Charles Middleton
Contents
Background
In 1786, when the First Fleet was being commissioned, Sir Charles Middleton was the Comptroller of the Navy and de facto chairman and chief executive of the Navy Board. He and his de facto secretary, Joshua Thomas, bore much of the responsibility for actually commissioning the convict ships until his resignation in March 1790, shortly after the Second Fleet sailed.
He was regarded as one of the great public administrators of his day. Middleton was also a leading figure in the establishment of the Abolition movement, with many of the key meetings taking place at the same time as the First Fleet was being prepared for sea.
- Gary L. Sturgess, 19 March 2016
Biography
The Middleton family had a Jacobite background. He was from a middle class family, but one with solid connections in Scotland. His grandfather had been the principal of King’s College, Aberdeen. His father was Collector of Customs at Dundee. (Richard Blake, 'Evangelicals in the Royal Navy, 1775-1815', Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2008, p.38) But his uncle was Brigadier-General John Middleton and his great grand uncle was John Middleton, the 1st Earl of Middleton. (Sir James Balfour Paul (ed.), 'The Scots Peerage', Vol.VI, Edinburgh,1909, pp.177-180)
14 October 1726 – Charles was born at Leith to Robert Middleton and Helen (nee Dundas), who was a cousin to Henry Dundas. He was the youngest of 12 children. (Lewis Namier & John Brooke, 'The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1754-1790', London: Secker & Warburg, 1964, Vol.3; John E. Talbott, 'The Pen & Ink Sailor: Charles Middleton and the King’s Navy, 1778-1813', London: Frank Cass, 1998, pp.1-2)
12 December 1761 – Middleton married Margaret Gambier, daughter of a prominent Huguenot family, at St Martin in the Fields. It is said that they had met ten years before when she was engaged to someone else. She challenged her father, an attorney and warden of the Fleet Prison, over her interest in Middleton, and reportedly she was disinherited and went to live with a school friend, Elizabeth Bouverie, another Huguenot who had significant land holdings in Kent. (Talbott, p.12)
Margaret was the niece of Middleton’s first captain, and according to notes by Sir John Deas Thompson, he had met her in 1747 when he was 21 years of age. (Blake, p.38)
September 1762 – Their only child, Diana, was born. (Blake, p.44)
They also raised their nephew, James Gambier, as though he were an adopted son. (Blake, pp.44-45)
Late 1792 – Margaret died.
1813 – Middleton’s last seven years were spent in retirement at Teston, where he died aged 86.
Early Career
1738-1741 – He was reported as having three years’ service in a merchantman, the Loyal Jane, although this may have been a formality to facilitate entry into the Navy. (Talbott, p.2)
April 1741 – Middleton went to sea as a captain’s servant in HMS Sandwich under Captain Samuel Mead, a family friend. She was a 90-gun ship of the line. Several weeks later he followed Mead to the Duke, of similar rating. (Talbott, p.2)
November 1741 – He joined the Flamborough, a sixth rate of 20 guns, where he remained for around four years as she operated in the Americas. (Talbott, p.2)
4 November 1745 – Middleton passed his lieutenant’s examination. (Talbott, p.3)
He then joined the Chesterfield, a 44-gun frigate, as 3rd lieutenant. (Talbott, p.3)
Spring 1749 – Middleton returned to England at the end of the War of Austrian Succession, and was placed on half pay. It is unknown what he did for the next three years. (Talbott, p.4)
1752 – He was employed as 3rd lieutenant on the Culloden, a guardship. (Talbott, p.4)
January 1753 – He joined the Anson (60) as 2nd lieutenant. He formed several important friendships here – Richard Kempenfelt was 1st lieutenant, and Samuel Wallis was another shipmate. (Talbott, p.4)
27 April 1753 – Middleton succeeded Kempenfelt as 1st lieutenant on the Anson, and spent the next couple of years in the West Indies. (Talbott, pp.6-7)
27 February 1757 – Middleton was promoted to the command of the Blandford (24), although it never proceeded, and he was given command of the Speaker sloop (12) instead, again in the West Indies. (Talbott, pp.9-10)
July 1757 – Middleton relinquished command, to take up command of the Barbadoes (14). (Talbott, p.10)
1 March 1759 to 14 July 1760 – He had command of the Arundel (24). (Talbott, p.10)
15 July 1760 – Middleton took over command of the Emerald (28) and between September of that year and the end of May 1761, she took 11 merchant ships loaded with West India produce. He made a fortune from these prizes. (Talbott, pp.11-12, 14)
He was granted a fortnight’s leave to settle affairs in Scotland. (Talbott, p.12)
1761 – Following his marriage, Middleton was given the command of the Adventure (32) in the Channel service. He was unhappy about the ship and her assignment and she took only a few small prizes. (Talbott, p.16)
February 1763 – He asked for leave to recuperate, and when he was offered the command of a frigate, he declined. He and his wife moved in with Elizabeth Bouverie and he took over the management of her estates. (Talbott, pp.16-17)
11 March 1775 – Having applied to the First Lord of the Admiralty, he was given command of the Ardent (64), a Medway guardship, which was moored only a few miles from the Bouverie estates. (Talbott, p.18)
Appointment
28 January 1777 – Captain Maurice Suckling, the long-time Comptroller of the Navy Board (and Nelson’s uncle) resigned, a dying man. Sandwich offered the post to Middleton. It is unclear why the First Lord of the Admiralty had singled him out. (Talbott, pp.24-25) It was the height of the American War of Independence.
With a shore establishment of around 10,000, it was by far the largest enterprise in Britain. Middleton later wrote:
"I . . . required some little time to consider it. . . The truth was I felt myself unequal to the magnitude and consequence of the office and the confinement it would occasion me." (Talbott, p.25)
8 March 1777 – Middleton accepted. (Talbott, p.27)
August 1778 – Talbott writes that he did not formally take office until this date. (Talbott, p.93)
Blake writes that with his long tenure of office, he came to be seen as above politics. (Blake, p.43) Syrett described Middleton as a bureaucratic imperialist, but he was protective of the Navy Board, and forceful in his recommendations for reform because of his mastery of administration, and his confidence in his own ability. (Blake, p.46)
He turned the office of the Comptroller of the Navy into the de facto chairman and chief executive of the Navy Board, stating that his role was ‘. . . the mainspring, belonging to everything that is naval; no price can purchase a man fit for this extensive office; he must be in every part of it and know everything that is going on in and out of it’. (Talbott, p.30)
Middleton’s first objective was to commission more line of battle ships, and ‘in the end, to bring forward by degrees all that could be made fit for service’. . . Over the longer run, he expected to encourage, by means of financial incentives, the merchant yards to build more ships of the line, freeing the King’s yards to concentrate on repairing battle damage and other urgent tasks. . . (Talbott, p.34)
The American War
He began to expand his empire shortly after taking office, picking up a proposal that had been discussed for several years, and taking over the shipment of army provisions from the Treasury. He negotiated additional pay for Navy Board staff and secured the right to appoint all officials responsible for supervision the transports. (Talbott, pp.35-37)
His other major objective in these early years was to copper the fleet, which was largely accomplished by 1781. Talbott wrote that it was his proudest achievement. (Talbott, p.45)
Middleton’s version of how the Admiralty and Navy Board came to adopt the new technique makes him the lone hero of a campaign waged against vacillating superiors, skeptical colleagues and obtuse subordinates. His grandchildren must have heard many times of his visit to Buckingham Palace, where he and Sandwich showed the King a copper-sheathed model of the Bellona (74) and convinced him of the merits of coppering ships of the line. With the King in their camp, according to the story, all opposition to the new procedure fell away. (Talbott, p.50)
Reform
Haas:
"Middleton in 1778-79 introduced several remarkable, but unsuccessful, measures to facilitate planning, ensure an adequate supply of stores, tighten inventory control, establish cost control, and prevent embezzlement. . . All of this, in the midst of a great war, was to pile insupportable additional work on officials who were overstretched already, and the new regulations were consequently ignored." (J.M. Haas, 'A Management Odyssey: The Royal Dockyards, 1714-1914', Lanham: University Press of America, 1994, p.40)
With the end of the war and the accession of Shelburne, Middleton was able to set about reforming the operations of the Navy Board. He was sceptical of Shelburne’s capacity to pursue his reform agenda, writing in July 1782:
"The first minister, as far as I have seen, has not weight enough for his station, nor abilities to conduct it; as a man of business, he wants method and application; as a minister, he wants knowledge of the line he has undertaken; and being without weight, can carry no plan into execution." (Talbott, p.116)
Shelburne approached Middleton early in his term about the reform of the shore establishment, and the Comptroller put forward some basic ideas, which formed the foundation of his reform agenda over the ensuing years. He proposed the abolition of sinecures, set about abolishing fees (in which he was not to have immediate success) and sought to ensure that merit was the basis for promotion in both the civil and military establishment (bringing ashore principles that had long been followed at sea).
In July 1783 he was busy arranging into a system the ‘multiplicity of accounts belonging to the separate branches’ – ‘a monster of such magnitude an extent’. In October, taking advantage of peace and a decline in the artificers’ bargaining power, he addressed the abuse of chips . He then turned to the dockyards’ standing and occasional orders. However, working at home in his spare time, by May 1785 he had been able to add little to the revision already achieved. Fees remained always at the back of his mind – everywhere, as he thought, a cause off abuse. But he acknowledged now that they were inseparable from premiums, allowances for houses, poundage on monies handled, even the sale of old dockyard stores and the management of the Chatham Chest. . . (Morriss, p.134)
With Pitt’s rise to power, and the appointment in 1785 of the Commission on Fees in the Public Offices, Middleton found a vehicle for pursuing reform. He put an immense amount of work into preparing a submission to the committee, chaired by Francis Baring, entitled, ‘Observations on the Navy Board Department’, produced in its final form in early 1787 (at the time that the First Fleet was being commissioned).
The new commission provided a vehicle by which Middleton was able to advance his recommendations without going through the Admiralty. Indeed, with Howe at the Admiralty, he preferred his representations to be kept secret. As he suggested to Francis Baring in December 1786, when he was not officially called upon for information, the commissioners would ‘reap most benefit from my assistance by not otherwise openly bringing me forward’. Rather, by his ‘ready acquiescence with your regulations’, he would set ‘an example of willing obedience to them’. In his view jealousy was quite likely, for privately he claimed for the Comptroller a liaison role with ministers that rivalled that of the First Lord of the Admiralty. (Morriss, p.135)
He was highly critical of the Navy Board’s offices in the yards – ‘irregularity, ignorance and negligence’ – with the organisation, when he joined it, described as ‘a number of Men. . . herding together. . . where all deliberate and all examine (if so it may be named) without distinction and without Arrangement’. (Talbott, pp.124-125)
In an oft-quoted passage from an early paper, ‘Loose observations and hints on the proposed reformation of the Navy Board’, Middleton was highly critical of the board’s manner of operation – long meetings around a table reading correspondence that had been submitted to them and formulating replies. He wrote that since its establishment in 1661, the Board had:
". . . had its number of members doubled and its business increased an hundred fold and all continues to be transacted at one table with the same irregularity as matters come by chance before them. There is no division of business, no providing for dispatch. The consequence are hasty decisions, confusion, accounts passed without examination, a perplexing variety of opinion, professional matters submitted to landsmen and mere clerks, some members overloaded with business, others having little to do but to interrupt or confound the rest, while distraction and irresolution from this indigested heap is the portion of him who must bring things to some conclusion ion the day, being it right or be it wrong." (Enclosed with NMM Middleton Papers, MID/2/1/1, quoted in Roger Morriss, 'Naval Power and British Culture, 1760-1850: Public Trust and Government Ideology', Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004, p.28)
Robert Gregson confirmed this manner of operation: Upon the whole the weight of business falls upon a few, and of those few, chiefly upon the Comptroller and the Secretary, who have piles of papers before them a foot high, to digest and minute, while two or three at the board are looking on or reading newspapers’. (Morriss, p.29)
In 1786, Middleton wrote:
"At present we have no fixed rule of government in our dockyards. Length of time and change of circumstances have occasioned such an accumulation of contradictory orders, that the officers, if inclined to do well, are not furnished with proper information; and if otherwise, they find so many holes to creep out at, that it is beyond the powers of office to counteract them." (Morriss, p.29)
Haas writes that Middleton sought to rationalise the massive number of standing orders issued to the dockyards over the years, producing one enormous volume, ‘digested under a few simple heads’. But the project was not completed when James Ramsay died in 1789 and Middleton resigned the following year. (J.M. Haas, 'A Management Odyssey: The Royal Dockyards, 1714-1914', Lanham: University Press of America, 1994, p.21)
He proposed the conduct of the board’s business through three committees: correspondence, accounts and stores. This would avoid overwhelming one person with too many responsibilities. He proposed to restore sea officers to the dominant role at the board. (Talbott, pp.125-127)
In December 1787 the commission completed its inquiries within the naval departments. Baring reported to Middleton that ‘the material part of the system’ he had recommended was regarded as necessary by the three Fees commissioners. And indeed their fifth and sixth reports on the Navy Office and dockyards, signed in February and March 1788, reiterated Middleton’s arguments for the Comptroller to superintend the whole office, for the appointment of a deputy comptroller who might preside at the board, for the Clerk of the Acts to become board secretary, for an increase in the number of board commissioners from seven to ten, for the organisation of the commissioners into committees, and for the revision of the board’s standing orders to the yards. . .
Howe was aware of Middleton’s representations – indeed, he anticipated that the commissioners ‘will be exactly of the opinion of Sir Charles’. He was opposed to the Comptroller receiving any more authority; indeed, he proposed Middleton be transferred to a yard commissioner’s post and subsequently refused to promote him with other post-captains to Rear Admiral. (Morriss, pp.135-136) 3.4 Resignation
Given Pitt’s willingness to work with Middleton, the appointment of his brother, the Earl of Chatham, to replace Howe in July 1788, seemed to augur well. But they did not get along, and through the summer of the following year, as three of Middleton’s key assistants sickened and died in short order – Ramsay, Teer and Thomas – Middleton was suffering from stress and overwork. The examination of the reports of the Commissioners of Fees remained unexamined, and Middleton wrote of Chatham:
". . . as soon as it was discovered that my opinions went to reformation of abuses. . . I very early discovered a jealousy against myself. . . which, from the encouragement it has received by the doubtful postponing of the reports, has put me into such a new and awkward situation, as renders me unable to bring forward any matter, beyond the mere current business of office, without opposition or hazard of success. The public effects are worse. The fees and emoluments in office, which were only guessed at before the enquiry was agitated, are now looked upon as established; and from their having been suffered to remain so long after their discovery, without any mark of disapprobation, are now considered as countenanced by government itself.
"By these and other means, which I have no power to correct, the discipline of the office is become extremely relaxed, the attendance loose and uncertain, and the whole constitution of it, with respect to the just and efficacious discharge of duty, very much endangered." (Middleton to Pitt, 8 February 1790, John Knox Laughton (ed.), Letters and Papers of Charles, Lord Barham, 1758-1813, London: Naval Records Society, 1910, Vol.II, pp.338-339)
In short, he had lost authority. He felt that it would be impossible with the present constitution of the board to effect any further reform, or ‘to prevent what has only hitherto been kept up by attention and diligence, from falling back again into irregularity and disorder’, he felt that he could no longer continue with the task and proposed to resign. He had threatened to resign before. It is probable that on this occasion, he was deadly serious.
He formally resigned the following month, on 15 March 1790. Amongst his papers was a note, written in the hand of a clerk, entitled ‘Reasons for resigning the office’, which included the following:
". . . that, at the time of Sir Charles Middleton’s resignation, the fleet is left in the best possible state; the number of serviceable ships, the greatest ever known in this country; the stores, appropriated to them, arranged in the most perfect order; the arsenals filled with every kind of proper stores, to the value of two millions sterling; three of the foreign yards completed since the peace. . . The hone yards are also in the greatest possible progress and even now ready for the most complete exertions. The use of copper has been established in all the branches to which it could be applied. In short, the remoter objects of the department are now in so fair a state, that nothing is wanting to perfect our naval economy, but the internal arrangement of the office itself respecting persons and their particular duties, in order to carry on business with life and despatch." (John Knox Laughton (ed.), 'Letters and Papers of Charles, Lord Barham, 1758-1813', London: Naval Records Society, 1910, Vol.II, pp.347-350)
Lord Barham, First Lord of the Admiralty
In May 1794, he was brought back as a Lord of the Admiralty, but he resigned again in October 1795, following a disagreement over a large military expedition to the West Indies. (Talbott, pp.134-142)
When he was recalled, in 1805, following the resignation of Lord Melville (his cousin, Henry Dundas), he was elevated to the peerage by Pitt as Lord Barham. He was 79 years of age and he lasted until February 1806, when Pitt died. Laughton and Talbott concluded from a close reading of his papers that he was caught up in the strategy and the tactical detail of the Trafalgar campaign. (Talbott, pp.151-156)
The Man
Hannah More wrote that ‘Sir Charles. . . has the stern and simple virtues of the old school’. In later years, he was regarded as having a bad temper. (Blake, p.44)
He was highly respected for his administrative skills and his hard work, but he was criticised for his refusal to compromise on matters that he regarded as important. Pitt described him as ‘the best man of business’ he knew. Dundas (as Secretary at War) praised his ‘great official talents and merits’ but criticised him for being ‘a little difficult to act with from an anxiety, I had almost said an irritability of temper, and he requires to have a great deal of his own way of doing business in order to do it well’. (Blake, p.45) St Vincent described him as ‘that damned Scottish packhorse’ and ‘a compound of paper and pack-thread’. (Talbott, p.1; Blake, p.45)
He told the Earl of Sandwich that he worked 12 hours a day, six days of the week. Talbott notes that he did take time off with his family and occasionally took a long weekend, but it seems likely that he took work home. (Talbott, p.78)
Nevertheless, one of his clerks, Robert Gregson, wrote in 1789: ‘The Controller is the most indefatigable & able of any in my time. The load of business he goes through at the Board, at the Treasury, Admty, & his own House, is astonishing, & what I am confident no other man will be able to execute.’ (Talbott, p.78)
He would periodically become worn down. In 1779, he wrote to Sandwich: ‘The burden [of office] is too great for the most able sea officer in this kingdom; and a consciousness of my own inferiority in mind and body has frequently made me wish I had never engaged in it.’ (Talbott, pp.78-79)
His piety made him the subject of widespread criticism. When he was appointed as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1805, the politician and diarist, Thomas Creevey, described him as a ‘superannuated Methodist’. (Blake, p.45; Talbott, p.14) Lieutenant Francis Beaufort, on station in the Mediterranean, wanted to be delivered of ‘Lord Barham and the Psalm-singers’. (Talbott, p.14)
He has been described by historians as having a powerful personality, confident, critical and outspoken, priggish, irritable, oppressive and at times cruelly judgemental, self-righteous and unwilling to admit his own mistakes. (Blake, p.45, with sources)
Having hesitated to take upon himself the great responsibilities of the Navy Board, he came to be confident in his abilities: ;’I have, however, I thank God, a peace within, which the world cannot give nor take away, and as long as my own conscience does not condemn me, I am difficult about further fame.’ (Blake, p.47)
Evangelicalism
Middleton’s piety is usually attributed to his wife, Margaret Gambier, but if so, then he had already had an impact on him well before they were married in 1761. He began reading the service of the Morning Prayer and a sermon to his crew on Sundays from his first command, in 1757. (Blake, p.35)
Margaret Gambier and her friend Elizabeth Bouverie had been brought together by Evangelicalism as much as anything else. (Blake, pp.38-39)
With his appointment to the Ardent guardship in 1775, he organised the ship into four divisions, each under a lieutenant, and officers were given the authority to punish minor offences. He introduced regulations governing drunkenness, swearing, fighting and leave-breaking, and shore-leave was only given to men who behaved well. (Blake, p.42)
He was a member of the SPCK from 1775, and remained a member all his life. (Blake, p.50)
As Comptroller of the Navy, he was biased towards Evangelicals. He tried to appoint James Ramsay and then Ambrose Serle to replace Joshua Thomas following his death. George Marsh criticised him over this, and Pitt allegedly said that he would do anything for a Methodist. (Blake, p.47)
Abolitionism
His wife is generally credited with having prompted his interest in the cause of Abolition. (Blake, p.44) But his old friend, James Ramsay, must have had a powerful influence as well.
In 1781, Middleton arranged for Ramsay, to be appointed to the vicarage at Teston. It provided Ramsay with the opportunity to write his first great essay on the slave trade, ‘Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies’, which was published in 1784. ‘By many accounts, Ramsay’s pamphlet ignited the movement to abolish the trade in African slaves.’ According to some versions of the story, it was the publication of Ramsay’s pamphlet that led Margaret Middleton to urge her husband to become more actively involved in fighting the slave trade. (Talbott, p.130)
Talbott notes that Middleton always remained a backroom player. His papers are silent on the question, and he only ever delivered one speech on the subject in parliament. He refused the suggestion that he should be the movement’s parliamentary spokesman. (Talbott, pp.130-131)
He attended dinners, introduced the liked-minded to each other, and made Teston available for meetings of abolitionist strategists. Such activities do not leave much trace except as anecdotes. . . In one Middleton dined among the high and mighty at a party arranged in Wilberforce’s honor by Bennet Langton, a leading London host, and indulging among the guests, Joshua Reynolds, James Bowell and William Windham. Wilberforce wrote to friends and in his diary of breakfasts at Sir Charles Middleton’s, dinners there with Ramsay and others, and long talks over the fire. The blue-stocking Hannah More, rising playwright, budding Evangelist, friend of both Middletons and Mrs Bouverie, breathlessly assured her sisters that ‘Teston will be the Runnymede of the Negroes’. (Talbott, pp.130-131)
Key Staff
Middleton did not undertake the work of the Navy Board on his own, relying on a small group of key staff.
James Ramsay
Ramsay had served with Middleton as surgeon on Arundel in 1759-1760, and after going into the ministry and serving in the West Indies, he returned to England an ardent Abolitionist. Blake claims:
"[Middleton and Ramsay] worked together over plans for the First Fleet to Botany Bay: while the Comptroller was responsible for finding the shipping, Ramsay selected a team of naval surgeons for the voyage and for establishing medical facilities in the new settlement. Again Ramsay proposed that a free black community in West Africa should be made economically viable with British help and protection: the idea appealed to Pitt and eventually inspired the Sierra Leone project beloved of the Clapham philanthropists. . ." (Blake, p.62)
Blake provides no sources to support these claims, and indeed, there are none. This is mere supposition on his part, presumably based on the speculations of Sir James Watt, who also failed to produce supporting evidence. (Sir James Watt, 'Surgeon James Ramsay, 1733-1789: the Navy and the slave trade', Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, (1994) Vol.87, pp.773-776)
1762 – It was through Middleton’s intervention that Ramsay obtained the position on the island of St Kitts in 1762. (John Knox Laughton (ed.), 'Letters and Papers of Charles, Lord Barham, 1758-1813', London: Naval Records Society, 1910, Vol.II, p.253)
It was probably with Middleton’s assistance that Ramsay secured the position of chaplain on Admiral Barrington’s flagship in 1778 on his return from St Kitts. Middleton was the means through which Ramsay circulated his thoughts on the naval service in the West Indies. (Laughton, Vol.II, pp.253-4)
Early 1779 – Ramsay received a letter from Middleton written shortly after he had been appointed Comptroller, which disclosed that the Navy Board was in need of radical reform and suggested Ramsay might consider helping him in the task. (See Ramsay to Middleton below.)
23 April 1779 – Ramsay to Middleton from the Prince of Wales in the West Indies. Middleton had mentioned his desire to have Ramsay working close to hand. He was flattered but he felt that he might be able to make the tedious part of his business easier for him.
"I persuade myself you will not be content with just doing things well while you are in office, but that you will lay the foundation of lasting improvements. It would be my ambition to clear away the rubbish and act under you."
He wrote of the sickness in the fleet and the want of skilful surgeons. He commented on reforms needed to need surgeons in service. And since his return on board he had formed a plan for a series of sermons. (Middleton In Letters from Ramsey, 177901785, MID/1/155, NMM)
1781 – Ramsay left the West Indies, ‘and by the friendship of Sir Charles Middleton’ settled at Teston. (Laughton, Vol.II, p.254)
23 May 1781 – Advertisement for the publication that day of Sea Sermons for the Royal Navy by Ramsay. (Lloyds Evening Post, 23-25 May 1781)
January 1782 – Ramsay commenced as Vicar of Teston and Rector of Nettlestead. (Watt, p.774)
Mid-1780s – Blake describes Ramsay as having been Middleton’s ‘confidential secretary’:
While Middleton was preoccupied with reforming the Navy Office in the 1780s Ramsay worked alongside him, copying memoranda, editing documents, and occasionally initiating preliminary drafts. (p.58)
Late 1783 – Blake includes in this category, the ‘Memorandum – Duty of Captains in the Navy’, undated, but dated by Laughton between December 1783 and July 1784. (p.61)
May 1784 – ‘An Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies’ was published by John Phillips in George Yard. (General Evening Post, 20-22 May, 1784)
16 [April?] 1784 – Rose to Middleton, apologising for the lack of success with the lack of success in attending to his applications for persons from Rochester with ‘fair and strong pretensions’ for positions. It appears that Pitt’s support had been divided on some matters. He also referred to Mr Ramsay’s observations on smuggling, which he had read but had not yet had an opportunity of communicating to Mr Pitt. (Middleton In Letters from George Rose, 1784-87, NMM MID/1/159)
18 February 1785 – Ramsey from Teston, to Middleton, in response to a question about the health and management of soldiers in the West Indies. (Middleton In Letters from Ramsey, 177901785, NMM MID/1/155)
Late 1785 – An undated copy of a Memorial by Middleton to the King, offering to resign over the lack of support in reform of the Navy Board. Laughton dates it to this time, and it is written in Ramsay’s handwriting. (Laughton, Vol.II, p.208)
7 August 1787 – Middleton to Pitt:
"I can speak with confidence of his ability and integrity, and if it should be thought proper at any time to promote him in the line of his profession, I am confident he will do credit to his patron." (Laughton, Vol.II, p.251)
November 1787 – A ‘Memorial on the Supplying of the Navy with Seamen’ is in Ramsay’s handwriting and initialled by him. (Laughton, Vol.II, p.280)
December 1787 – An undated Memorandum on preparation for war was worked on by both Middleton and Ramsay. The date is unclear, but Laughton locates it around this time. (Laughton, Vol.II, p.288)
As noted below, following the death of Joshua Thomas in May 1789, Middleton was moving to promote Ramsay in his absence.
20 July 1789 – Ramsay died of a massive gastric haemorrhage at Sir Charles Middleton’s home in Mayfair. (Oracle Bell’s New World, 24 July 1789)
Joshua Thomas
Thomas was actually George Marsh’s assistant, but Marsh wrote in his journal that he was commonly referred to as ‘Secretary of the Navy Board’. Thomas had stepped up to give Middleton the support he required as a highly active Comptroller, and Middleton came to rely heavily on his assistance.
In December 1786 – Middleton wrote of him in his submission regarding the Navy Board made to the Baring inquiry:
"He is intelligent and has been long in office, and has constantly and cheerfully given me every possible assistance in conducting the service. But for his ready help, I could not have accomplished what I have done." (Laughton, Vol.II, p.249)
In Middleton’s absence, much of the correspondence was carried on by Thomas. He was paid a salary of £450, to which was added £50 for a house. (Laughton, Vol.II, p.249, Note 1)
George Marsh was unhappy that Thomas had been taken from him and regarded him as ‘a very able but corrupt bad principled man’. (Marsh’s journal)
In May 1789, when Thomas was dying, Middleton wrote at the foot of a letter to Pitt:
Since writing this copy, Secretary taken ill and dying. He was the only assistant I had, and therefore what was barely practicable before, with unremitting attendance, is now beyond my state of health and strength of constitution, and as others will not determine, I must do so for myself. (Laughton, Vol.II, p.322)
30 May – Thomas died.
1 June – The Navy Board instructed its officers to write to the Admiralty to acquaint them that Mr Thomas, Assistant to the Clerk of the Acts of the Navy had died on Saturday. (ADM106/2630)
In June, Middleton wrote to the King about the difficulty of continuing his workload without the support of Thomas, and the necessity of the Navy Board being reformed:
". . . and finding himself by that means deprived of his usual assistance, it is totally out his power to conduct the multiplied duties of so extensive a department without further assistance and a new arrangement of the business." (Laughton, Vol.II, p.326)
Joshua Thomas died 30 May 1789. It is evident that Middleton was deeply shocked by his loss and turned to the only other person who knew his habits of work so well – James Ramsay.
George Marsh was unhappy that Middleton was manoeuvring in this way, and wrote in his journal:
"Mr Joshua Thomas my assistant commonly called Secretary of the Navy Board died who was a very able but corrupt bad principled man. Just before his death Sir Charles Middleton acquainted me (who was then the Comptroller of the Navy) that Lord Chatham desired not, to have any recommendation from the Navy Board and myself in particular, as had ever been usual, for a person to succeed to that appointment, who it is always mentioned in the letter from the Navy Board to the Admiralty is approved of by the Clerk of the Acts who also joins with the other members of the Navy Board in the recommendation by signing the letter and applies too personally for the person so recommended. However as Sir Charles had delivered this message to me, I did not apply immediately to the Navy Board to join in writing a letter to the Admiralty to recommend Mr John Margetson my head clerk for this appointment, which they would have most readily have done, as they approved of him as well as myself. But in the course of the same week I reflected upon this affair and thought it extraordinary that Lord Chatham should send such a message to me and therefore waited upon his Lordship, who told me he had not sent such a message, but that Sir Charles had requested of him not to appoint any person immediately to succeed Mr Thomas, whereupon I recommended Mr Margetson as the properest person for that employment in which the Board also joined me, but his Lordship desired it might rest 'till some Naval arrangement then before the Council should be settled.
"Soon after this a person named Ramsay died at Sir Charles Middleton's house who was said to be a Methodist parson, who it was also said Sir Charles wished very much to have this appointment, but be that as it may it was not made 'till 28th December 1789, when Mr Ambrose Serle produced his Warrant to me, and said Lord Chatham particularly directed him to follow my orders. I replied to Mr Serle that I was very sorry for his appointment, for if I could have had my wish my first clerk should have had it, but as superior interest had prevailed, I would nevertheless give him every information and rendering him my utmost assistance in the business of the Office and dayly advice for his conduct in the execution of it (for I conceived he was no way to blame to endeavour to obtain so valuable tho' very laborious confined an employment.) This very uncommon appointment was brought about by the very great interest of Sir Charles who artfully go the Earl of Dartmouth to ask Lord Chatham for it, for Mr Serle (who was said to be a Methodist) so that it might not appear to be done by him." (‘Diary of George Marsh, Commissioner of the Navy, 1722-1800’, located at http://www.jjhc.info/marshgeorge1800diary.htm )
There can be little doubt that the loss of his two assistants, Joshua Thomas and James Ramsay within a few months of each other, and the government’s continuing refusal to restructure the Navy Board, were the major factors in his resignation early the following year. Around this same time, George Teer also fell ill and was forced to retire.
In turning to Ambrose Serle and George Bowen, Middleton was seeking out capable men who shared his frame of mind.
George Teer
George Teer had been the Navy Board’s resident agent at Deptford until the end of the American war, and remained in an ad hoc role until his death in 1789. Middleton held him in high regard.
25 April 1789 – By this date, Teer was to resign.
– George Teer to Sir Charles Middleton.
"After having been under your particular protection and orders of the Navy Board from time to time, when it was thought useful to employ me in putting the directions of the Board into effect, as Agent for Transports, or Superintendent in fitting of hired transports or provisions in the River, or any other service which might have been thought useful; and having carried out that service with the utmost diligence and pure intentions, on my part (with strict survey on such parts as was deemed to be necessary), as follows, I have great reason to believe that upwards of six hundred hired transports have been under my directions in fitting the greatest part, in loading with all kind of naval stores, military provisions, troops, &c, which I suppose to be upwards of 200,000 tons; therefore have great reason to believe the Board had upwards of 100,000 tons in their pay, during the War, at an expense of £750,000 per annum, besides all other contingencies, must at least be one million or more.
"I have therefore used my utmost diligence in endeavouring to comply with your wishes, in forwarding the King’s service in the most effectual manner that I could contrive, as the ships of different models could be made most useful for the purposes of government, in the same manner as if they had been my own property. During the above time, I have by diligence and constant attention to the contrivance and stowage of all kind of stores, great reason to believe I have gained seldom less than ten percent on the tonnage of ships, often twenty, or thirty or more, ever considering each ton in the War to gain to gain to the public 10/10[?]. This has been done quietly, not even known to any person at the Board (except yourself and the Sea Commissioners). You have never heard of any complaint, either, that the ships were too tender, or too stiff, that the cargoes were damaged by improper stowage, or embezzled for want of a bulkhead of common [??], or any other fault that might be imputed to me.
"And I wish you to allow me to add on my part, without fee, reward, gratuity, directly or indirectly, or any kind of concern with any ship owner or contractor whatever that let ships or sold stores to the Navy Board. It is well know to you that in the latter part of the War, common transports were not adequate to the services of government, which I suppose induced the Board to buy several ships, British-built and Russian [first?] ships, at an expense from 15 to 16 pounds per ton the former, to 10/10 the latter. If the books were examined they would be found to have cost the public about a half more before they were fit for the service. The first were run up in about 4 months in the North Country; the others in the winter at Archangel, what may be fairly understood as slop ships or skeletons that want only everything. But as necessity has no law, they were bought to carry masts &c, which common transports could not perform, and fitted as armed ships (suppose upwards of 10,000 tons) with men at the rate of 10 men, officers included, per 100 tons. These ships carried more than their tonnage, besides provisions and stores for an [sic] armed ships. But from their construction, although coppered, it could not be expected they could sail fast, yet I believe none of them were captured. The whole of their conveniences were by the Board’s orders, under my regulation, agreeable to the services they were intended for, from time to time; & I believe you have received few or no complaints from the officers of any of them who have made voyages to the East or West Indies and America during the above period.
"Therefore, the intention of this private letter to you is to beg I may be still kept under your protection from whom I have the honest pride to acknowledge the rank I have the honour to be a Captain in the Royal Navy, and when I forfeit to you, the character of an honest man, I know & hope you will give me up.
"On receiving the directions of the Board in the 13th instant, I waited on the Board the 14th, the 16th went to Woolwich to consult with the officers at Woolwich about the Guardian, intended to carry provisions to Botany Bay; on the 17th informed the Board with what I judged would be useful; on the 20th on waiting on the Board, I was much concerned in finding so great an opposition by the Surveyor, on the alterations of taking down useless cabins and storerooms on the orlop deck, curtailing the magazine and boatswain’s, gunner’s and carpenter’s storerooms, which certainly could be done with part of what was already fixed, and working the cables and pumps on the upper deck, cutting scuttles in the ports, and other little trifles, which are very essential for the ship and cargo in hot climates, and of little expense.
"When contrasted with a ship carrying about eight months’ provisions as formerly fitted[?] to the Colony at Botany Bay, not very safely, with carrying, I believe above eighteen 67 tons of naval stores, which you intend to be sent to the Sirius and Supply, with the utmost security.
"From what is stated above, I have reason to believe my knowledge of transports, armed or hired, to be equal to the middling class of officers of the Navy (although from [??] people I have ever experienced opposition). Therefore will submit the following to your consideration.
"Suppose 24 ships of 44 guns to measure 21,000 tons – they will require, officers included, 2100 men – carry 12,000 troops to the East Indies with their baggage, camp equipage, and return back in one year; to the West Indies, 18,000 troops on [??] occasion, and return back in four months, as has been proved last winter by the Chichester and other ships in little more than three months; to Halifax or Canada in the summer, the same number in six months; to Botany Bay, provisions by touching at Tenerife a week, the Cape a week or ten days, Botany Bay about six weeks, at Stattenland at all times of the year, about a week or ten days, where on the [??] I am informed there is good harbours, wood, water, seafowl in great plenty, by taking off the skin and purging them with salt water are wholesome food for hungry men, which I have experienced at Falklands Island (only two days sail from it should they be put past [??] at South [??] or Carlisle Sound for the same purpose) in the course of seven years’ service. [??] on whole year at the island, in the Jason frigate, Captain Macbride, and the five years after commanding the Florida storeship, during three voyages with provisions & stores from the Channel Back, when I went out singly to the above islands. I was from land half to seven months. The fourth under the command of Commodore Stott, nearly 5½ months on the passage out, by stopping at Madeira, Tenerife, St Iago and Rio Janeiro. The above service was from 1765 to 1772.
"During the five years in the Florida, not a man died with the scurvy, although remaining only five or six weeks at Falklands Islands, and having the whole of the store to hoist out and land with a small ships company & ship’s boats, & to ballast the ship in the above time. I could only merchant man-like allow the men Sundays to go on shore to get penguins [??] to refresh themselves for a week, which they did in such a manner as to be in a better state of health at sailing home than on going out from England.
"Should a ship miss Falklands also, by steering well to the Eastward it is almost certain, at any season of the year, to arrive at St Helena in or about three weeks, and from that place to England is a well known passage of from 6 to 9 weeks. Therefore on the whole, a copper-bottomed ship may be expected to arrive at the Cape, allowing for a week’s stop at Tenerife to refresh and water (the wine for the people much superior to what is given at Madeira & a safer place in the winter) in about 9 or 10 weeks. Suppose at the Cape, or False Bay according to the season, a week or ten days more, a single ship may from thence sail to Botany Bay in or about six weeks – six weeks to discharge ballast; from Botany Bay to Cape Horn about six weeks (too Furnaux in King’s ships and Borrowdale a transport, 272 tons Reed, only seven from land to land, just arrived; the last unfortunately was afraid of touching at Stattenland, or Falklands Islands which his little company could have been well refreshed & the ship refitted, proceeded to Rio Janeiro in about 15 days, little more than 9 weeks, he was within a day or two’s sail of the place, and instead of going to St Helena, he was obliged to go by northerly winds & light airs a great way to the eastward, was six or seven weeks or more before he arrived & lost five men out of a very small complement by the scurvy. This is proof that the coast of Brazil is not the quickest method of going or coming round the world.
"Therefore, from what I have said above, hope you will go along with me in opinion that a ship may go from England to the Cape in three months any time of the year, from the Cape & to be discharged at Botany Bay in three months more, from Botany Bay to Falklands Islands, allowing to refresh in two months, and I have experienced in the Jason in 1767, that a ship can come home in fifty six days from that place. This is much within a year.
"I have in the Florida sailed from the sight of the Rock of Lisbon on the 25th of October &, laying to under a main sail, stopped at Madeira four days, at St Iago three to water, and on the 25th of December, anchored at midnight in the entrance of Port Egmont Harbour, a loaded storeship uncoppered.
"As 44 gun ships are best constructed for carrying troops, provisions, naval or military stores, than any other class of His Majesty’s ships, or of being made hospital ships, they might even be used to carry seamen, prest or volunteers, on any occasion; by first preparing them with [??] ports of ¾ inches square in the orlop and gunroom, making the after cap stern be worked on the quarter deck or upper gun deck, by the same method that the main cap stern is worked, on the upper or lower gun decks, spare hawse holes to be ready on the upper gun deck, to the gun deck, which I find by Mr Nelson’s skill in his profession, to be done without any kind of detriment to the working of cables below. The pumps always to be worked on the upper deck. The magazine so contrived as at present intended for a magazine and light room for a store ship to be alight and filling room only, when fully armed, the coal hole would be a temporary magazine, and the most trifling expense, would change them from a man of war of 44 guns to a store ship &c, of 16 upper deck guns, 2 quarter deck & 2 forecastle guns – the same masts, only shorten the yards on sixth part, which is found to make them as troops ships sail equal or superior to any ship completely armed. They will be found when commanded by men of service, not much above or under thirty years of age, to be able to perform more service than twice the number of their tonnage in time of peace, and five times as much in time of war, of all hired ships, and the troops will be carried in health, and fit for service, to any climate, which never was the case in hired ships, the stores will be faithfully preserved by all good officers, as storeships, they will defend themselves equal to a 20 gun ship, with troops, equal to a 28 gun ship. Each ship can carry anywhere, two flat boats, cover & land, & take off their men; in short trips, three or four boats – to Gibraltar a thousand men, or eight hundred tons of heavy provisions and return in six weeks, in the presence of all the frigates that Spain can [??] up at sea any time of the year.
"I believe I may venture to say that with a store ship’s company, they have more real seamen on board, than a 44 with a peace complement, and whether they are wearing out at sea or being [destroyed?] in a harbour is very little consequence. I very much wish the above may meet with your approbation, and am sir, Your most obliged servant, George Teer." (Middleton In Letters from George Teer, 1789, NMM MID/1/184)
14, 15, 20 May 1789 – Teer was still involved in managing the Board’s business. (TNA ADM106/2630)
27 May 1789 – The Navy Board considered a letter from Andrew Miller, the NSW Commissary, relative to the deficiency of provisions. They resolved to send a copy of Captain Teer’s letter relative to the provisions ‘and agree with him [presumably Miller] in opinion that the Casks used in carrying Provisions to laces at so great a distance as Botany Bay ought to be of the best kind. . . ‘(TNA ADM106/2630)
30 May 1789 – The Navy Board responded to a letter from Teer, instructing its officers to acquaint the Treasury of the quantity of provisions, clothing, &c put on board and the number of convicts which is as many as the Lady Juliana could stow and desire further directions for her proceeding. (TNA ADM106/2630)
1 June 1789 – Teer’s last letter to the Navy Board. ‘I have the misfortune to be confined to a sick bed’ and thus was not able to inspect the Britannia, at Union Stairs. The Board directed the Master Attendant to inspect her. (TNA ADM106/243; TNA ADM106/2630)
20 June 1789 – Secretary of the Admiralty to Vice Admiral Graves, Plymouth. ‘Captain Macbride, Commander of His Majesty’s Ship Cumberland having applied to my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for 14 days leave of absence for Mr Bowen, Master of the said ship, I am commanded by their Lordships to signify their direction to you to give him the said leave accordingly.’ (TNA ADM2/591/31)
22 June 1789 – Admiral Greaves wrote to the Board advising them that he had given Mr Bowen, Master of the Cumberland, leave to come to town. (TNA ADM106/2630, 24 June)
24 June 1789 – The Navy Board read the letter from Admiral Greaves. (TNA ADM106/2630)
25 June 1789 – Bowen wrote to the Navy Board, presumably advising them that he had arrived in town. They directed him to attend the Board the following morning. (TNA ADM106/2630)
26 June 1789 – Bowen attended the Navy Board, presumably for an interview, when he was offered the job.
29 June 1789 – Teer was dead by this date.
- The Navy Board directed their officers to acquaint Messrs Neave and Aislabie that they had appointed Mr James Bowen to superintend the fitting of transports and to inspect the provisions ordered to be shipped from the River Thames in the room of the late Captain Teer. (TNA ADM106/2630)
30 June 1789 – The Navy Board formally appointed Bowen to superintend the fitting of transports and to inspect the provisions ordered to be shipped from the River Thames for His Majesty’s troops serving abroad and directed him to inspect those shipped by Messrs Neave & Aislabie. (TNA ADM106/2630)
2 July 1789 – James Bowen’s first letter to the Navy Board. (TNA ADM106/243)
30 September 1789 – On this date, the Admiralty wrote to the Navy Board, recommending that, in light of Teer’s death, the want of the usual affidavit for half pay between 1 January and 16 June last might be dispensed with. They inquired whether Captain Teer was employed during any part of this time ‘as an Agent to Transports or had any other employment’ under the Navy Board.
The note on the reverse read that the officers were to respond:
That we have had no regular Agent since the Peace, and that Captain Teer was employed in no other way than to inspect occasionally provisions or stores sent out by the Commissioners of the Navy to Botany & only paid a gratuity at such times. (NMM ADM/A/2826 and TNA ADM106/2631, 5 October)
Ambrose Serle
Serle was appointed as Secretary to the Board on 28 December 1789, resigning at the same time as Middleton did in March 1790. As noted above, Marsh considered him to be another Methodist appointed by Middleton.
Blake notes that he was a theological writer and friend of noted Evangelicals William Romaine and John Newton. He had been in the Navy before being appointed as under-secretary to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1772.
He served in America during the War of Independence and as secretary to Lord Howe (1776-1778), and was the author of a celebrated journal on the war.
He was Clerk of Reports in 1776. Later (1796) he would be appointed as a commissioner of the Transport Service with responsibility for prisoners of war.
Serle wrote a book titled the Christian Remembrancer, published by John Austin Crane, 1807. He died in 1812.
Serle was one of the executors of Middleton’s will and is referred to therein as ‘my friend’.
James Bowen
Middleton came to know James Bowen in July 1788, when he came to London to give evidence in relation to the slave trade. In their conversations, Middleton learned of Bowen’s impressive work in catching smugglers in the Plymouth area in 1784 and 1786-1787, and sent a letter to the Prime Minister promoting his new protégé.
In June 1789, Bowen was serving as sailing master on the Cumberland, which was stationed as a guard ship at Plymouth. Around the middle of the month, he must have been approached by Middleton, following the illness of the Naval Agent at Deptford, George Teer.
On 20 June, Bowen’s Captain, John MacBride, with whom he had served for some years, wrote to the Admiralty seeking 14 days leave. Bowen used this leave to go to London to speak with Middleton, and while there, accepted the position.
The first of his letters in the Naval Office files is dated 2 July and on the 9th of July, he wrote to the Navy Board seeking leave so he could relocate his family from Plymouth to Deptford, and permission to ship some personal belongings on the Camel on her return to the River. Approval was given. He wrote again on his return to duty on the 29th of July. (See Bowen file.)
He remained there until 1793, when Admiral Howe prevailed upon him to be his sailing master.
The First Fleet
As the de facto chief executive of the Navy Board, Middleton assumed much of the operational responsibility for commissioning the First Fleet. In assigning the management of convict transportation to the Navy Board, it seems that the Treasury was breaking new ground, and there seems to have been some resistance among some of the commissioners. But Sir Charles Middleton wrote some years later:
"The Botany Bay business was of course referred to us, and though some of my brethren felt their pride hurt by transporting convicts, and bringing back tea from China, yet I considered the whole as a public duty and was glad of executing one and advising on the other." (quoted, Roger Knight, ‘The First Fleet – Its State and Preparation, 1786-1787’, in John Hardy and Alan Frost (eds.), Studies from Terra Australis to Australia, Canberra: Australian Academy of the Humanities, 1989, pp.121-136 at p.126)
Properties
Kent
Charles and Margaret often stayed with Elizabeth Bouverie at Teston or Barham Court, and it seems to have been closely identified with the Middletons. When she died in 1798, Teston (pronounced ‘teeson’) was bequeathed to Middleton. (Blake, p.40)
London
The Middletons had a townhouse in Mayfair, but towards the end of his time at the Navy Board, he had an apartment fitted out for him at Somerset Place (where the offices of the Navy Board were then located).
20 June 1789 – The Treasury considered a letter from Middleton ‘representing that the Execution of the Business of his Department requires continued & constant Intercourse with the Navy Office, & requesting that the House intended for his Residence at Somerset Place may be completed with all Possible Despatch. They requested that it be completed with all possible dispatch. (TNA T29/60/428)
Friends
Evangelicals and Abolitionists: Regular visitors included fellow Evangelicals, James Ramsay, Ambrose Serle, John Newton and William Wilberforce, and social reformers Jonas Hanway and John Howard, the More sisters, Bishop Porteus and the Moravian pastor, Benjamin La Trobe and his son. They also became associated with the Clapham Sect. Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson and other leading Abolitionists often met at Barham Court. (Blake, p.41)
Family: He remained close to his cousin, Henry Dundas (Lord Melville), through the period of his impeachment, and wrote to congratulate him when he was cleared of fraud by the House of Lords. (Blake, p.44)
Huguenots: Talbott wrote that Middleton had moved in Huguenot circles since marrying Margaret Gambier. (Talbott, p.139)
Politics
Middleton was made an MP in 1784 following Pitt’s accession to power, representing the seat of Rochester. There is no evidence that he had any interest in politics and he spoke in the Commons very rarely. As a backbencher, he supported Pitt, as was required, but he declined to take a more prominent, even on the question of Abolition.
13 April 1784 – Rose to Middleton. He could assure him that when Mr Pitt thought of proposing him for the seat of Rochester, it never occurred to him that it would involve him in so much trouble or disagreeable correspondence. If he had stated any objection, another could easily have been found. With regard to the representations from his constituents, they would relieve him as much as possible. The letter was particularly concerned with jobs in the Customs. Rose noted that the Excise rarely allowed them to interfere, but application would be made. (Middleton In Letters from George Rose, 1784-87, MID/1/159, NMM)
n.d. (but clearly April 1784) – Middleton responded to Rose in relation to Mr Pitt’s question relative to the Tower Wharf. In the second paragraph he reminded Rose that he had some borough matters before him that he hoped would be addressed in a leisure moment. Little did he know what he would encounter when he first engaged with the Borough, otherwise nothing would have induced him to represent it. It covered not only three towns but the dockyards and ordinary of Deptford, Woolwich, Chatham and Sheerness. Of all the Boroughs in England, it was the very last that the Comptroller of the Navy should represent. However, no pains would be spared to represent the interests of government in this district. He must rely on Mr Pitt’s friendship to relieve him at a proper opportunity of this ‘load of embarrassment’.
16 April(?) 1784 – Rose to Middleton, apologising for the lack of success in attending to his applications for persons from Rochester with ‘fair and strong pretensions’ for positions. It appears that Pitt’s support had been divided on some matters. He also referred to Mr Ramsay’s observations on smuggling, which he had read but had not yet had an opportunity of communicating to Mr Pitt. (Middleton In Letters from George Rose, 1784-87, MID/1/159, NMM)
The History of Parliament adds:
"Pitt’s distant cousin and Middleton’s nephew by marriage, William Morton Pitt, had offered to nominate Middleton for Poole should he himself stand for the county, and Middleton was inclined to accept. William Pitt replied, 30 Oct. 1789: ‘It will give me great pleasure to see you a candidate for Poole, in case Mr. M. Pitt should stand for the county as he now proposes.’ But although Morton Pitt was returned for Dorset, Middleton did not contest Poole—a difficult borough, for which there was a multiplicity of candidates. He did not stand again for Parliament, and died 17 June 1813." (Namier & Brooke, 'The History of Parliament', Vol.3)
26 September 1789 – Rose to Middleton concerning a potential candidate to replace Middleton at Rochester and reassurance that he was ‘a steady political friend’. (Middleton In Letters from George Rose, 1784-87, NMM MID/1/159)
William Pitt
Blake sees the connection to Pitt as coming through his cousin, Henry Dundas, but Pitt respected Middleton as a man of business, on whom he could rely. (Blake, p.45)
"Middleton was less helpful to Pitt as an MP whose vote he could count on than as a naval eminence grise whose advice he could trust. Old enough to be the Prime Minister’s father. . . Middleton was not a member of his innermost circle. He did have ties with insiders such as his cousin Henry Dundas and the vivacious William Wilberforce, Pitt’s soulmate for a time. On at least one occasion he entertained the Prime Minister at Teston and was flattered by Pitt’s interest in his accomplishments as an improving farmer. But the two were not close. Pitt’s chilliness, his reserve toward all but a handful of men and women rivalled Middleton’s. They respected each other; they were well enough acquainted to enable them to work together easily. They had the kind of relationship that promotes the conduct of official business. There is no evidence that Middleton, ambitious as he was, ever presumed on his friendship with the Prime Minister. Unlike many politicians, Pitt was deeply interested in administration. He liked to associate with experts. In his early years in office especially he had more affinities with officials such as Middleton than with members of his far from cohesive Cabinet.
"Middleton found in Pitt a first minister with a greater interest in reforming the shore establishment than Shelburne had evinced, and a firmer grip on office that ‘the Jesuit’ had ever enjoyed. . ." (Talbott, p.123)
