Forum Replies Created
I had understood that the RMA was established by Order in Council of 18th August, 1804, mainly for service in bomb vessels. The initial establishment was three companies with a fourth added in 1805. Source: E Fraser and L G Carr Laughton, Royal Marine Artillery 1804-1923, 2 vols, RUSI 1930.
There are also many references on the Internet; this one is a good summary [and table of formations of RMA units, from a digital version of An Aide-Memoire to the Military Sciences, vol II, London 1860, pp341-342]:
I think the dates in the original Query relate to the formation of a Division in 1859 (as
distinct from the practice of having Companies attached to the various RM divisions), rather than to the foundation of the RMA.
It is not clear from the article whether the convoy proceeded via the Sound or the Belt. It seems to have been the practice for a convoy to anchor at night (particularly during the passage of the Belt?) and much trouble was experienced due to the swirling currents. This requirement for overnight anchoring (up to four nights)under difficult conditions may account for the loss of anchors.
For the maritime side, probably the best is still [Captain A T] Mahan’s Sea Power and its Relations to the War of 1812, 2 Vols., London 1905.
There are various versions of this ballad – two appear in Mariner’s Mirror Vol 21 Number 2 (1935) Pages 211-12.
The belief seems to go back some years:
“(8) ENGLAND – The word “England” ……is by our definition (of “Country”) extended so as to include a ship of the Royal Navy wherever situate……..such a ship is, it is said, regarded by a fiction of law as part of the Parish of Stepney. In any case, a person on board thereof is within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court i.e. is considered as being in England………..”
( “A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Lawsý”, A.V. Dicey, K.C., Second Ed. Stevens & Sons Ltd., London, 1908.)
I havn’t yet received the May MM so the suggestion may be inappropriate but the only thing I can think of would be the Cro-jack yard (cross-jack) on the mizzen.
The letter of Gabriel Snodgrass to Dundas and others (reproduced in The Naval Chronicle London 1801, vol V (Jan-June 1801), page 129 will provide some information:
Online version URL:
Whilst this letter is primarily concerned with recommendations for the ships of Royal Navy, it reflects Snodgrass’ experience as Surveyor of Ships for the HEIC (Honourable East India Company).
Dudley Pope in his book The Battle of the River Plate (London 1956, revised edition 1987) whilst describing the early moments of the engagement on board the Ajax has:
“the range was corrected and a zig-zag group – the guns being so elevated that the salvoes would fall in a zig-zag pattern – fired”.
I have a dim memory that the concept of a zig-zag group evolved in the years before WW2 and consisted of two salvoes fired to bracket the target and a third fired at a range intermediate between those. However, I cannot remember the spacing (and I cannot quote an authority).December 18, 2008 at 12:00 am in reply to: Royal Navy Submarine Command , Control and Communications in WW2 #2507
The following sentences occur on page 1 of Vice Admiral Sir Arthur Hezlet’s British and Allied Submarine Operations in World War II, 2 vols, Royal Naval Submarine Museum, 2001 (ISBN: 0-952-66961-7):
“All submarines had a wireless loop aerial which could receive low frequency signals from Rugby wireless station when totally submerged in home waters and the Mediterranean. New construction submarines could send messages by high frequency wireless from anywhere in the world to the Admiralty’s shore network of receiving stations. In general, however, this could only be done when the submarine was on the surface as the mast aerial with which new construction submarines were fitted for use from periscope depth proved to be only of short range and so of very little value.”
The submarines in the Far East in the 1930s were able to receive Rugby’s signals while on patrol in the Sea of Japan.
Navy Records Society’s “Naval Miscellany” vol. VI contains letters of Captain F.S. Clayton RN on the Australia Station (edited by Mary Jones), including one in 1887 in which he bemoans that his admiral:
“cannot move about his own station without permission from home – centralisation with a vengeance. It is a great pity, all owing to that tiresome telegraph – he may not go out of reach of the plague without leave”.
W S Lindsay’s “History of Merchant Shipping and Ancient Commerce”, 4 vols. London 1874-76, should not be overlooked, particularly with respect to 19th century developments and how they appeared to a contemporary participant in the industry.
With respect to the original enquiry re Flinders’ surgeon, I notice that one of the witnesses to his will was Joseph Hayes, Surgeon. However, as the will was executed some two years before Flinders’ death, this may not be a reliable indication as to the identity of the surgeon who attended upon him in his last weeks.
Peter BeestonMarch 6, 2008 at 12:00 am in reply to: News of Waterloo brought to London by the Royal Navy? #2379
In a biography of Keith it is stated that an Admiralty General Order of 21st June, 1815 authorized the taking of any French ship as a prize of war (Adm 2/166/540).
It seems strange that they would have issued this order if they knew of Waterloo.
The Trinity House website, http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/interactive/gallery/nab_tower.html,
has the answer.