prove, at least, that it appeared to be absolutely
necessary; still more so, if he manifestly breaks through, wilfully or
perversely, the very orders which himself received from his superior
officer, and is consequently bound to see regularly carried into
execution.
It is somewhat remarkable, that Captain Nelson, in writing to Captain
Locker, whom he always considered as a sort of father as well as a
friend, on the day preceding his departure for Nevis, where he was a few
weeks afterwards married to the widow of Dr. Nesbit, a physician of that
|