Hello Jo, Yes, prior to 1853, whilst most seamen would probably try to stay with what they were familiar with, either the Royal Navy or the Merchant Service, from service records I've seen for men who claimed pensions having managed to remain in the R.N. for as many as 20 or more years. But there were times when no ships were being commissioned into the R.N., or those that were being commissioned may have been commanded by officers with reputations for unnecessary floggings, a result of which was that it often took many months to recruit crews for some of the bigger ships, so rather than hang around the dockyard gates men would seek out merchant vessels. Similarly, when economic times were hard and there was a downturn in trade, and the demand for Merchant Seamen declined, they would often try their luck with the R.N., but inevitably, as noted in the next paragraph the greater demands on the Admiralty and Merchant Ship owners often coincided After 1853, with the onset of the Crimea War, it was a case of old habits died hard, and with a high demand for good quality merchant shipping from both the French and the British governments, for long distance hauls, and to a lesser degree by the Turkish and Sardinian governments, and the support for British and French forces in the Baltic, the wages for merchant seamen are said to have increased to attract those who may have been thinking about joining the R.N. and signing-on with a guarantee of qualifying for a pension, especially if they had already spent time in the Service, so that by the end of the decade, circa 1859, the Admiralty was having to offer bounties to attract men into the service when demand for seamen was strong with the Second China War grinding longer than expected, and things not going as well as expected, with the demand for army personnel in India, during the Mutiny. However, having signed on and collected their bounties, many hundreds, if not thousands of former civilians deserted the R.N., given the opportunity, and found their way back on to the streets again. It probably took another 15-20 years or more before the effects of introducing the Continuous Service engagement in 1853 began to work as desired, and even Circa 1886 the Admiralty was tinkering with the engagement structure, extending the pensionable engagement from 20 to 22 years, with a view to reducing costs. And poor conditions in the service were still causing problems in the early 1900s,when the Admiralty introduced the Short Service engagement of 5 years in the service and 7 in the reserve, which seems to have relieved the situation a little, but the number of deserters was still high, running at about 1,700-1,800 a year, but with the increased technology, particularly where gunnery was concerned, the opportunity for seamen to work in either Service declined, and started to disappear by about the 1870s, at about the same time that the Navy's policy of recruiting boy seamen into the service in the 1850s-60s really started to pay-off, as they were more inclined to remain in the service until they reached pensionable age. I'm not sure how tickets were used in the Merchant Service, but I doubt that it was much different to the Royal Navy, they were issued to those taking leave, or being transferred from one ship to another, etc., and it was the man's authority for being where he was : a copy of the ticket also being sent to the receiving ship, so that they knew you were on your way and when you were supposed to join. So perhaps received meant that he had arrived ? In addition, some RN tickets were often noted with pay details, say if you were lent to another ship temporarily or sent into hospital, so that they could pay you without putting your account in debt. If, as you suggest you could send copies, or put them on-line, I should be interested in attempting to make some sense of them. Regards Paul PS apologies if I wandered on a little too long with the topic of engagements. On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:44:51 +0000, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: >OK, I'm puzzled. I should probably look into this more before posting >but everyone on this list is so knowledgable! > >I'm back to Daniel Quinn. Enlisted on board HMS Fair Rosamond as a Boy >in 1825. With Lauretta Harris's I've managed to find quite a lot of his >service but there are gaps because he is known to have used at least one >alias. > >On FindMyPast today I found a ticket for him which I thought meant he >had been in the merchant navy, but it mentions HMS Acorn and was >actually issued aboard HMS Acorn while it was stationed on the River >Uruguay (26th August 1846). I know that Continuous Service didn't start >till around 1853. Were the two services interchangeable or was this >just another way of recording sailors? > >I also can't make out the word in the very last 'Remarks' column. It >looks like 'Received', but received what? > >There are also some hieroglyphics in his last entry on the record in >1848. It looks like 'Paid off 8/11/ ??' but this doesn't tie up with >other records (from memory, the ship's muster book), which had him being >discharged from HSM Acorn on 26th March 1848. > >Anyone care to have a stab at it if I were to forward it by e-mail? I >can read the rest of it. Interestingly, the fact that he is usually >resident in Lambeth when not working gives me a clue as to where and >when he died! > >Thanks in advance. > > >Jo > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message 50° 33' N, 2° 26' W http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval.html

This article is not relevant to me, but SO interesting - as usual. Thanks so much, Paul. Judith Williams, East Gippsland, Victoria, Australia. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Paul Benyon <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello Jo, > > Yes, prior to 1853, whilst most seamen would probably try to stay with > what they were familiar with, either the Royal Navy or the Merchant > Service, from service records I've seen for men who claimed pensions > having managed to remain in the R.N. for as many as 20 or more years. > > But there were times when no ships were being commissioned into the > R.N., or those that were being commissioned may have been commanded by > officers with reputations for unnecessary floggings, a result of which > was that it often took many months to recruit crews for some of the > bigger ships, so rather than hang around the dockyard gates men would > seek out merchant vessels. > > Similarly, when economic times were hard and there was a downturn in > trade, and the demand for Merchant Seamen declined, they would often > try their luck with the R.N., but inevitably, as noted in the next > paragraph the greater demands on the Admiralty and Merchant Ship > owners often coincided > > After 1853, with the onset of the Crimea War, it was a case of old > habits died hard, and with a high demand for good quality merchant > shipping from both the French and the British governments, for long > distance hauls, and to a lesser degree by the Turkish and Sardinian > governments, and the support for British and French forces in the > Baltic, the wages for merchant seamen are said to have increased to > attract those who may have been thinking about joining the R.N. and > signing-on with a guarantee of qualifying for a pension, especially if > they had already spent time in the Service, so that by the end of the > decade, circa 1859, the Admiralty was having to offer bounties to > attract men into the service when demand for seamen was strong with > the Second China War grinding longer than expected, and things not > going as well as expected, with the demand for army personnel in > India, during the Mutiny. > > However, having signed on and collected their bounties, many hundreds, > if not thousands of former civilians deserted the R.N., given the > opportunity, and found their way back on to the streets again. It > probably took another 15-20 years or more before the effects of > introducing the Continuous Service engagement in 1853 began to work as > desired, and even Circa 1886 the Admiralty was tinkering with the > engagement structure, extending the pensionable engagement from 20 to > 22 years, with a view to reducing costs. > > And poor conditions in the service were still causing problems in the > early 1900s,when the Admiralty introduced the Short Service engagement > of 5 years in the service and 7 in the reserve, which seems to have > relieved the situation a little, but the number of deserters was still > high, running at about 1,700-1,800 a year, but with the increased > technology, particularly where gunnery was concerned, the opportunity > for seamen to work in either Service declined, and started to > disappear by about the 1870s, at about the same time that the Navy's > policy of recruiting boy seamen into the service in the 1850s-60s > really started to pay-off, as they were more inclined to remain in the > service until they reached pensionable age. > > I'm not sure how tickets were used in the Merchant Service, but I > doubt that it was much different to the Royal Navy, they were issued > to those taking leave, or being transferred from one ship to another, > etc., and it was the man's authority for being where he was : a copy > of the ticket also being sent to the receiving ship, so that they knew > you were on your way and when you were supposed to join. So perhaps > received meant that he had arrived ? > > In addition, some RN tickets were often noted with pay details, say if > you were lent to another ship temporarily or sent into hospital, so > that they could pay you without putting your account in debt. > > If, as you suggest you could send copies, or put them on-line, I > should be interested in attempting to make some sense of them. > > Regards > > Paul > PS apologies if I wandered on a little too long with the topic of > engagements. > > On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:44:51 +0000, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: > > >OK, I'm puzzled. I should probably look into this more before posting > >but everyone on this list is so knowledgable! > > > >I'm back to Daniel Quinn. Enlisted on board HMS Fair Rosamond as a Boy > >in 1825. With Lauretta Harris's I've managed to find quite a lot of his > >service but there are gaps because he is known to have used at least one > >alias. > > > >On FindMyPast today I found a ticket for him which I thought meant he > >had been in the merchant navy, but it mentions HMS Acorn and was > >actually issued aboard HMS Acorn while it was stationed on the River > >Uruguay (26th August 1846). I know that Continuous Service didn't start > >till around 1853. Were the two services interchangeable or was this > >just another way of recording sailors? > > > >I also can't make out the word in the very last 'Remarks' column. It > >looks like 'Received', but received what? > > > >There are also some hieroglyphics in his last entry on the record in > >1848. It looks like 'Paid off 8/11/ ??' but this doesn't tie up with > >other records (from memory, the ship's muster book), which had him being > >discharged from HSM Acorn on 26th March 1848. > > > >Anyone care to have a stab at it if I were to forward it by e-mail? I > >can read the rest of it. Interestingly, the fact that he is usually > >resident in Lambeth when not working gives me a clue as to where and > >when he died! > > > >Thanks in advance. > > > > > >Jo > > > > > >------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > 50° 33' N, 2° 26' W > http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval.html > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >