Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Voyage of the ship LYON OF DUBLIN, 1700 - Impressment
55 views
Skip to first unread message
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 16, 2012, 2:17:53 PM9/16/12
to
Some of you may remember a series of prior posts from me concerning this
ship, which carried my ancestor, a private in the English army, from
Ireland to New York in 1700. I now know that the voyage took some 18
months and went Dublin - Waterford - New York - Antigua - Kinsale (?? -
not clear) - London. After (and perhaps including) New York, it was a
commercial trading venture.
One set of documents indicated that the captain and crew were never
paid, and brought suit against the ship and its owner(s) in the High
Court of Admiralty. My researcher in London has now found 68 pages of
what appear to be the financial accounts supporting that lawsuit.
Fascinating material, which I expect will lead to a series of questions
I'll post here. Here's the first.
Much of the material is a series of accounts for each crewman, setting
forth amounts paid for or on behalf of that crewman, as well as how much
he earned as wages during the voyage. They also indicate which of them
died or jumped ship.
Several of the accounts list expenditures as "money paid for dyat
pretending to save you from the press" or for "diat pretending to keep
you from being prest." I suspect that "dyat" or "diat" = "diet," as in
"meals," but this is not definite.
The amounts listed typically are 4/4, or four shillings and four pence
(if I'm saying that correctly - the amounts themselves are clear). Most
seem to be in New York, although some could be Dublin or Antigua.
So the suggestion seems to be that money was spent on meals in an effort
to prevent a crewman from being impressed into the Royal Navy. But does
this makes sense? I understand the press was in use in 1700, although I
did not think there was much of it in New York until much later. Also,
in 1700 England was at peace. (That is the very reason my ancestor was
sent to New York -- the army in England and Ireland was being reduced in
size, so they sent soldiers being eliminated there to reinforce
independent companies in New York.)
More important: how does buying meals for someone (not necessarily the
seaman, I can't tell from the entries) and "pretending" (does that word
mean something else here?) save a man from the press?
Only thing I can think of is that the man in question, and perhaps
others, put on a show over dinner to portray the seaman as a landsman or
aristocrat and therefore exempt from the press. But is this even
plausible? Or have I missed the boat entirely?
Any ideas out there?
Dexter Kenfield
ship, which carried my ancestor, a private in the English army, from
Ireland to New York in 1700. I now know that the voyage took some 18
months and went Dublin - Waterford - New York - Antigua - Kinsale (?? -
not clear) - London. After (and perhaps including) New York, it was a
commercial trading venture.
One set of documents indicated that the captain and crew were never
paid, and brought suit against the ship and its owner(s) in the High
Court of Admiralty. My researcher in London has now found 68 pages of
what appear to be the financial accounts supporting that lawsuit.
Fascinating material, which I expect will lead to a series of questions
I'll post here. Here's the first.
Much of the material is a series of accounts for each crewman, setting
forth amounts paid for or on behalf of that crewman, as well as how much
he earned as wages during the voyage. They also indicate which of them
died or jumped ship.
Several of the accounts list expenditures as "money paid for dyat
pretending to save you from the press" or for "diat pretending to keep
you from being prest." I suspect that "dyat" or "diat" = "diet," as in
"meals," but this is not definite.
The amounts listed typically are 4/4, or four shillings and four pence
(if I'm saying that correctly - the amounts themselves are clear). Most
seem to be in New York, although some could be Dublin or Antigua.
So the suggestion seems to be that money was spent on meals in an effort
to prevent a crewman from being impressed into the Royal Navy. But does
this makes sense? I understand the press was in use in 1700, although I
did not think there was much of it in New York until much later. Also,
in 1700 England was at peace. (That is the very reason my ancestor was
sent to New York -- the army in England and Ireland was being reduced in
size, so they sent soldiers being eliminated there to reinforce
independent companies in New York.)
More important: how does buying meals for someone (not necessarily the
seaman, I can't tell from the entries) and "pretending" (does that word
mean something else here?) save a man from the press?
Only thing I can think of is that the man in question, and perhaps
others, put on a show over dinner to portray the seaman as a landsman or
aristocrat and therefore exempt from the press. But is this even
plausible? Or have I missed the boat entirely?
Any ideas out there?
Dexter Kenfield
Matt Tompkins
Sep 16, 2012, 6:02:18 PM9/16/12
to
Scottish legal word meaning a court hearing. Since 'pretend' then
meant 'claim' rather than 'feign something untrue', the entries may
relate to the expense of a court hearing to claim that a sailor should
not be impressed.
Matt Tompkins
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 16, 2012, 8:14:24 PM9/16/12
to Matt Tompkins
Fascinating suggestion. I hadn't thought of "pretender to the throne"
and like uses.
The captain was William Burnside. Possibly Scottish - a William Burnside
was licensed as a Scottish privateer a few years earlier -- and it looks
like the LYON was armed; it did have a "gunner" on this voyage -- but
it's not definite that it's the same guy.
I've never run across that sort of court event in New York, but then
again, I've never looked specifically for it.
This could lead me into a whole new line of research. Talk about going
down a rabbit hole.......
I'll lift a glass of mobey to you. Another word I learned from these
records.
Dexter
and like uses.
The captain was William Burnside. Possibly Scottish - a William Burnside
was licensed as a Scottish privateer a few years earlier -- and it looks
like the LYON was armed; it did have a "gunner" on this voyage -- but
it's not definite that it's the same guy.
I've never run across that sort of court event in New York, but then
again, I've never looked specifically for it.
This could lead me into a whole new line of research. Talk about going
down a rabbit hole.......
I'll lift a glass of mobey to you. Another word I learned from these
records.
Dexter
Graeme Wall
Sep 17, 2012, 2:58:01 AM9/17/12
to
On 17/09/2012 01:14, Dexter Kenfield wrote:
> The captain was William Burnside. Possibly Scottish - a William Burnside
> was licensed as a Scottish privateer a few years earlier -- and it looks
> like the LYON was armed; it did have a "gunner" on this voyage -- but
> it's not definite that it's the same guy.
Most merchant ships carried guns in those days as protection from
> The captain was William Burnside. Possibly Scottish - a William Burnside
> was licensed as a Scottish privateer a few years earlier -- and it looks
> like the LYON was armed; it did have a "gunner" on this voyage -- but
> it's not definite that it's the same guy.
pirates and privateers.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 17, 2012, 9:25:34 AM9/17/12
to Graeme Wall
Exactly. So it's relevant but not dispositive. Could be, but might not
be. Burnside is not a rare name, nor is LYON. Ship name sometimes
appears as LYON, sometimes as LYON OF DUBLIN, sometimes as LION.
So I've got a whole lot of "maybes." Still grasping at straws, which is
part of why I look at aspects that are not directly "genealogical."
Dexter
be. Burnside is not a rare name, nor is LYON. Ship name sometimes
appears as LYON, sometimes as LYON OF DUBLIN, sometimes as LION.
So I've got a whole lot of "maybes." Still grasping at straws, which is
part of why I look at aspects that are not directly "genealogical."
Dexter
CWatters
Sep 17, 2012, 3:37:34 PM9/17/12
to
I wondered if masters kept or allowed sailors to remain on board
sometimes to avoid the risk of them being pressed while onshore. Perhaps
this money was actually for board and lodgings when they would normally
be ashore.
sometimes to avoid the risk of them being pressed while onshore. Perhaps
this money was actually for board and lodgings when they would normally
be ashore.
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 17, 2012, 4:25:11 PM9/17/12
to CWatters
Possible, I suppose. I understand ships sometimes had secret
compartments where important crewmen could hide if they were stopped at
sea by a naval ship intent on impressment. But somehow it just doesn't
seem to ring true here. Maybe I've just seen too many entries for the
ship buying beefe, cabbidges, fowls, shugger, pease, roots, rumm, sider
and other provisions.
I've now posted a scan of the account for one crewman showing an example
of the entries in question. This man died in Antigua. The 11/6/0 amount
is his total wages earned, calculated on another page.
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonCrewAccountsDyatSavePress.jpg
I've also learned that there is some legal literature relating to the
use of habeas corpus proceedings to challenge impressment. I'm looking
into that. Gives some additional credence to Matt Tompkins' suggestion.
Dexter
compartments where important crewmen could hide if they were stopped at
sea by a naval ship intent on impressment. But somehow it just doesn't
seem to ring true here. Maybe I've just seen too many entries for the
ship buying beefe, cabbidges, fowls, shugger, pease, roots, rumm, sider
and other provisions.
I've now posted a scan of the account for one crewman showing an example
of the entries in question. This man died in Antigua. The 11/6/0 amount
is his total wages earned, calculated on another page.
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonCrewAccountsDyatSavePress.jpg
I've also learned that there is some legal literature relating to the
use of habeas corpus proceedings to challenge impressment. I'm looking
into that. Gives some additional credence to Matt Tompkins' suggestion.
Dexter
paul c
Sep 17, 2012, 11:05:29 PM9/17/12
to
On 16/09/2012 3:02 PM, Matt Tompkins wrote:
...
Makes sense. Also, in a number of countries it was an elected or
appointed council, legislature or convention, usually called to make a
decision of some sort. A famous one was the Diet of Worms in 1521.
Worms was the place, not the food! Ha, ha, sorry, couldn't resist.
I suppose the modern meal usage might have something to do with a kind
of 'regime', not that different in effect from the decrees of olden diets.
...
>
> Do I remember that the Lyon's captain was Scottish? Diet is a
> Scottish legal word meaning a court hearing. Since 'pretend' then
> meant 'claim' rather than 'feign something untrue', the entries may
> relate to the expense of a court hearing to claim that a sailor should
> not be impressed.
>
> Matt Tompkins
...
> Do I remember that the Lyon's captain was Scottish? Diet is a
> Scottish legal word meaning a court hearing. Since 'pretend' then
> meant 'claim' rather than 'feign something untrue', the entries may
> relate to the expense of a court hearing to claim that a sailor should
> not be impressed.
>
> Matt Tompkins
Makes sense. Also, in a number of countries it was an elected or
appointed council, legislature or convention, usually called to make a
decision of some sort. A famous one was the Diet of Worms in 1521.
Worms was the place, not the food! Ha, ha, sorry, couldn't resist.
I suppose the modern meal usage might have something to do with a kind
of 'regime', not that different in effect from the decrees of olden diets.
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 18, 2012, 10:52:14 AM9/18/12
to CWatters
Continuing to review the documents, I have found two more instances of
"diat."
For one crewman, an entry reads, "paid for his dyat & lodging &
commondation when sick ashor." Next entry is for "the docter for
medicins when sick as precsipt." This man died in Antigua.
For another crewman, an entry reads, "for your diat & attendance on
shore when sick ashore as precsipt." Again, the next entry is for the
doctor. This man survived and returned to England with the ship, where
he was pressed in the Downs.
Clearly both instances use "diat" in the sense of "meals." Arguably this
supports what I'll call the Kenfield/Waters theory on the "pretending"
entries. But the word certainly can carry two meanings, so the Tompkins
theory remains viable.
At this point, I'm still at sea. But leaning toward Tompkins pending
further legal research.
Dexter
"diat."
For one crewman, an entry reads, "paid for his dyat & lodging &
commondation when sick ashor." Next entry is for "the docter for
medicins when sick as precsipt." This man died in Antigua.
For another crewman, an entry reads, "for your diat & attendance on
shore when sick ashore as precsipt." Again, the next entry is for the
doctor. This man survived and returned to England with the ship, where
he was pressed in the Downs.
Clearly both instances use "diat" in the sense of "meals." Arguably this
supports what I'll call the Kenfield/Waters theory on the "pretending"
entries. But the word certainly can carry two meanings, so the Tompkins
theory remains viable.
At this point, I'm still at sea. But leaning toward Tompkins pending
further legal research.
Dexter
Matt Tompkins
Sep 18, 2012, 11:59:23 AM9/18/12
to
On Sep 18, 3:52 pm, Dexter Kenfield <dkenfi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Continuing to review the documents, I have found two more instances of
> "diat."
>
> For one crewman, an entry reads, "paid for his dyat & lodging &
> commondation when sick ashor." Next entry is for "the docter for
> medicins when sick as precsipt." This man died in Antigua.
>
> For another crewman, an entry reads, "for your diat & attendance on
> shore when sick ashore as precsipt." Again, the next entry is for the
> doctor. This man survived and returned to England with the ship, where
> he was pressed in the Downs.
>
> Clearly both instances use "diat" in the sense of "meals." Arguably this
> supports what I'll call the Kenfield/Waters theory on the "pretending"
> entries. But the word certainly can carry two meanings, so the Tompkins
> theory remains viable.
>
> At this point, I'm still at sea. But leaning toward Tompkins pending
> further legal research.
>
> Dexter
Mulling it over since my first reply, it occurred to me that another
> Continuing to review the documents, I have found two more instances of
> "diat."
>
> For one crewman, an entry reads, "paid for his dyat & lodging &
> commondation when sick ashor." Next entry is for "the docter for
> medicins when sick as precsipt." This man died in Antigua.
>
> For another crewman, an entry reads, "for your diat & attendance on
> shore when sick ashore as precsipt." Again, the next entry is for the
> doctor. This man survived and returned to England with the ship, where
> he was pressed in the Downs.
>
> Clearly both instances use "diat" in the sense of "meals." Arguably this
> supports what I'll call the Kenfield/Waters theory on the "pretending"
> entries. But the word certainly can carry two meanings, so the Tompkins
> theory remains viable.
>
> At this point, I'm still at sea. But leaning toward Tompkins pending
> further legal research.
>
> Dexter
possible interpretation of "money paid for dyat pretending to save you
from the press" or for "diat pretending to keep you from being prest"
could be:
'money paid for food [consumed by me/you/us while away from the ship]
attempting to save you from the press'.
Alternatively, I notice that the OED says 'diet' was also an obsolete,
chiefly Scottish, term meaning "A day's journey; ‘an excursion, a
journey’." Among the examples given is: 'Twa or thrie gude men of the
Gilde sall travell with him for twa dyets' (1609, J. Skene tr. Regiam
Majestatem 143). In which case the meaning might be 'money paid for
the journey [when] attempting to save you from the press'.
But these two new entries where 'diet' clearly means food incline me
to the 'food consumed while attempting to save you from the press'
idea.
Matt Tompkins
Charles Ellson
Sep 18, 2012, 1:00:23 PM9/18/12
to
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:05:29 -0700, paul c <toledob...@oohay.ac>
wrote:
>On 16/09/2012 3:02 PM, Matt Tompkins wrote:
>...
>>
>> Do I remember that the Lyon's captain was Scottish? Diet is a
>> Scottish legal word meaning a court hearing. Since 'pretend' then
>> meant 'claim' rather than 'feign something untrue', the entries may
>> relate to the expense of a court hearing to claim that a sailor should
>> not be impressed.
>>
>> Matt Tompkins
>...
>
>Makes sense. Also, in a number of countries it was an elected or
>appointed council, legislature or convention, usually called to make a
>decision of some sort.
>
It is still current usage in Scotland, usually publicised in reports
of a "pleading diet" for a summary trial, e.g. :-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguidesc/criminal.htm
wrote:
>On 16/09/2012 3:02 PM, Matt Tompkins wrote:
>...
>>
>> Do I remember that the Lyon's captain was Scottish? Diet is a
>> Scottish legal word meaning a court hearing. Since 'pretend' then
>> meant 'claim' rather than 'feign something untrue', the entries may
>> relate to the expense of a court hearing to claim that a sailor should
>> not be impressed.
>>
>> Matt Tompkins
>...
>
>Makes sense. Also, in a number of countries it was an elected or
>appointed council, legislature or convention, usually called to make a
>decision of some sort.
>
of a "pleading diet" for a summary trial, e.g. :-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguidesc/criminal.htm
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 18, 2012, 3:52:23 PM9/18/12
to Matt Tompkins
As I continue working slowly through the documents -- now on pages 47-60
of 68 -- I find another, partly duplicative set of crewman accounts.
Written by a different person - different spellings, different hand.
In the first set, an entry for Robert Lambert read: "money paid for dyat
pretending to save you from the press."
In the second set, an entry for the same man says: "Paid for your diet
on shore to save from the press." In both cases, the amount is the same,
4/4.
The same pairing occurs for another crewman.
I also see entries for other men that simply say, "Paid for diet on
shore" with no mention of the press.
This certainly points toward diet = meals, albeit not definite. But it's
still not at all clear how paying for a man's food on shore can help
save him from the press. And why the amount is the same for each man.
I doubt it helps on this question, but I have found some men actually
impressed at Antigua and the Downs, but none in New York. Haven't yet
correlated those with the "diat" entries.
Dexter
of 68 -- I find another, partly duplicative set of crewman accounts.
Written by a different person - different spellings, different hand.
In the first set, an entry for Robert Lambert read: "money paid for dyat
pretending to save you from the press."
In the second set, an entry for the same man says: "Paid for your diet
on shore to save from the press." In both cases, the amount is the same,
4/4.
The same pairing occurs for another crewman.
I also see entries for other men that simply say, "Paid for diet on
shore" with no mention of the press.
This certainly points toward diet = meals, albeit not definite. But it's
still not at all clear how paying for a man's food on shore can help
save him from the press. And why the amount is the same for each man.
I doubt it helps on this question, but I have found some men actually
impressed at Antigua and the Downs, but none in New York. Haven't yet
correlated those with the "diat" entries.
Dexter
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 18, 2012, 5:33:10 PM9/18/12
to
To recap, this voyage went Ireland - New York - Antigua - Kinsale (?) -
Falmouth (added since my initial posting) - London. Two crewmen were
impressed at Antigua.
For both, the financial accounts indicate by whom they were impressed. A
composite scan, with portions of three separate pages, is here:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinPressedAntigua.tif
Note that this is a TIFF file. There is also a GIF:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinPressedAntigua.gif
I read the Sammuel Litlar entry as "Prest by Capt. Dealy Comander of the
Boat Carroll press before the 17 April." The April (1701) date places it
at Antigua. Litlar separately has one of the entries discussed
elsewhere, "pd money pretending to keep you from the press," 4/4. That
entry apparently is dated the prior December 7, which if correct would
place it at New York, but see below.
I read the first Michael Beaker entry as "Prest at Antego on bord the
Boat Carroll Capt. Dealy." No date is given. Beaker does not have an
entry about keeping him from the press. He does, however, have the
second entry shown in the scan, which I read as "Pd. Capt. D--ly being
the ballance of your full wagis due to you," 5/13/10. The visible date
of August 24 does not correspond well. He was paid for 8 months and 25
days starting July 1700, which suggests impressment c. April. The LYON
left Antigua 27 August.
For this and other reasons, I do not think the December and August dates
can be taken at face value. The "before April 17" press date, however,
seems reliable.
SO: Is there any information out there about this Capt. Dealy or his
"boat" the CARROLL (spelling?)? I know the typical Navy Lists were not
published at that time.
And: What do people make of the payment to Capt. D--ly? Is it the same
person? Were payments of wages sometimes made to captains of Royal Navy
ships that impressed seamen? I can readily imagine payment of earned
wages being made to the seaman himself, but I also imagine that could be
very hazardous to his health and well-being. Could Beaker have asked
Burnside to pay Dealy, who could hold the money safely for him?
Or is this some other person who for some reason was accepting payment
of Beaker's wages? There is no receipt for the money, as there is for a
number of other people who were paid at the end of the voyage, nor is
there any indication of who this other person might be. But payment to
someone else in August of an amount earned as of April could reconcile
the dates.
I'll be looking for further references in the rest of the documents, but
haven't found anything more yet on Beaker.
Possibly relevant to both threads is that I have found no impressments
at New York, but two at Antigua and at least eight at the Downs on the
ship's return. Perhaps court proceedings, fancy meals or some other
activity at New York was preventing impressments there. There were at
least two Royal Navy frigates in the New York area in this time frame.
Dexter Kenfield
Falmouth (added since my initial posting) - London. Two crewmen were
impressed at Antigua.
For both, the financial accounts indicate by whom they were impressed. A
composite scan, with portions of three separate pages, is here:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinPressedAntigua.tif
Note that this is a TIFF file. There is also a GIF:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinPressedAntigua.gif
I read the Sammuel Litlar entry as "Prest by Capt. Dealy Comander of the
Boat Carroll press before the 17 April." The April (1701) date places it
at Antigua. Litlar separately has one of the entries discussed
elsewhere, "pd money pretending to keep you from the press," 4/4. That
entry apparently is dated the prior December 7, which if correct would
place it at New York, but see below.
I read the first Michael Beaker entry as "Prest at Antego on bord the
Boat Carroll Capt. Dealy." No date is given. Beaker does not have an
entry about keeping him from the press. He does, however, have the
second entry shown in the scan, which I read as "Pd. Capt. D--ly being
the ballance of your full wagis due to you," 5/13/10. The visible date
of August 24 does not correspond well. He was paid for 8 months and 25
days starting July 1700, which suggests impressment c. April. The LYON
left Antigua 27 August.
For this and other reasons, I do not think the December and August dates
can be taken at face value. The "before April 17" press date, however,
seems reliable.
SO: Is there any information out there about this Capt. Dealy or his
"boat" the CARROLL (spelling?)? I know the typical Navy Lists were not
published at that time.
And: What do people make of the payment to Capt. D--ly? Is it the same
person? Were payments of wages sometimes made to captains of Royal Navy
ships that impressed seamen? I can readily imagine payment of earned
wages being made to the seaman himself, but I also imagine that could be
very hazardous to his health and well-being. Could Beaker have asked
Burnside to pay Dealy, who could hold the money safely for him?
Or is this some other person who for some reason was accepting payment
of Beaker's wages? There is no receipt for the money, as there is for a
number of other people who were paid at the end of the voyage, nor is
there any indication of who this other person might be. But payment to
someone else in August of an amount earned as of April could reconcile
the dates.
I'll be looking for further references in the rest of the documents, but
haven't found anything more yet on Beaker.
Possibly relevant to both threads is that I have found no impressments
at New York, but two at Antigua and at least eight at the Downs on the
ship's return. Perhaps court proceedings, fancy meals or some other
activity at New York was preventing impressments there. There were at
least two Royal Navy frigates in the New York area in this time frame.
Dexter Kenfield
Diogenes
Sep 18, 2012, 7:00:08 PM9/18/12
to
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:33:10 -0700, Dexter Kenfield
<dken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>To recap, this voyage went Ireland - New York - Antigua - Kinsale (?) -
>Falmouth (added since my initial posting) - London. Two crewmen were
>impressed at Antigua.
"Kinsale" quite possibly refers to the "Old Head of Kinsale" in County
<dken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>To recap, this voyage went Ireland - New York - Antigua - Kinsale (?) -
>Falmouth (added since my initial posting) - London. Two crewmen were
>impressed at Antigua.
Cork, Ireland, where a lighthouse was established in the 17th century.
The Lusitania went down just eleven miles off this point of land.
Diogenes
The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 18, 2012, 8:46:33 PM9/18/12
to Diogenes
The question mark wasn't because it seemed wrong, but simply because I'm
not sure that's what it says. It's a legibility question. I suspect
Kinsale because it does make much sense.
Dexter
not sure that's what it says. It's a legibility question. I suspect
Kinsale because it does make much sense.
Dexter
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 18, 2012, 8:48:48 PM9/18/12
to Richard van Schaik
The third one certainly could be Dawley. Not the first two, though. And
if it is Dawley, who is he, and why is he getting the money???
Dexter
On 9/18/2012 4:13 PM, Richard van Schaik wrote:
>
> Richard
>
if it is Dawley, who is he, and why is he getting the money???
Dexter
On 9/18/2012 4:13 PM, Richard van Schaik wrote:
> On 18-09-2012 23:33, Dexter Kenfield wrote:
>> To recap, this voyage went Ireland - New York - Antigua - Kinsale (?) -
>> Falmouth (added since my initial posting) - London. Two crewmen were
>> impressed at Antigua.
>>
>> For both, the financial accounts indicate by whom they were impressed. A
>> composite scan, with portions of three separate pages, is here:
>>
>> http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinPressedAntigua.tif
>>
>
> Clearly "Dawly"
>> To recap, this voyage went Ireland - New York - Antigua - Kinsale (?) -
>> Falmouth (added since my initial posting) - London. Two crewmen were
>> impressed at Antigua.
>>
>> For both, the financial accounts indicate by whom they were impressed. A
>> composite scan, with portions of three separate pages, is here:
>>
>> http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinPressedAntigua.tif
>>
>
>
> Richard
>
CWatters
Sep 19, 2012, 3:11:07 AM9/19/12
to
On 19/09/2012 01:48, Dexter Kenfield wrote:
> The third one certainly could be Dawley. Not the first two, though. And
> if it is Dawley, who is he, and why is he getting the money???
>
> Dexter
Witholding pay would be a way to stop pressed men running away?
> The third one certainly could be Dawley. Not the first two, though. And
> if it is Dawley, who is he, and why is he getting the money???
>
> Dexter
Graeme Wall
Sep 19, 2012, 3:53:59 AM9/19/12
to
Hence the term "paying off" at the end of a commission. Applied to
both the RN and merchant ships. The difference being that mnerchant
ships always paid off at the end of each voyage while RN ships paid off
at the end of each commission which could be a period of several years.
Anne Chambers
Sep 19, 2012, 5:17:18 AM9/19/12
to
Graeme Wall wrote:
>
> Seamen were only paid at the end of a voyage for precisely that reason. Hence the term "paying off" at the
> end of a commission. Applied to both the RN and merchant ships. The difference being that mnerchant ships
> always paid off at the end of each voyage while RN ships paid off at the end of each commission which could be
> a period of several years.
>
and RN seamen/marines were often paid several years after they had been discharged dead during a commission,
>
> Seamen were only paid at the end of a voyage for precisely that reason. Hence the term "paying off" at the
> end of a commission. Applied to both the RN and merchant ships. The difference being that mnerchant ships
> always paid off at the end of each voyage while RN ships paid off at the end of each commission which could be
> a period of several years.
>
with the proceeds going to their heirs.
--
Anne Chambers
South Australia
anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com
Dennis Ahern
Sep 19, 2012, 10:15:40 AM9/19/12
to
In soc.genealogy.britain Diogenes <cdh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: "Kinsale" quite possibly refers to the "Old Head of Kinsale" in County
sea. More likely the reference to Kinsale is to the harbor itself,
dominated by the massive Charlesfort with its British garrison.
-dja
: "Kinsale" quite possibly refers to the "Old Head of Kinsale" in County
: Cork, Ireland, where a lighthouse was established in the 17th century.
: The Lusitania went down just eleven miles off this point of land.
The Old Head of Kinsale is indeed a point of land jutting out into the
: The Lusitania went down just eleven miles off this point of land.
sea. More likely the reference to Kinsale is to the harbor itself,
dominated by the massive Charlesfort with its British garrison.
-dja
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 19, 2012, 11:05:27 AM9/19/12
to Graeme Wall
Exactly right. I do see a number of the crew were paid at the end of the
voyage. The accounts typically show on one page amounts expended for the
man (that's where we see the "pretending to save you from the press"
items), on a separate page what he earned (which shows his wage rate and
time in service, although both are sometimes hard to read and
understand), the net amount he is owed, and in some instances a note
signed by the man confirming receipt of payment.
Most of them received partial wage advances at the start of the voyage,
and it looks like some may have received extra money at the start, like
a kind of "signing bonus." Most were lent money during the trip, and had
various expenses paid for them.
Exceptions include men who jumped ship. They often have entries for
costs "looking for you when you rund," an entry like "rund Antego," and
an entry like "Cash you have lost by running away."
And of course those who died. For them we see entries for the cost of a
coffin (typically 15 shillings), funeral costs, and "liquors at his
funeral," which can be surprisingly large (or not so surprising, I suppose).
Maybe the most astonishing thing of all is that we even have records at
this level of detail for a voyage of this sort at such an early time.
Perhaps it's just a limitation in my own research background, but my
sense is that very little documentation of commercial shipping activity
survives from that era. One of my objectives in going through all this
detail is to try to discover who owned the ship, which could lead to
government records of the charter, which could lead to more information
about the soldiers being carried, which could lead to running down my
ancestor. Again, I'm grasping at straws. But that sort of record just
doesn't exist for 1700 -- ship and master registrations didn't start
until much later.
A few more questions are popping up as I work my way through the
remaining pages, and I may post scans of some additional pages just as
examples. It is truly fascinating material.
But in the current thread, we still have my original question: why is
this captain, whoever he is, receiving the man's wages from the LYON
either at the time or well after the time he was impressed? I'll take
another look through the documents and see if there are any hidden clues.
Dexter
voyage. The accounts typically show on one page amounts expended for the
man (that's where we see the "pretending to save you from the press"
items), on a separate page what he earned (which shows his wage rate and
time in service, although both are sometimes hard to read and
understand), the net amount he is owed, and in some instances a note
signed by the man confirming receipt of payment.
Most of them received partial wage advances at the start of the voyage,
and it looks like some may have received extra money at the start, like
a kind of "signing bonus." Most were lent money during the trip, and had
various expenses paid for them.
Exceptions include men who jumped ship. They often have entries for
costs "looking for you when you rund," an entry like "rund Antego," and
an entry like "Cash you have lost by running away."
And of course those who died. For them we see entries for the cost of a
coffin (typically 15 shillings), funeral costs, and "liquors at his
funeral," which can be surprisingly large (or not so surprising, I suppose).
Maybe the most astonishing thing of all is that we even have records at
this level of detail for a voyage of this sort at such an early time.
Perhaps it's just a limitation in my own research background, but my
sense is that very little documentation of commercial shipping activity
survives from that era. One of my objectives in going through all this
detail is to try to discover who owned the ship, which could lead to
government records of the charter, which could lead to more information
about the soldiers being carried, which could lead to running down my
ancestor. Again, I'm grasping at straws. But that sort of record just
doesn't exist for 1700 -- ship and master registrations didn't start
until much later.
A few more questions are popping up as I work my way through the
remaining pages, and I may post scans of some additional pages just as
examples. It is truly fascinating material.
But in the current thread, we still have my original question: why is
this captain, whoever he is, receiving the man's wages from the LYON
either at the time or well after the time he was impressed? I'll take
another look through the documents and see if there are any hidden clues.
Dexter
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 19, 2012, 4:40:23 PM9/19/12
to
In order to provide some context -- and also because it's just
interesting -- here are the various accounts touching on one seaman who
was impressed at Antigua. In reviewing these, believe I have solved the
"Who is this Captain, and why was he paid?" question, subject to
whatever comments any of you may have.
The man in question I first identified as Michael Peaker, which I later
changed to Michael Beaker. I have now changed it again to Michael Baker.
It appears that the third account, which I previously thought was for a
different man, in fact relates to him. Some of the numbers match up, and
there is no other Michael in the crew.
Two scans relate to this post, each combining portions of separate
pages. First are what I call the Crew Accounts. For each man, there is a
set of entries for expenses paid on his behalf, two or three men per
page. This was the source for the "pretending to save you" entries. For
each man, there is a corresponding set of entries on the succeeding page
setting forth his wages. These accounts also reference William Burnside,
master of the LYON.
These two sets of entries for Baker are the first two parts of the first
scan. It is easy to see how they relate, and how they balance. Note the
6 pence per month paid to support the Greenwich Hospital. This was a
mandatory withholding established by Parliament in 1696 to support the
seamen's hospital which was then being built; it opened in 1704.
But for some reason, there is an entirely separate set of crewman
accounts later in the documents, with some matching entries and some
differing. That account for Baker is the third portion of the first
scan. That set of accounts does not have the "wages" side. It does not
entirely match the first account; some speculation about this is offered
below. Here is the first scan:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonCrewAccountsMichaelBaker.gif
You will see that the second Baker account has some entries matching the
first, some different, and that it does not "foot" -- the total shown
does not match his total wages. I have been unable thus far to reconcile
them.
Note the last two entries in the second account. One for 3/11/6 was
carried to "the ships account," although I cannot quite read the full
entry. The second, for 1/6, was carried to Walter Bryce's account. That
was an eye-opener.
Near the end of the 68 pages of documents is one captioned "Voyage to
New York & Antago & London." This is the ship's account, seeming to show
the amount owed by each crewman. Right after it is one captioned,
"Walter Bryce his account Currant," also showing an amount -- sometimes
two -- for some crewmen. These two sets of records match the second
Baker account, but not the first. This scan has the portion of both
showing Baker:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonCrewAccountsMichaelBaker2.gif
SOME SPECULATION CONCERNING THESE RECORDS
First, as to the mysterious Captain who was paid. The first Baker
account clearly says Capt. Dealy. (But I am now very unsure of the name
of his ship.) A second man's entry which I posted might say Dawley. But
the second Baker account -- which I now realize is for the same man --
clearly says "To Capt. Daly by your [Baker's] order." So it seems Dealy
= Dawley = Daly, and Baker instructed Burnside to pay his net wages over
to Daly when he (Baker) was impressed.
A separate post from The Chief says this was required by law. I have not
noticed any similar entries for any of the other men who were impressed,
and I will look at their accounts in more detail.
Second, as to the differing accounts: The first Baker account mentions
Burnside. The second does not, but mentions Bryce. Bryce has his own
"account currant" page. So it would appear that Burnside and Bryce both
were lending money to sailors and paying items for them. Do the
corresponding entries mean that some items were double-paid? Or that
they each paid a share? Or that there was an appalling lack of
communication and coordination? These I have not yet figured out.
And third, who was Bryce? A clue is in another page. Burnside has
another set of entries, listing receipts during the voyage -- payments
received for carriage of freight, sales of surplus supplies and empty
"butts," etc. That page is captioned, "William Burnside to Mr. Walter
Bryce & Mr. Thomas Denham & Partners is Debtor." Bryce seemingly was on
the ship, as he apparently made payments and loans in New York and
Antigua. So the most plausible theory seems to be that Bryce was either
an owner, or the owners' agent, while Denham and his unnamed partners
were owners of the ship.
I'm open to comments and alternative explanations.
Dexter
interesting -- here are the various accounts touching on one seaman who
was impressed at Antigua. In reviewing these, believe I have solved the
"Who is this Captain, and why was he paid?" question, subject to
whatever comments any of you may have.
The man in question I first identified as Michael Peaker, which I later
changed to Michael Beaker. I have now changed it again to Michael Baker.
It appears that the third account, which I previously thought was for a
different man, in fact relates to him. Some of the numbers match up, and
there is no other Michael in the crew.
Two scans relate to this post, each combining portions of separate
pages. First are what I call the Crew Accounts. For each man, there is a
set of entries for expenses paid on his behalf, two or three men per
page. This was the source for the "pretending to save you" entries. For
each man, there is a corresponding set of entries on the succeeding page
setting forth his wages. These accounts also reference William Burnside,
master of the LYON.
These two sets of entries for Baker are the first two parts of the first
scan. It is easy to see how they relate, and how they balance. Note the
6 pence per month paid to support the Greenwich Hospital. This was a
mandatory withholding established by Parliament in 1696 to support the
seamen's hospital which was then being built; it opened in 1704.
But for some reason, there is an entirely separate set of crewman
accounts later in the documents, with some matching entries and some
differing. That account for Baker is the third portion of the first
scan. That set of accounts does not have the "wages" side. It does not
entirely match the first account; some speculation about this is offered
below. Here is the first scan:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonCrewAccountsMichaelBaker.gif
You will see that the second Baker account has some entries matching the
first, some different, and that it does not "foot" -- the total shown
does not match his total wages. I have been unable thus far to reconcile
them.
Note the last two entries in the second account. One for 3/11/6 was
carried to "the ships account," although I cannot quite read the full
entry. The second, for 1/6, was carried to Walter Bryce's account. That
was an eye-opener.
Near the end of the 68 pages of documents is one captioned "Voyage to
New York & Antago & London." This is the ship's account, seeming to show
the amount owed by each crewman. Right after it is one captioned,
"Walter Bryce his account Currant," also showing an amount -- sometimes
two -- for some crewmen. These two sets of records match the second
Baker account, but not the first. This scan has the portion of both
showing Baker:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonCrewAccountsMichaelBaker2.gif
SOME SPECULATION CONCERNING THESE RECORDS
First, as to the mysterious Captain who was paid. The first Baker
account clearly says Capt. Dealy. (But I am now very unsure of the name
of his ship.) A second man's entry which I posted might say Dawley. But
the second Baker account -- which I now realize is for the same man --
clearly says "To Capt. Daly by your [Baker's] order." So it seems Dealy
= Dawley = Daly, and Baker instructed Burnside to pay his net wages over
to Daly when he (Baker) was impressed.
A separate post from The Chief says this was required by law. I have not
noticed any similar entries for any of the other men who were impressed,
and I will look at their accounts in more detail.
Second, as to the differing accounts: The first Baker account mentions
Burnside. The second does not, but mentions Bryce. Bryce has his own
"account currant" page. So it would appear that Burnside and Bryce both
were lending money to sailors and paying items for them. Do the
corresponding entries mean that some items were double-paid? Or that
they each paid a share? Or that there was an appalling lack of
communication and coordination? These I have not yet figured out.
And third, who was Bryce? A clue is in another page. Burnside has
another set of entries, listing receipts during the voyage -- payments
received for carriage of freight, sales of surplus supplies and empty
"butts," etc. That page is captioned, "William Burnside to Mr. Walter
Bryce & Mr. Thomas Denham & Partners is Debtor." Bryce seemingly was on
the ship, as he apparently made payments and loans in New York and
Antigua. So the most plausible theory seems to be that Bryce was either
an owner, or the owners' agent, while Denham and his unnamed partners
were owners of the ship.
I'm open to comments and alternative explanations.
Dexter
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 19, 2012, 6:14:50 PM9/19/12
to The Chief
Not to beat a dead horse, but....
On 9/19/2012 2:45 PM, The Chief wrote:
>>
>>
>> How did sailors get paid if they were impressed on land mid-voyage? Hard
>>
>> to believe their accounts were carried until they got out of the Navy
>>
>> (alive or dead).
>
> But you as you have already pointed out, those out of their ship were trying to avoid impressment - this is a risk they ran if they took that route.
> Regards,
> The Chief
>
>>
Don't think that's necessarily true. It's pretty clear that these guys
spent time ashore while the ship was in New York, but the "voyage"
didn't end for pay purposes until their return to London.
Ship spent something like two months in New York and six in Antigua. I
can't believe the crew spent the entire time on board. And surely (I
realize the group hasn't seen these records) all the payments to the
"Widow Davis" in New York weren't aboard the ship. (I don't even want to
think about what that might imply.) And a lot of them borrowed money
there -- was it just to play cards with each other? Well, maybe some of
it was to buy tobacco and rum aboard ship, but those items seem to have
been logged separately.
There also are times they clearly were ashore on ship's business, like
trips to another part of Antigua to bring back water.
It just doesn't seem sensible to me that the only time (putting aside
when he's unemployed) a merchant sailor would be ashore is when he's
avoiding the press. (That's not to deny, of course, that when he's
ashore he does want to avoid them.)
Anyone else have any thoughts on this? If a sailor goes ashore during a
layover, is he automatically and unavoidably risking his pay if he gets
pressed?
At the end of the day, though, it is a minor point. I'm just trying to
understand the records I have to see if they tell me anything useful for
my hunt for one of the soldier passengers.
Dexter
On 9/19/2012 2:45 PM, The Chief wrote:
>>
>>
>> How did sailors get paid if they were impressed on land mid-voyage? Hard
>>
>> to believe their accounts were carried until they got out of the Navy
>>
>> (alive or dead).
>
> But you as you have already pointed out, those out of their ship were trying to avoid impressment - this is a risk they ran if they took that route.
> Regards,
> The Chief
>
>>
Don't think that's necessarily true. It's pretty clear that these guys
spent time ashore while the ship was in New York, but the "voyage"
didn't end for pay purposes until their return to London.
Ship spent something like two months in New York and six in Antigua. I
can't believe the crew spent the entire time on board. And surely (I
realize the group hasn't seen these records) all the payments to the
"Widow Davis" in New York weren't aboard the ship. (I don't even want to
think about what that might imply.) And a lot of them borrowed money
there -- was it just to play cards with each other? Well, maybe some of
it was to buy tobacco and rum aboard ship, but those items seem to have
been logged separately.
There also are times they clearly were ashore on ship's business, like
trips to another part of Antigua to bring back water.
It just doesn't seem sensible to me that the only time (putting aside
when he's unemployed) a merchant sailor would be ashore is when he's
avoiding the press. (That's not to deny, of course, that when he's
ashore he does want to avoid them.)
Anyone else have any thoughts on this? If a sailor goes ashore during a
layover, is he automatically and unavoidably risking his pay if he gets
pressed?
At the end of the day, though, it is a minor point. I'm just trying to
understand the records I have to see if they tell me anything useful for
my hunt for one of the soldier passengers.
Dexter
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 20, 2012, 12:19:28 PM9/20/12
to
I mentioned in another post that there is a page showing amounts
received by Burnside, and captioned, "William Burnside to Mr. Walter
Bryce & Mr. Thomas Denham & Partners is Debtor." Here is a scan of the
top portion of the page:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinBurnsideAccount.tif
I have two questions. First: The very first item probably refers to the
contract under which the soldiers were carried to New York, and perhaps
other cargo as well. It is, therefore, important in my search for my
ancestor, one of the soldiers.
I read it as "Cash received of Mr. Stephen Deleency Mr. Thomas Noell &
Mr. Walter ?ong Marchants in new york in part [??] of 350 [symbol??] :
the sums[?] of [150/0/0] ??? ??????? to Charter Party."
A "charter party" is a form of contract for hiring a ship. [Brackets]
and ?? indicate where I'm having trouble. Anyone want to take a stab at
reading this? The sense I take is this represents receipt of partial
payment of the total of 350 pounds called for under the charter party.
Sound right?
Second: Burnside mentions "emtey butts," "hhds" which I take to mean
"hogsheads," and "barrills." Some research indicates these are
traditional units of measure for wine, but I suspect he is referring
instead to various sizes of casks used for storing food and drink. A
butt would be larger than a hogshead which would be larger than a barrill.
Does this sound right? Or is he more likely using them all simply as
loose terms for any kind of cask or barrel? Like spelling, language
usage sometimes seems very loose in those days. In other pages, he
refers to "barrils of beefe," presumably salted/cured beef.
Dexter
received by Burnside, and captioned, "William Burnside to Mr. Walter
Bryce & Mr. Thomas Denham & Partners is Debtor." Here is a scan of the
top portion of the page:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinBurnsideAccount.tif
I have two questions. First: The very first item probably refers to the
contract under which the soldiers were carried to New York, and perhaps
other cargo as well. It is, therefore, important in my search for my
ancestor, one of the soldiers.
I read it as "Cash received of Mr. Stephen Deleency Mr. Thomas Noell &
Mr. Walter ?ong Marchants in new york in part [??] of 350 [symbol??] :
the sums[?] of [150/0/0] ??? ??????? to Charter Party."
A "charter party" is a form of contract for hiring a ship. [Brackets]
and ?? indicate where I'm having trouble. Anyone want to take a stab at
reading this? The sense I take is this represents receipt of partial
payment of the total of 350 pounds called for under the charter party.
Sound right?
Second: Burnside mentions "emtey butts," "hhds" which I take to mean
"hogsheads," and "barrills." Some research indicates these are
traditional units of measure for wine, but I suspect he is referring
instead to various sizes of casks used for storing food and drink. A
butt would be larger than a hogshead which would be larger than a barrill.
Does this sound right? Or is he more likely using them all simply as
loose terms for any kind of cask or barrel? Like spelling, language
usage sometimes seems very loose in those days. In other pages, he
refers to "barrils of beefe," presumably salted/cured beef.
Dexter
S Viemeister
Sep 20, 2012, 12:39:48 PM9/20/12
to
On 9/20/2012 12:19 PM, Dexter Kenfield wrote:
> I mentioned in another post that there is a page showing amounts
> received by Burnside, and captioned, "William Burnside to Mr. Walter
> Bryce & Mr. Thomas Denham & Partners is Debtor." Here is a scan of the
> top portion of the page:
>
> http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinBurnsideAccount.tif
>
> I have two questions. First: The very first item probably refers to the
> contract under which the soldiers were carried to New York, and perhaps
> other cargo as well. It is, therefore, important in my search for my
> ancestor, one of the soldiers.
>
> I read it as "Cash received of Mr. Stephen Deleency Mr. Thomas Noell &
> Mr. Walter ?ong Marchants in new york in part [??] of 350 [symbol??] :
> the sums[?] of [150/0/0] ??? ??????? to Charter Party."
>
I haven't yet read through the whole document, but I would suggest that
> I mentioned in another post that there is a page showing amounts
> received by Burnside, and captioned, "William Burnside to Mr. Walter
> Bryce & Mr. Thomas Denham & Partners is Debtor." Here is a scan of the
> top portion of the page:
>
> http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinBurnsideAccount.tif
>
> I have two questions. First: The very first item probably refers to the
> contract under which the soldiers were carried to New York, and perhaps
> other cargo as well. It is, therefore, important in my search for my
> ancestor, one of the soldiers.
>
> I read it as "Cash received of Mr. Stephen Deleency Mr. Thomas Noell &
> Mr. Walter ?ong Marchants in new york in part [??] of 350 [symbol??] :
> the sums[?] of [150/0/0] ??? ??????? to Charter Party."
>
your Stephen Deleency is actually Stephen Delancey (also known as
Etienne de Lancy) a prominent NY merchant.
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 20, 2012, 12:53:49 PM9/20/12
to
Ahhh. I initially typed Delancey, a classic New York City name, but
changed it to keep with a more literal following of the original. I
wonder if Delancey Street was named after him.
This could be very helpful in following up on the leads in the document.
Thanks.
Dexter
changed it to keep with a more literal following of the original. I
wonder if Delancey Street was named after him.
This could be very helpful in following up on the leads in the document.
Thanks.
Dexter
Graeme Wall
Sep 20, 2012, 12:58:03 PM9/20/12
to
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 20, 2012, 2:03:24 PM9/20/12
to Graeme Wall
AAAAHHH! Didn't know that name. Off to see Mr. Google.
Many thanks.
Dexter
Many thanks.
Dexter
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 26, 2012, 1:13:24 PM9/26/12
to
I went back through the other crew accounts, and there are no other
entries quite like the one where the captain who impressed him was paid
his wages.
But there are a couple of other men, impressed at the Downs, where
entries indicate the crewmen were paid off at the time. I would suspect
the captain was paid in that one instance at the seaman's request
because the seaman did not want all that money in his pocket.
Some other accounts do not show any payment -- but most of them show
charges equal to wages.
One crewman shows a payment to the man's wife. Seems a bit unusual, but
they were close to land, so I can believe it.
One or two still seem open, but I can chalk that up to error, oversight,
or my missing something.
This thread was very helpful, and educational. Many thanks to all.
Dexter
entries quite like the one where the captain who impressed him was paid
his wages.
But there are a couple of other men, impressed at the Downs, where
entries indicate the crewmen were paid off at the time. I would suspect
the captain was paid in that one instance at the seaman's request
because the seaman did not want all that money in his pocket.
Some other accounts do not show any payment -- but most of them show
charges equal to wages.
One crewman shows a payment to the man's wife. Seems a bit unusual, but
they were close to land, so I can believe it.
One or two still seem open, but I can chalk that up to error, oversight,
or my missing something.
This thread was very helpful, and educational. Many thanks to all.
Dexter
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 26, 2012, 1:20:48 PM9/26/12
to
I found a law professor who published concerning the use of legal
proceedings, including what is called habeas corpus, to avoid the press.
He thinks the entries involved do not refer to legal proceedings, but
instead to meals, in part because use of habeas was very rare in 1700,
but became more common later on.
That does now seem to be the consensus of the group. The professor
thought there was an effort being made to bring the crewmen under one of
the exemptions from the press. I confess I don't understand how that
could work -- how does wining and dining support an exemption? --
probably because I don't understand the exemptions well enough -- but
the idea, at least, does make sense to me.
Any further comments from anyone?
Dexter
proceedings, including what is called habeas corpus, to avoid the press.
He thinks the entries involved do not refer to legal proceedings, but
instead to meals, in part because use of habeas was very rare in 1700,
but became more common later on.
That does now seem to be the consensus of the group. The professor
thought there was an effort being made to bring the crewmen under one of
the exemptions from the press. I confess I don't understand how that
could work -- how does wining and dining support an exemption? --
probably because I don't understand the exemptions well enough -- but
the idea, at least, does make sense to me.
Any further comments from anyone?
Dexter
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 26, 2012, 2:30:18 PM9/26/12
to
Recall that this ship carried about 120-150 soldiers, including my
ancestor, from Ireland to New York under a charter (technically a
maritime contract called a "charter party") with the Government.
The first set of account records are captioned "Ship Lyon, Debtor" or a
variant thereof. They reflect payments made by the master, William
Burnside, on ship's business, much of which involves buying provisions,
paying harbor pilots, etc.
This scan has the only entries actually referring to the soldiers
themselves:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinShipAccountSoldiers.tif
These are charges incurred at New York, where the ship arrived 24
October 1700. She had left Dublin 21 July and left Waterford 1 August.
The soldiers disembarked soon after arrival; on 28 October many of them
mutinied at the fort.
The first expense in New York seems to be dated 25 October. This entry
confirms that this is the ship carrying my ancestor. I know from New
York muster rolls that Ashfield, Brewer and Holland were the three
lieutenants (a very English "leaftenants" here) who accompanied him and
the other privates.
I read it as saying, "Cash paid to [Ashfield, etc.] to pay the soldgers
for 25 barrils of beefe which they saved out of thare allowances & for
fish cheese & pork butter & beer which they wanted to compleat artickels
of charter partey which I was forced to pay." The total amount is
90/06/00 (last part of numbers didn't make the scan, I'm afraid).
I might have thought this indicated the soldiers had leftover food, and
the officers sold it on behalf of the soldiers. BUT --- the voyage took
several weeks longer than expected -- over 12 weeks in all -- so
leftover food doesn't seem likely. It's hard to believe the Government
or the owners would have overstocked the ship to that extent.
In addition, Governor Bellomont wrote, "The officer tells me they have
been very unruly and mutinous; which I do not wonder at, for the owners
of the vessel that brought 'em have not perform'd the charter party
honestly; and the men have suffer'd great hardships.... The Soldiers had
like to have thrown their officers & the Master of the vessell
overboard." Is it possible that the officers actually sold off part of
what was supposed to be the soldier's rations for their own profit, and
fed the soldiers inferior rations during the voyage? Is that too
cynical? Having seen how the soldiers already in New York had been
treated, that may not be too much of a stretch.
And how do we account for the second portion, where apparently Burnside
was buying other provisions for the soldiers? Maybe instead, the solders
got tired of beef and wanted more variety? But that would not explain
Bellomont's comments. I think I've seen everything Bellomont wrote
during this period, and there is no further explanation anywhere.
Skipping over the entry about pilotage from Sandy Hook into the harbor,
we find, "Cash paid for the soldjers for 13/5/22 [can that 22 be
right??] of bread which they saved out of thare allowances at 7/6 per
[??]." Total is 5/00/09. I cannot make any sense out of the numbers
here, all of which seem to be money.
Then, we have "Cash paid to the 4 sargants for 8 barrels [??] of beefe,"
0/6/6.
Can anyone help explain these entries?
Dexter
ancestor, from Ireland to New York under a charter (technically a
maritime contract called a "charter party") with the Government.
The first set of account records are captioned "Ship Lyon, Debtor" or a
variant thereof. They reflect payments made by the master, William
Burnside, on ship's business, much of which involves buying provisions,
paying harbor pilots, etc.
This scan has the only entries actually referring to the soldiers
themselves:
http://home.mindspring.com/~dekester/Public/LyonOfDublinShipAccountSoldiers.tif
These are charges incurred at New York, where the ship arrived 24
October 1700. She had left Dublin 21 July and left Waterford 1 August.
The soldiers disembarked soon after arrival; on 28 October many of them
mutinied at the fort.
The first expense in New York seems to be dated 25 October. This entry
confirms that this is the ship carrying my ancestor. I know from New
York muster rolls that Ashfield, Brewer and Holland were the three
lieutenants (a very English "leaftenants" here) who accompanied him and
the other privates.
I read it as saying, "Cash paid to [Ashfield, etc.] to pay the soldgers
for 25 barrils of beefe which they saved out of thare allowances & for
fish cheese & pork butter & beer which they wanted to compleat artickels
of charter partey which I was forced to pay." The total amount is
90/06/00 (last part of numbers didn't make the scan, I'm afraid).
I might have thought this indicated the soldiers had leftover food, and
the officers sold it on behalf of the soldiers. BUT --- the voyage took
several weeks longer than expected -- over 12 weeks in all -- so
leftover food doesn't seem likely. It's hard to believe the Government
or the owners would have overstocked the ship to that extent.
In addition, Governor Bellomont wrote, "The officer tells me they have
been very unruly and mutinous; which I do not wonder at, for the owners
of the vessel that brought 'em have not perform'd the charter party
honestly; and the men have suffer'd great hardships.... The Soldiers had
like to have thrown their officers & the Master of the vessell
overboard." Is it possible that the officers actually sold off part of
what was supposed to be the soldier's rations for their own profit, and
fed the soldiers inferior rations during the voyage? Is that too
cynical? Having seen how the soldiers already in New York had been
treated, that may not be too much of a stretch.
And how do we account for the second portion, where apparently Burnside
was buying other provisions for the soldiers? Maybe instead, the solders
got tired of beef and wanted more variety? But that would not explain
Bellomont's comments. I think I've seen everything Bellomont wrote
during this period, and there is no further explanation anywhere.
Skipping over the entry about pilotage from Sandy Hook into the harbor,
we find, "Cash paid for the soldjers for 13/5/22 [can that 22 be
right??] of bread which they saved out of thare allowances at 7/6 per
[??]." Total is 5/00/09. I cannot make any sense out of the numbers
here, all of which seem to be money.
Then, we have "Cash paid to the 4 sargants for 8 barrels [??] of beefe,"
0/6/6.
Can anyone help explain these entries?
Dexter
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 27, 2012, 11:15:00 AM9/27/12
to
That certainly is a possibility. I've also considered whether some other
entries might be similarly questionable.
I don't have a good way to judge Burnside's honesty. There is reason to
think that the owners were a bit on the "shady" side, but that's not
definite, either. And I do expect that for many ship masters, bribery of
one sort or another was viewed as a simple necessity.
On the other hand, the fact that there are several similar entries
involving a number of crewmen may cut the other way. If you're going to
cook the books, best to do it in a way that will get little notice. And
with no witnesses.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Dexter
On 9/26/2012 10:51 PM, melanie chesnel wrote:
> Having followed your very interesting thread from the begining, here are my thoughts for what they are worth. Bribary and corruption comes to mind. Wining and dining fits, in so does cooking the books. What if the price of the meals as put into the acounts included a bribe to whoever didn't the immpress the crew members?
>
> regards melanie
>
entries might be similarly questionable.
I don't have a good way to judge Burnside's honesty. There is reason to
think that the owners were a bit on the "shady" side, but that's not
definite, either. And I do expect that for many ship masters, bribery of
one sort or another was viewed as a simple necessity.
On the other hand, the fact that there are several similar entries
involving a number of crewmen may cut the other way. If you're going to
cook the books, best to do it in a way that will get little notice. And
with no witnesses.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Dexter
On 9/26/2012 10:51 PM, melanie chesnel wrote:
>
> regards melanie
>
Dexter Kenfield
Sep 27, 2012, 2:32:09 PM9/27/12
to
Been thinking about the bribe theory. Took another look at the accounts.
There are 16 crewmen with those entries. Some of them definitely are in
New York, because some of those men jumped ship there. I believe all of
the payments were in New York. That may be around half of the crew --
hard to be precise because so many were coming and going, jumping ship
and sometimes returning, or added along the way.
The entries are not individually dated, so I can't tell if they were on
or near the same date. Total amount was 3/9/4, if I did the math right.
The fact that each entry was for the same amount suggests that either it
was a single payment spread across the relevant crewmen (that was done
with some other cost items), or that there was some sort of
standardized, typical or routine activity/meal/whatever involved.
Each entry is for 4/4. Does that sound like a reasonable amount for a
bribe? Or for anything else? A few other cost items, all apparently at
New York, for comparison:
40 cabbidges (cabbages) 5/0
one barrill of tarr 14/0
one cord of firewood 14/0
one pound of tobacco 0/5
one pare of shoes 7/6
two bushils of onions 6/0
I have to say that 4/4 seems like a pretty small amount for a bribe --
but in New York in 1700, who knows? And if it were paid at one time,
wouldn't a round number seem more plausible than 3/9/4?
So at this point I'm inclined against the theory, but it does remain
viable.
Would love to hear some other ideas for how meals could save a sailor
from the press.
Dexter
There are 16 crewmen with those entries. Some of them definitely are in
New York, because some of those men jumped ship there. I believe all of
the payments were in New York. That may be around half of the crew --
hard to be precise because so many were coming and going, jumping ship
and sometimes returning, or added along the way.
The entries are not individually dated, so I can't tell if they were on
or near the same date. Total amount was 3/9/4, if I did the math right.
The fact that each entry was for the same amount suggests that either it
was a single payment spread across the relevant crewmen (that was done
with some other cost items), or that there was some sort of
standardized, typical or routine activity/meal/whatever involved.
Each entry is for 4/4. Does that sound like a reasonable amount for a
bribe? Or for anything else? A few other cost items, all apparently at
New York, for comparison:
40 cabbidges (cabbages) 5/0
one barrill of tarr 14/0
one cord of firewood 14/0
one pound of tobacco 0/5
one pare of shoes 7/6
two bushils of onions 6/0
I have to say that 4/4 seems like a pretty small amount for a bribe --
but in New York in 1700, who knows? And if it were paid at one time,
wouldn't a round number seem more plausible than 3/9/4?
So at this point I'm inclined against the theory, but it does remain
viable.
Would love to hear some other ideas for how meals could save a sailor
from the press.
Dexter
0 new messages