Nelson & His World

Of course most ordinary seamen would have had relatively few possessions on board ship.

My understanding is that spare clothing and such would have been bound tightly in their hammock when it was stowed. And I guess kept very close by them when they were sleeping.

Is that correct?

But what about money?

Technically some men could have had quite large sums of money. i.e. despite their reputations for blowing all their earnings on "wine and women" there were doubtless some seamen who were much more frugal.

Apart from when a ship was actually paid off I believe men were given earnings due shortly before their ship was about to sail - so even if they could have gone on shore no possibility of depositing money with a bank for safe keeping.

I wonder if it was possible to defer pay? - or would they have been forced/obliged to take all that was due to them?

Any facts or thoughts on this subject gratefully received.

Thanks

MB

Mark:

this is a story about a frugal petty officer rather than an ordinary seaman, but it does indicate that the lower orders sometimes kept their savings about their persons. I thought you might like it.

Admiral James, in his biography of Earl St Vincent, 'Old Oak' recounts an incident when Jervis saw a petty officer, a man he thought highly of, in tears. On enquiring what was wrong, he discovered that the man had, by an unfortunate accident, got wet and all the banknotes in his pocket were reduced to pulp - £70 in all.

Jervis upbraided him for his tears, and the poor man asked to be excused as the savings of a great many years had vanished and 'he could not help crying a little.'

Jervis replied, 'The loss of money, sir, can never be an excuse to a British seaman for tears. There could be but one - which will never happen to you, Roger Odell - disgrace.' He praised him at length for his courage in the past and concluded, 'To show that your Commander in Chief will never pass over merit...there is your money, sir,' giving him £70, 'but no more tears mind, no more tears, sir.'

I think it was possible to defer pay. I seem to recall reading of an instance recently - I'm racking my brains to remember where!

On the 'Power of Attorney' thread the specimen indicates that pay that was owing, (possibly deferred?), could be claimed for by the named persons in the seaman's declaration.

Crikey, what an odd story!

I assumed that many of these seamen spent most of their lives wet or at the very least damp.

But at least it confirms my notion that the men could sometimes have large amounts of money.

I had assumed that it would only be in coin - as bank notes did become legal tender until 1833 (?). These bank notes would have been "promises to pay" by private banks.

Anna - the power of attorney I think would more likely relate pay accrued than deferred - but could be both.

I am thinking now about the term "tickets" which I have read about and which were cashed at great discount by the money lenders in Portsmouth etc.

Now were those tickets given in lieu of pay - prize money - or what?

The pay of some of the men would of course be reduced by portions paid direct to their dependents and then of course there would be monies owed to the purser.

And generally wives were allowed on board whilst ships were in port so I imagine that they quite often went away with the balance of a man's pay.

I feel I am starting to understand bits and pieces of this subject - but there is a lot left to learn!!

So any further help much appreciated.

MB

I remember now. It is Brian Vale's 'A Frigate of King George' that describes the process of the Doris being paid off at the end of her commission in 1825. The seamen were paid in cash when a ship was paid off, but could remit part of their pay to be paid at a later date. (I think there were designated pay dates when they could claim it.)

Brian Vale provides a couple of pages of fascinating detail - well worth reading. Over £5,000 in cash was paid out on the quarterdeck, with most seamen receiving about £50 after deductions. Only a small minority had allotted regular pay to wives or dependents, so most took the whole amount in cash.

I believe tickets were given to men who were discharged sick, or for any other reason before a ship was paid off.

Thanks Tony

It's really interesting to try and bring these contemporary reports and descriptions together.

Imagine if every time a ship was paid off the men received up to £50 in cash. That would certainly run into thousands "in today's money". I should think these naval towns must have been a paradise for footpads, "muggers", and criminals of all descriptions.

I wonder if the newspapers of the time carried any reports of sailors being robbed of their earnings. I'll see if I can find anything.

MB

Here is an interesting bit from Boteler's 'Recollections' talking about the paying off of HMS 'Albion' in 1828

"Then from a string of men on one side of the quarter deck, three at a time are called into the cabin, and - 'William Smith, £34-6s-8d' repeated by the clerks from different books, to verify the correctness, followed by the same question
'William Smith, how will you have it, the whole now or part? Or you can remit the whole or part to any place in the kingdom, and you will find it ready for you, or anyone you name for you..'
'The whole lot, Sir, if you please!'
Hats are always put on the deck , and into it the money is placed, and which the man always stuffs, as it is, into his pocket...
Some would say 'Remit every farthing, Sir,' and swagger out of the cabin with a defiant air, probably with his pockets turned inside out, knowing whom he was about to face; for there on the gangway waited the bumboat women who attended the ship with their account books, eagerly watching the men as they emerged from the cabin..The men would often open 'You cheated me last paying off. I am even with you this time my lady'; a number of boats were in waiting, many with persons ready to pounce on the defaulter as he left the ship."

Brian

Brian

Thank you so much for that!

I have this pretty much clear in my mind now.

I always wondered what jeopardy a man would be in if he was paid off and then had to travel maybe hundreds of miles to his home town carrying the equivalent of thousands of pounds in cash.

Now I understand that the opportunity was there (even if many chose not to use it) to have the money remitted direct to his home town.

At least if he chose to take it all in cash, and then got robbed, he had only himself to blame!!

I imagine that it would have been collectable at a Post Office which I believe was the system when a man alloted a monthly amount to be paid to his dependents.

It could be that both these systems were introduced at the same time? I'm thinking that that might have been some time in the 1790's unless anyone knows any different.

Thanks again - what a mine of information we have on here!!

MB

The 1821 'Act for making further regulations in respect to the payment by remittance bill of the wages of petty officers, seamen, and marines, in the royal navy,...' allowed a seaman to remit his wages to himself while serving or when paid off. Prior to that he could remit part of his wages to his family while serving, but it seems it was unclear whether he could remit wages to himself, either while serving or when paid off. I don't know what the practice was.

It seems the Post Office was not involved, but that the remittance bills were paid out by a revenue officer or a clerk to the treasurer of the navy. A seaman could pick the one closest to his home. There are some details here, including the form of the remittance bill.

Tony

Wow - that's very interesting. Back then they seemed to require Acts of Parliament for fairly mundane issues. But it is great when they specify the design of documents to be used. It really brings the thing alive.

I had wondered how on earth people would prove who they were when picking up remitted wages.

I see now that 2 copies of the advice would be completed - one being sent to the collection point and one given to the collector.

When the 2 documents were matched the money would be released.

QED!!

I am especially interested that 3 other earlier Acts of Parliament are referenced being 31G2c10/32G3c33/32G3c67.

These come from roughly the years 1758 and 1792.

As soon as possible I will take a look at what was in them and see if it throws any further light on the subject.

Thanks again for putting me on the right road.

MB

I managed to take a quick look at those earlier Statutes - actually from 1757 and 1792.

It looks as if the Seven Years War must have given the government a wake-up call regarding various administrative deficencies and so they came up with this first Act of Parliament:

"An Act for the Encouragement of Seamen employed in the Royal Navy; and for establishing a regular Method for the punctual, frequent and certain Payment of their Wages; and for enabling them more easily and readily to remit the same for their Wives and Families; and for preventing Frauds and Abuses attending such Payments."

By the time the 1792 Act was introduced all or part of a seaman's pay could be remitted to his Wife, Father, Mother, Grandfather, Grandmother, Brother or Sister.

As soon as time allows I will go through the Acts in more detail and report back with any items of interest.

MB

I would like to come back to the other part of the question Mark asked a year ago:
In a recent curator’s report to the SNR on HMS Victory, Peter Goodwin said: I’m not sure why, but I had always imagined that chests were only used by officers (including warrant and petty officers). This suggests otherwise, but there must have been plenty of seamen who didn’t have chests, so what did they sit on?

I think I have also read somewhere that seamen might keep belongings in bags suspended from the beams.

Can anyone provide any more information on this?

As far as I know, men did have access to some form of personal store. The chests seem an obvious solution and the men of each mess might not be able to afford their own and share it with their comrades. Further, there are stories of dead men's belongings being sold at the mast head (See the biographies of Jacob Nagle and Jon Nichol) to provide an additional income for their families. Jon Nichol, if I remember correctly, fought a boy in London (when he was also a young boy) for a dead monkey which he skinned and sold on board although he does not mention to whom.

The NMM has an enormous collection of miniatures, drawings, diaries, and personal belongings of seamen.

As to the dampness and the money, William Dampier kept his journals around the world dry by sealing them in a hollowed out log with two plugs sealed with wax.

The story about John Jervis giving the sailors funds appears to be true. I wrote the Wikipedia article on Jervis and there is more than one biography that mentions the tale.

Ian