Nelson & His World

Apologies for my recent flurry of questions! I hope they are not getting too boring!!

But here is another.

I think it is reasonably well known that when H.M.S. Victory returned to England after Trafalgar most of her crew transferred across to H.M.S. Ocean - a brand new ship which became Collingwood's flag-ship in April 1806.

I have always put pretty strong reliance on the book about H.M.S. Victory by Kenneth Fenwick. In there he quotes one of Victory's crew as saying that "there was much competition to obtain her crew, but the government would let nobody but Collingwood have them and that the men were drafted into H.M.S. Ocean".

The hole gist of this, including the word drafted, suggests to me that they had little choice in the matter.

However N.A.M. Rodger's book, Naval Records for Genealogists states:



Phew!

So could a Victory man have taken his pay on 15th January 1806 and walked off into the sunset?

Or were theory and practice quite different.

Would welcome any thoughts or comments on this.

MB

There was a phenomena known as 'turning over', when a large number of men were sent from one ship into another; it would depend on when they were actually paid. If still awaiting pay, the the Admiralty could order men to be sent to another ship - they would have to go, or be classed as 'Run' (deserted). I believe there were several cases of men being 'turned over' from ship to ship.

There was also competition for an established ships company - NAM Rodger wrote "...a settled, efficient ships company was a precious possession which both deserved and required careful nurture. A captain or admiral who had, or wished to have, a following had to look after his men. He had to spend time and trouble, and the time and trouble of his agent and banker, to get his men the prize money and back pay they were due". In return, men would follow a good commander.

I think there was also the fact that the country was still at war, until 1815 as it turned out, and the Admiralty would be extremely loth to loose a well-trained, co-ordinated crew especially from a ship like the Victory, when they might very well still be needed. (As we now know, there was plenty of naval activity after Trafalgar.) A trained crew were probably looked on like the proverbial hen's teeth!

Thanks fellas - fantastic!

It's the term "turned over" that I was missing.

I took a quick look to see how it is defined in Smyth's "Sailor's Word Book" and he says:



So it means that the term discharge in many, many instances did not mean that a man had got his freedom.

If Nicholas Rodger is also correct - then "turning over" may have been technically illegal. But so were many of the activities of the Press Gang, so I suppose it was a case of "needs must".

As Kester says the war effort continued and to have lost a crew like the Victory's would have been sheer folly.

MB

According to Peter Goodwin, during the first two weeks of January 1806, most of Victory's crew were transferred into the ships Ocean, Gleyheid, Bloodhound and Mariner, which was before the Victory was paid off on the 15th.

Any possible minor legal technicality was probably resolved by the fact that they were not discharged from the Victory until entered into another ship. And anyway, they could hardly claim protection against being pressed on the basis that they were not seamen!

I think I am gradually getting my head round this subject of wages and payment.

Tony - thanks for the information about Victory's crew being turned over to four different ships - I hadn't realised that.

I see now that the term "turning over" is actually quoted in the various statutes - so it must have had an official/legal status - despite Nicholas Rodger's comment.

As regards men leaving the Victory before the paying-off date - that initially seemed odd. But I note that the exact wording from the 1757 Act is:



You can infer from that that it would have been quite normal for the Clerk of the Cheque to go on board H.M.S. Ocean to pay the former Victory men.

I think!!??

MB