Nelson & His World

The 18th century naval purser is often represented as a nefarious fellow, ever ready to engage in sharp practice to defraud the Admiralty and line his own pocket. I am sure I recall reading 'somewhere' that the purser didn't actually receive a salary but survived by legitimate commission on his stores. It must have been easy to be tempted into illegality in these circumstances. Can anyone expound further on the purser's position and earnings? What was his relationship to the Admiralty? If he was paid no salary, how could he be an employee or subject to naval discipline? What legitimate perquisites were his?

The Purser was appointed by warrant and thus was a Warrant Officer (of wardroom rank). He did receive a salary, but a low one, the same as the Boatswain and the Gunner, as he also received legitimate commission on various supplies. As he was responsible for stores of considerable value, on his appointment he first had to pay a substantial bond to the Admiralty (£1,200 for a First Rate ship down to £400 for a Sixth Rate). He did not receive his pay and commission, and could not have his bond returned, until his accounts were passed. He alsao received a bonus when his accounts were passed.

The purser could profit legitimately from the supply of provisions and necessaries. He was responsible for all victuals, but received an allowance of one eighth on victuals issued by weight, so that if he could keep wastage below one eighth he was in profit. Up to 1808 he personally provided the tobacco supplied to the ship's crew at fixed rates, and thus made a profit that depended on the price he had paid. Later he was paid a fixed commission on tobacco. He also received a commmission on slop-clothing issued to the men. He was also responsible for providing coal, firewood, turnery-ware, candles and lanterns, for which he was paid a fixed rate depending of the number of men in the ship and the number of days in the commission. Here he could profit both by buying at a low price and by minimising the stores issued.

I suspect that the average purser in Nelson's day was no more guilty of fraud than the average MP today.

It might be worth adding to Tony's comprehensive description of the position of the Purser that the possibilities of his making a loss, rather than a profit on his investments in clothing, consumables etc, were considerable. The problem of deterioration due to damp, weavils, rats, the presence of underweight casks of provisions and the possibility of incurring losses as a result of making tiny miscalculations in the quantities issued were ever present. Plenty of Pursers, rather than living to a comfortable old age as a result of fraud and short changing the crew, were either unlucky or not careful enough and went bankrupt.
Seamen - like sea officers in relation to their undeservedly cynical comments about the conduct of the Navy and Victualling Boards - of course loved to moan about conditions, food, baccy and those who supplied them!

Brian