# Royal Naval Biography/Belcher, Edward

RNB vol IV part 2 pp. 344-350
Layout 2
EDWARD BELCHER, Esq. [Commander.]
Entered the royal navy in 1812; obtained his first commission on the 21st July, 1818; and invalided from the ​Myrmidon sloop, Captain Henry John Lecke, on the African station, in 1820. His next appointment was, Sept. 30th, 1821, to the Salisbury, 58, fitting out for the flag of Rear-Admiral (afterwards Sir W. C. Fahie), commander-in-chief on the Halifax station. In Jan. 1825, he was selected to accompany Captain Frederick W. Beechey, as assistant-surveyor, in the Blossom sloop, on a scientific voyage to the Pacific Ocean. Before the end of that year, he appears to have had two remarkable escapes from a premature death, at Oeno, a coral formation, to the northward of Pitcairn’s Island. An outline of the Blossom’s proceedings between May 19th, 1825, the day of her departure from Spithead, and Oct. I2th, 1828, when she was paid off at Woolwich, will be found in Vol. III. Part I. pp. 313–326. Mr. Belcher’s promotion to his present rank took place on the 16th Mar. 1829.
In Aug. 1831, the AEtna surveying vessel, commanded by the subject of this sketch, arrived at Portsmouth, after a severe service of seven months on the African station. The principal object of her survey was to ascertain the extent of the Arguin shoals, on which the celebrated shipwreck of the French frigate Meduse occurred some years since. She had also been employed in closely surveying the whole coast from Cape Blanco to Rio Grande. To the southward of Rio Grande, Commander Belcher discovered a river, up which his boats proceeded fifteen miles; he found it perfectly navigable for that distance, and supposed it to be another mouth of the Rio Grande. From the constant exposure of boats, under a vertical sun, the crew of the AEtna were at length afflicted with scurvy; and as a necessary change of provisions, a remedy always successfully resorted to, could not be obtained on that part of the coast, she was compelled to return to England.
On the 25th and 26th Aug. 1831, a court-martial was held at Spithead, to try Lieutenant Francis Godolphin Bond, second of the AEtna, at his own request, on charges of alleged ​misconduct adduced against him by Commander Belcher. The court decided that the charges had been in part proved, inasmuch as the said Lieutenant Bond was negligent in not taking measures to prevent the desertion of two Kroomen, who left a boat under his command, at Sierra Leone; and also in not placing some person to look out for any signals which might be made from the ship whilst the boats were away watering at the Isles do Los, by which she was detained for some hours in dangerous ground, waiting for their return. The court therefore adjudged the said Lieutenant Bond “to be admonished to be more careful hereafter.”
On the 23d and 24th of the following month, another court-martial was held in Portsmouth harbour, to try Mr. Henry Grainger Backhouse, midshipman of the AEtna, on the following charges, alleged against him by Commander Belcher:–
“‘For having, during the present year, on the western coast of Africa, been guilty of repeated insubordination, neglect of duty, and disrespectful, contemptuous, and insolent conduct, towards Commander Belcher, his superior officer; and for having, since the ship’s arrival in England, namely, the 14th August last, and between that day and the 20th instant, been guilty of insulting conduct towards Commander Edward Belcher and the first lieutenant of the ship, and of insubordination in quitting the ship in defiance of the first lieutenant’s refusal of leave of absence; and also for having absented himself from his duty when it was his watch on deck.’”
“The first witness called was Edward Craydon, gunner of the AEtna, who was examined by the prosecutor. On a straw-hat being produced by Commander Belcher, he was asked if he could identify it. Witness replied yes, he had seen the prisoner wear it repeatedly. On a particular day, when the prisoner had, on the quarter-deck, neither shoes nor stockings on, and wearing the hat produced. Commander Belcher ordered him below. In answer to a question put by the Court, he said he was not near enough to hear what passed, but he did not see any disrespect on the part of the prisoner, when ordered below.
“John Harrison, the boatswain, was next called; the hat produced he had taken charge of, by order of Commander Belcher; the hat then was not so flat as it is now, but the ragged part was the same. Did not know that orders had been given that the prisoner was not to do his duty as mate of the main-deck. In his examination by the prisoner, witness said he thought the hat was much dirtier than when he wore it, from being kept in the store-room among the dust and cobwebs. In reply to ​questions by the Court, witness said he was not aware of any disrespect on the part of the prisoner towards Commander Belcher, or of any neglect of duty on his part. On one occasion, witness experienced some difficulty in being relieved from a watch, when the first lieutenant interfered, and reprimanded the prisoner. The prisoner’s warrant was withdrawn, because he appeared on deck in a straw hat. He never heard the prisoner answer Commander Belcher disrespectfully, nor did he know of any act of insubordination on his part. He knew that prisoner could not get relieved sometimes until three quarters of an hour after the time. The prisoner never wore the hat, to his recollection, after the warrant had been taken from him.
“Mr. Robertson, mate of the AEtna, was then called. He superseded prisoner in command of the second barge; he was not aware why; he never observed any disrespect or insubordination on the part of the prisoner, nor was he aware of any neglect of duty on the part of Mr. Backhouse. Witness had often seen nearly every officer of the ship walk on the quarter-deck without shoes or stockings on, both at forenoon, afternoon, and all hours of the day. He had seen officers without shoes or stockings on, while under way, when he believed the duty of the ship was carried on by Commander Belcher. For want of men, he had seen the mate of the deck assisting in cleaning her. The prisoner was on the sick list for a month, from a severe cut in the finger, in consequence of being obliged to clean fish for the mess, as they could not make their servant, who was a Krooman, do it. The midshipmen took it by turns to clean the knives and dishes.
“Mr. Francis Logan, surgeon of the AEtna, was next called. The prisoner was on the sick list on the 28th or 29th May; he heard by report only that the prisoner had endeavoured to leave the ship; and the impression left on his mind was, from the conversation he had heard, without leave. Witness was not aware of any neglect of duty on the part of the prisoner, or of any disrespectful conduct towards Commander Belcher. On being examined by the prisoner, witness said he remembered prisoner being confined for three days and three nights under a tarpaulin screen, where neither light nor air was admitted, and no officer of the ship allowed to speak to him – the only air that could be got being under the edges of the screen, which was fastened close to the bulkhead. He understood from Mr. Quin, the first lieutenant, he was so confined by the order of Commander Belcher. The prisoner, he believed, was relieved at witness’s suggestion.
“Lieut. Thomas Mitchell, (who had joined the AEtna as first lieutenant since her arrival at this port), stated, that he was on deck when the prisoner asked Commander Belcher it his discharge had come down. Before Commander Belcher came up the side, the prisoner crossed over to speak to him, scarcely giving him time to put both feet on deck, with his face almost touching the commander’s, and said – ‘Is my discharge ​come down?’ As far as witness could recollect, he did not salute him, but spoke in a sharp and demanding tone. Prisoner had absented himself from the ship without witness’s permission, his leave having been stopped. Was not aware of any disrespectful conduct on the part of the prisoner, save in the case he had alluded to, and putting his hands in his pockets when speaking to the commander or witness – upon which latter offence he had often reprimanded him.
“Mr. R. Hopkins, midshipman, did not consider the prisoner’s manner respectful, when he asked about his discharge.
“Lieutenant Miles, assistant-surveyor of the AEtna, was on deck when the prisoner addressed Commander Belcher about his discharge. He came up in an abrupt manner, and said, ‘Is my discharge come down. Sir?’ I think his manner was not respectful. In answer to another question, witness said, the prisoner was in one of the barges, and Commander Belcher reproved him for some neglect of duty; the prisoner at this time was sitting on the deck of the boat, and did not get up during the conversation, which witness thought disrespectful; he also sang very loud on another occasion, on quitting the commander’s cabin, as if he wished him to hear him, but witness did not think it was meant to insult him. The prisoner’s manner generally was abrupt, but not disrespectful. He observed the prisoner touch his hat to Commander Belcher, when he asked about his discharge. The prisoner dined with the prosecutor on the voyage home, and was treated with the same courtesy as the rest of the officers. Witness should have thought that when prisoner was asked to the commander’s table, all had been forgotten. Witness had seen officers on the quarter-deck without any shoes or stockings, and he believes in Commander Belcher’s presence, for it was not a remarkable occurrence.
“Lieut. Quin, late first of the AEtna, deposed, that Commander Belcher had suspended the prisoner from duty on the quarter-deck. Prosecutor gave him an order not to go below to mess with the midshipmen, because he considered his conduct to be mutinous. Witness told Commander Belcher he thought the prisoner in a deranged state of mind, which he considered the cause of such conduct. He also mentioned to Commander Belcher, that on the cutter being manned to take a young gentleman who had dined with the midshipmen on shore, that he found Mr. Backhouse stowed away in the fore part of the boat, and on his coming on deck he found him in an intoxicated state. He did not see the prisoner wear the hat produced more than once on deck. The effect of the remainder of witness’s evidence was in corroboration of what had fallen from those who had preceded him, with regard to prisoner’s conduct to the prosecutor.
“The Court was then cleared, to take into consideration whether Commander Belcher should be allowed to give evidence respecting the prisoner’s conduct, which was objected to by prisoner, who considered ​that as Commander Belcher had been in court, and consequently heard all the evidence of the witnesses, he should not be permitted to do so. The Court opened after ten minutes’ deliberation, when the President informed prosecutor that he might give his evidence, but confine himself to the conduct of Mr. Backhouse while he was in the cabin with him alone.
“The prosecutor being sworn, deposed, that Mr. Backhouse entered his cabin abruptly, with a bill of exchange for him to indorse, and that he. Commander B., told the prisoner that he had not complied with the regulation under which he had engaged to be a party to his money transactions; but that if Mr. Backhouse thought it would enable him to appear in a more officer-like manner, he would attach his signature. The prisoner then left the bill on the table for that purpose, and quitted the cabin. In a few minutes, prisoner returned in a most insulting manner, walked up to the table where the bill was, demanded it, and told Commander B. that he neither required his signature nor assistance; he left the place as abruptly, and his (Commander B.’s) impression was, that he tore the bill in his cabin.
“Mr. Minchin (the prisoner’s professional adviser) read an elaborate defence, which was supported by the following evidence:–
“Mr. Henry George Shoot said the general conduct of the prisoner was very respectful, doing his utmost to please Commander Belcher, never seeing any act of insubordination on the part of the prisoner.
“Samuel Adney, a marine, proved that he was engaged to make a cap for prisoner out of the tails of prisoner’s coat, and was ordered by him to get it ready as soon as possible.
“Mr. Strong, second master, also stated that the prisoner was not disrespectful; and that the gig was manned for the commander to leave the ship when prisoner asked if his discharge was come down.
“Mr. Hooper, clerk, said that prisoner asked witness to request Commander B. to sign a public bill, which he refused on account of Mr. Backhouse not having a spy-glass. Prisoner asked if his discharge was come down when the commander was going out of the ship, and in a very respectful manner, touching his hand to his hat.
“Mr. Christopher Ludlow deposed to the same effect.
“John Ingle, Serjeant of marines, deposed that Mr. Backhouse was under his charge as prisoner at large on the occasion, when he was secured in on the main deck with a tarpaulin large enough to hang a cot in; the tarpaulin was nailed close to the ship’s side. Witness received orders not to allow any one to speak to Mr. Backhouse. Never saw any thing disrespectful in prisoner’s conduct towards the commander. To the best of witness’s belief, prosecutor was on board during the time Mr. B. was confined, and went round the deck during one of those days.
“Joseph Shilleto, carpenter of the AEtna, sworn. – Made a screen for prisoner on the main deck, in which he was confined by the orders of ​Mr. Johnson, the master, which screen was composed of a tarpaulin nailed to a carlin, 5 ft. 6 in. in length, 6 ft. 3 in. in breadth. Witness asked Mr. Johnson if he might open one of the ports to give Mr. B. air; to which he replied, that the Commander had ordered him to be closely confined. Gave Mr. B. a chair, as he had none to sit on. Did not see him again for three or four days, till he saw him in the midshipmen’s berth. Neither light nor air could be admitted. Prisoner’s conduct was in general very respectful, and he was very attentive to his duty.
“The evidence in behalf of the defence having been concluded, the Court was cleared, and after a deliberation of one hour and a half, reopened, when the following sentence was delivered:–
“‘The Court is of opinion that the charge against the said Mr. Henry Grainger Backhouse, of insubordination in quitting the ship in defiance of the first lieutenant’s refusal of leave of absence, has been proved; but that the other charges against the said Mr. H. G. Backhouse have not been proved. And the Court doth adjudge the said Mr. H. G. Backhouse to be discharged from H.M. surveying-vessel the AEtna; and to be reprimanded, and admonished to be more circumspect in his conduct in future; and the said Mr. H. G. Backhouse is hereby discharged from H.M. surveying-vessel the AEtna; and is reprimanded, and admonished to be more circumspect in his conduct in future accordingly.’”
The AEtna was subsequently stationed in the River Douro, for the protection of British property, during the contest between Dons Pedro and Miguel. From thence she was sent to survey the Esquerques, or Skerki, a reef of rocks in the Mediterranean Sea. She returned to Portsmouth in Aug. 1833, and was paid off on the 10th of the following month.
Commander Belcher is a member of the Geological and London Geographical Societies. He married, Sept. 11th, 1830, Diana Joliffe, grand-daughter of Colonel Simpson, of Plean House, Falkirk, N.B., and step-daughter of that amiable man and excellent officer the late Captain Peter Heywood, R.N.