Dismissed without trial

[PMarione]

I have found a list of "officers who have been dismissed the Service without a trial by Court Martial".

This gives a total of 0 to 9 yearly except for 32 in 1795.

I can't find a reason for this high number in 1795.
If it was 1797 or 1798 we could attribute that to the mutinies.

Any suggestion welcome.

@+P

[Redfish]

Might they all have been Irish, perhaps? If so, they might have been associated with the intrigues for a French invasion of Ireland (United Irishmen)? Strange, though that this would have happened without a CM...
Or perhaps these officers have been dismissed from active service through promotion to admiral-rank, as a direct result of promotion to admiral-rank of an officer junior in years to them as a result of the Glorious First of June?

[PMarione]

The problem is that I have only the numbers and no details.

Very stange indeed.

Your suggestion is interesting but apparently they were all Lieutenants so no hope for a flag for a very long time.
When officers were "passed over" they simply got a "superannuated" flag but were not dismissed.

Possibly there is something with the 1st of June as there was "problems" with some ships that didn't engage with enough enthousiasm.

For me the mistery is still complete.

@+P

[ionia]

I doubt if the large number dismissed refers to Howe's victory. A quick look at all the First Lieutenants shows that none of them were struck off in 1795.

It sounds more like an administrative clearing of the decks after a long period of peace - perhaps these officers had not been heard from for a long time/could not be found.
_________________
Ionia

[PMarione]

You may be right.
I have only found examples in the 1840s as before that there was no list of deceased officers before (at least I didn't find one).
In the examples I found there are "not heard since...", "not having drawn half-pay since..." and some "name removed from the List, being in Holy Orders, but in receipt of half-pay".

What is still bothering me is the "dismissed", wouldn't they have written "removed"?

Problem is that's just a table with no other explanation. Maybe I can try to find the parlementiary query which originated the table. But it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

@+P