THE AURORA INCEDENT

On 19 th July 1794, the Hull Greenland whaler Sarah and Elizabeth was homeward bound with her holds full of whale oil from the Davis Strait. She was attacked off St. Abb’s Head, a few miles north of Berwick on Tweed by His majesty’s frigate Aurora, which had the intention of pressing every man aboard her. Her crew however were not so intimidated:

“The latter took refuge beneath the hatches, which they fastened down [from within]; but the sailors from the Aurora forced open the hatches, and the marines fired down amongst them, killing Edward Bogg, the carpenter’s mate (who was buried in the church yard, Drypool), and wounding three. Most of the crew of the Sarah and Elizabeth were seized and carried off to the Nore, and fifteen men from the Aurora took the Greenland-man [the ship Sarah and Elizabeth] to Hull.”

[Ibid]

The pages of the Hull Advertiser for 26 July 1794 contain the following contemporary description of the events:

“A most melancholy affair happened on Saturday last, on board the ship Sarah and Elizabeth, of this port, returning from Davis Streights [sic]. About four o’clock on that day, being nearly nine leagues off St. Abb’e Head, she was fired at by the Aurora frigate, Capt. William Essington, when she hoisted her colours, and being to windward, at the second shot bore down on the frigate; most of the crew had in the mean time gone between decks and secured the hatches, to prevent their being impressed; a boat from the Aurora then came on board, and shortly after another, filled with armed men, upon which one of the Aurora’s people took charge of the helm. Soon after five o’clock the Aurora came alongside, and as the men would not come upon beck, the boatswain of the Aurora, holding a hand-grenade in one hand, and a lighted match in the other, asked Captain Essington, if he should fire the hand-grenade amongst the people, which the Captain ordered him to do; but on the representation of the matter of the Sarah and Elizabeth, that the ship was full of oil, and if the hand-grenade was fired she would immediately blow up, he desisted; the crew then proceeded then with crow [bars]to break up the hatches, and as the men still refused to come up on deck, one of the officers from on board the Aurora, hailed the Captain and said, ‘will you give us leave to fire,’ to which Captain Essington answered in the affirmative, and the marines, to about sixteen to eighteen in number, fired down the hatchways, by which one man of the Sarah and Elizabeth’s people was killed, and three badly wounded; the boatswain of the Aurora [the boatswains of both ships were wounded in the exchange, which might lead to some confusion] was wounded in the leg. The crew of the Sarah and Elizabeth begged for quarter long before the people from the Aurora ceased firing, notwithstanding the orders from their Captain and other officers. The greater part of the crew of the Sarah and Elizabeth, with the wounded men, were taken on board the Aurora and put in irons, where they yet remain. The Sarah and Elizabeth arrived here on Wednesday, when the body of the dead man was landed, and a verdict taken before William Watson Bolton, Esq., Coroner. The Jury were unanimous in bringing it in Wilful Murder, against the Captain and part of the crew of the Aurora. We hear the owners of the Sarah and Elizabeth have instituted a prosecution against them. The foregoing facts are the substance of the deposition sworn before the Coroner and Jury,

Names of the killed and wounded on board the Sarah and Elizabeth – Edw. Bogg, carpenter’s mate, killed, Hugh Brooks, boatswain; William Barker, line-coiler; and Richard Hubey, seaman, wounded.

The same edition of the Advertiser contained Essington’s version of events and the justification for his actions:

“As we have been favoured by the Mayor with a letter from Captain Essington, we think it our duty to give his statement also.

At sea, off Flamborough Head, 22d July, 1794

Sir,

As many reports may be fabricated concerning the late --- --- with His majesty’s Ship, Aurora under my command, and the Sarah and Elizabeth of Hull, I think it my duty in justification of myself and officers to state to you matters of fact. I fell in with her at sea on the 19 th of this month, when I sent Mr. Watson, master, and Mr. Williamson, boatswain, on board her to procure some men for the fleet, with orders to tell the ship’s company that those who were protected would not be included, but they, as well as the rest, said, before any of then should be taken some blood would be spilt. The small cutter not returning so soon as I expected, I sent the other cutter with a master’s mate. He soon came back with the above intelligence and that the men were then between decks armed, I then ordered the cutter manned and armed, likewise the barge with Lieutenant ..ppings on board, and by the time my boats was on board her, she was within hail. I told the master of her, if he had lost the command of his ship I would consider her in a state of piracy, and desired him to come on board the Aurora, and what people were willing to come with him; for if his men would not obey him, I was determined to fire into her. His answer was, that if I chose to take him he must come; at the same time I was informed one of my men was wounded; I then told my officers which was on board her I would run the Aurora alongside, which I immediately did; by this I was in hopes of bringing her people into subjection; they were then again asked if they would come up, and the same terms again offered to them; one of the hatches was ordered to be taken off, in doing which Mr. Williamson, the boatswain, was shot through the leg by one of the Sarah and Elizabeth’s people; a fire then commenced from the Greenlandman, and my men who went on board in the boats (without my orders or any ones) the officers of the Aurora on board of her did all in their power to stop the firing, as well as I did my self, which was soon over; but I am sorry to say that in the unfortunate business, one man was killed belonging to the Greenlandman, and three badly wounded. The boatswain is dangerously wounded --- seamen belonging to his Majesty’s Ship. I have taken the men I found in arms, which is twenty-four including the three wounded, who have every care taken of them. Richard Hubey, one of the wounded men says they have only their master to blame for their --- as he desired them to arm and defend themselves, and – would do all in his power to assist them.

I am Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

W. Essington. ”

Such was the condemnation at Hull when this news was made public that a coroner’s jury found Edward Bogg to have been murdered, wilfully by Captain Essington and part of the crew of the Aurora. Aurora was a 28 gun frigate, and as a king’s ship, her authority was, in her captain’s eyes, paramount on the high seas. He was wrong. Captain and crew were buoyed up when they took the seamen off the Sarah and Elizabeth, because a month earlier, they had taken the French cutter Narcisse (14 guns) off the Shetlands on 18 June. Indeed it might well have been as a result of that action that Captain Essington found himself suddenly short-handed.

[http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhillips/info.php?ref=0254]

That Capt. Essington sought to ameliorate his situation in this regard is telling of the concern he was by then feeling; not only that, but to actually insist he had no control over his own men when they commenced and ceased firing into the confines of the ‘tween deck of the Sarah and Elizabeth is little short of self incriminatory. Nor was his explanation viewed with any sense of justification in Hull when matters were made known. Mr. Pease, an influential banker of the town, proceeded to London to have the case investigated, but Captain Essington had been removed by the Admiralty into a 74 gun ship that had already set sail for the East Indies, from whence he did not return for several years and thus evaded by Admiralty collaboration any sort of justice for his crime. The Admiralty however were persuaded that the action against the crew of the Sarah and Elizabeth was excessive, and in the 16 August 1794 edition of the Advertiser, there is a letter from the:

“Admiralty Office, 9 th August, 1794, Sir, In return to your letter of the 2 nd instant, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to acquaint you, that your memorial, with the affidavits which accompanied it, respecting the proceedings of Capt. Essington, of his Majesty’s ship, the Aurora, relative to your ship the Sarah and Elizabeth, were sent to him on the 31 st of last month, with directions to give answer to the allegations therein contained, and, that as soon as his answer is received, you will hear from their lordships on the subject. I am, Sir, your very humble servant, John Ibbetson. “We [the Hull Advertiser] stop the press to say, that 14 of the harpooners, boat steerers, and line coilers, together with the carpenter and second mate, who had been impressed from the above ship, have been discharged at the Nore.”

His Majesty’s Ship Aurora was built by Perry at Blackwall, a 28 gun frigate of the Enterprise Class, in 1770 (shown here a plan of HMS Acteon, of the same class of warship) She carried a full compliment of 200 men, was 593 tons burthen, and carried 24 x 9lb on her gun-deck, 4 x 3lb on her quarter-deck, and 12 swivels; built at Blackwall in 1777.

[Sailing Navy List 1688-1860 by David Lion, 2001]

Further evidence of the Impress Service taking the law into its own hands was evidenced in the 13 December 1794 edition of the Advertiser in a brief but telling paragraph of local news:

“A correspondent remarks, that it is the uniform practice of Impress Officers to secure for his Majesty’s service, the Mates of vessels under 50 tons burthen, let the cargoes be ever so valuable, when they pass the Mates of such as are ever so little above that burthen.” This was against the laws of Impressment, and if the allegations were true, it was a flagrant breach of those laws.

The law was actually very clear on what constituted legal impressment and what did not, and also the consequences of deadly resistance thereto, here are some samples:

“1. There must be legal warrant; if there be none, and the party impressing be killed, it is manslaughter only. If the party impressed be killed, it is murder. If on the other hand, there be a legal warrant, and it be executed legally, and the person impressed be a proper object of impressment, if the officer or any of the men acting under his immediate orders be killed, it is murder ; (c) if in the struggle the party impressed be killed, it is justifiable homicide ; but if the party impressed be killed in flight, it will be manslaughter at least, perhaps murder, in the same manner as in cases of misdemeanour.[3]

2. The warrant must be executed by the proper officer. The warrant requires that the person entrusted with the execution of it, must be a commissioned officer, expressly deputed in writing endorsed on the warrant, under the hand and seal of the officer to whom the warrant is directed. Where the warrant was directed to the captain of a man-of-war, and he deputed his lieutenant, but neither were present when some seamen of the ship, by their verbal orders, attempted to impress a seaman, who resisted and killed one of the pressgang: this was holden to be manslaughter only; if the seaman had been killed, it would have been murder.

3. The party impressed must be a "seaman, seafaring man, or other whose occupation or calling is to work in vessels or boats on rivers."(A) Therefore, where the mate and some seamen of a ship of war, in the absence of the deputed officer, attempted to impress one How, who was servant to a tobacconist, and never was a mariner, and How made some resistance, and took out his knife, when one of the seamen hit him a violent blow on the side of the head, with a large walking stick, having a great knob at the end of it, and he died of it : this was holden to be murder, because the party was not liable to be impressed, and the deputed officer was not present and acting in the impressment.(a) So, where a warrant was directed by the Admiralty to Lord Dauby to impress seamen, and one Browning his servant, without any warrant in writing, impressed a person who was no seaman, who, trying to escape, was killed by Browning; this was adjudged to be murder. ”

[A Complete Practical Treatise on Criminal Procedure, Pleading, and Evidence ... by John Frederick Archbold, John Jervis, William Newland Welsby, Thomas Whitney Waterman]

Also:

“If a person be impressed who is not a proper object of impressment, or if the impressment be made without any legal warrant, it is lawful for the party to make resistance and if the death of any of the parties concerned ensue, it is murder. Rex v. Dixon and Rex v. Rokeby

But if a seaman be impressed and the pressgang be resisted, and any of them be killed; if the pressgang at the time were under the direction of a commissioned officer and such officer were then acting with them, the killing would be murder, otherwise but manslaughter. Rex v. Broadfoot; for the presence of a commissioned officer is necessary to the execution of an impress warrant .”

[Historia Placitorum Coronae: The History of the Pleas of the Crown by Matthew Hale, Sollom Emlyn. Pp. 465]

The form of a later Impress Warrant was thus, little was changed from earlier versions:

By the Commissioners for Executing the Office

Of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom

Of Great Britain and Ireland, &t. and of all

His Majesty’s Plantations, &c.

IN Pursuance of His Majesty’s Order in Council, dated the Sixteenth Day of November, 1804, We do hereby Impower and Direct you to impress, or cause to be impressed, o many Seamen, Seafaring men and Persons whose Occupations and Callings are to work in Vessels and Boats upon river, as shall be necessary either to Man His Majesty’s Ships under your Command or any other of His Majesty’s ships, giving unto each Man so impressed One Shilling for Prest Money. And in the execution hereof, you are to take care that neither yourself nor any officer authorised by you do demand or receive any Money, Gratuity, Reward or other Consideration whatsoever, for the Sparing, Exchanging, or Discharging any Person or Persons impressed or to be impressed a you will answer at your peril. You are not to intrust any person with the execution of this Warrant, but a Commission Officer and to insert his Name and Office in the deputation on the other side hereof, and set your Hand and seal thereto. ---------

This Warrant to continue in Force till the Thirty First Day of December 1809, and in the due execution thereof, all Mayors, Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, Bailiffs, Constables Headboroughs, and all other His Majesty’s Officers and Subjects whom it may concern, are hereby required to be aiding and assisting unto you, and those employed by you, a they tender His Majesty’s Service, and will answer the contrary at their perils

Given under our Hands and the Seal of the Office of the Admiralty,

The …………………………………………………….. 1809

Captain ………………………………………………………….

Commander of His Majesty’ ………………………………

the ……………………………………………………………...

By Command of Their Lordships

An example of the press-gang’s ineptitude or desperation for men was demonstrated in the pages of the Hull Advertiser:

July 2, 1796

P. 3, Col. 1

A few days ago since one of the sailors on board the Martin sloop of war, lying in the Humber, was discovered to be a woman, of the name of Mary Buty; she says she was born at Wells in Norfolk, and became a sailor at the age of 12 years, in consequence of the bad treatment of a step-mother. She served three years apprenticeship at Wisbeach. After which she was impressed on board the Racehorse sloop of war at Hull; in which ship her sex was discovered, and she was obliged to decamp. She was afterwards impressed at Shields, and sent on board the St. George of 120 guns, where she continued five months, during which an engagement took place with a Spanish vessel, when it is said she displayed all the heroism of a British tar. She is now in Hull, waiting for another cruise; and it is said, longs for nothing so much as to meet the cowardly French, Dutch, and Spaniards.

The above is a seldom known fact that women did indeed serve, and with distinction at sea during the French wars. Little else is known of Mary Buty, but this above alone if there is nought else, should stand as her epitaph. It also shows that the Press-gangs were not overly careful about who they pressed, indeed, many were the cases were people were wrongly taken. In order to try to prevent such cases, official warrants of exemption were issued to some, and took this form:

By the Commissioners for executing the Office of the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland &c .

Issued of the

Admiralty Gratis

Jeremiah Clark

To All Commanders and Officers of his Majesty’s ships, Press-masters, and all others whom it may concern

Given under our Hands, and the Seal of the Office of the Admiralty, the

………… Day of …………… One thousand eight hundred and ten

By Command of their Lordships

It will be noted that the legal upper age limit for impressment was fifty-five, but one George Speck, a shipwright from Hull, was taken at the age of sixty, he was not set free.

Another anecdotal report says:

“William Mason, a Shipwright, he said he lodged with a woman that kept a little shop, he was sat by the fire one night when he saw some men looking in at the window, he did not take any notice of them, he thought they wanted to buy something. At last they came and took him away with them. He got clear some time after with a great deal of looking after amongst his friends, who wrote to the Members of Parliament at those times to intercede for them. I saw the man on board of the tender one Sunday morning, father and I were coming up to Hull in the Paul Packet, we passed close by the tender, made me see him, he was standing on the forecastle, father spoke to him and said he was sorry for him.”

[Reminiscences of a Long Experience, the Hull Press Gang, by James Spencer, 1884, reprint edition, Malet Lambert Local History Reprints no. 8; pp.6]

The above are examples of the Impress taking little or no notice of personal rights, the same rights for which the men were being impressed to suffer, fight and die for. The demands placed upon the Navy however were huge, expected as they were to defend the Realm, protect trade, and defeat any and all enemies on the high seas in what was to become a global war, demanded men in vast numbers to replace those who were killed in action, had died of wounds, of illness, or other cause. The Impressment form of conscription was viewed by most as a necessary evil while the volunteer system seldom worked for any but the most adored or luckiest (by way of prize money) of captains, who were very few. Other means needed to be employed, and the only legal alternative was the Impressment Service, the press-gang.

At Hull, as with most seaports, the Rendezvous for the press-gang was at one or more public houses. It has been said for other purposes within this web site that when the Countess of Scarborough, a twenty gunned armed sloop of war, was recruiting, the notice in the York Courant named the Rendezvous so that willing volunteers could report there to enlist:

YORK COURANT (newspaper) 13 th January 1778:

All able-bodied SEAMEN or LANDSMEN, willing to serve his Majesty, King George, on-board His Majesty’s ship, the Countessof Scarborough, a fine new ship mounting 20 guns, and mann’d with 120 men, Henry Francis Evans Esq., Commander, now lying in Hull Roads, and to be stationed at Hull for the protection of the Trade of that port, and other ports adjacent, let them repair onboard the said ship, or to the OldWhale, or the CrossKeys Rendezvous in Hull, where they will enter into present pay, be entitled to his Majesty’s Royal Bounty of FIVE POUNDS for every able seaman, and FIFTY SHILLINGS for every Ordinary seaman or Landsman, and two months in advance; also a Bounty of TWO GUINEAS to every Able seaman, and ONE GUINEA to every Ordinary seaman or Landsman from the Mayor and Corporation of Hull, and the same Bounty from the Wardens and Corporation of the Trinity House….

The Old Whale and the particular Cross Keys mentioned, for there were at that time more than one within the town, were both located by the harbour at the South-end (of High Street). That location was the closest to the Tender vessel, usually moored just across the river Hull, in the Humber estuary by the Citadel. Little is known of either of those Rendezvous other than what has been gleaned from the above reference and singular entries in the earlier trade directories. Such Rendezvous were not official, nor were they permanent. The reason for the latter is quite simply that they were, when the press was “hot”, the most unpopular places in the town, and were somewhat prone to attack from time to time by the ‘mob’, as were members of the Impressment Service. Nor were the activities of the Impress restrained to coastal ports, “A press-gang in December, 1779, commenced operations in Leeds, and seized a cropper by the name of John Baldwin. This unfortunate man was so affected with this occurrence that he afterwards hanged himself. A press-gang had appeared in York a short time previously, but had been compelled to leave the city by the irritation and anxiety of the citizens”.

[The Civil, Ecclesiastical, Literary, Commercial and Miscellaneous History of Leeds, Halifax, Huddersfield, Bradford, Wakefield, Dewsbury, Otley; by Edward Parsons, Vol. 1, 1834, p. 65; Google Books]

Further to events in York, another incident occurred in 1777, when “in January, the citizens of York were much exasperated by the appearance of a Press-gang, and on the 26 th, the Lord mayor received a letter, bearing the York post-mark on it, threatening ‘that if those men were not removed from the city on or before the 28 th, his lordship’s own dwelling, and the Mansion House also should be burned to the ground.”

[The Annals of Yorkshire…., by Henry Shroeder, published by Crosby, in Leeds, 1851, p. 173. Google Books]

This is sure evidence that wherever the gangers decided to fall upon, they were not made universally welcome by any means, and often violence was employed to deter them from their task. At Whitby, a predominantly whaling port then, there were riots to prevent the Impress from doing its duty, at one, that of 1793 Rendezvous in Haggersgate was destroyed and the gang put to flight. An old man thought to have been one of the ringleaders of the affray was subsequently tried and executed at York Assizes.

[History and Topography of the City of York, by C. Whellan & Co., Greens of Beverley 1859, p. 284]

The event is more fully described by John R. Hutchinson thus:

“As in the case of Chester the gang there was an importation, having been brought in from Tyne-side by Lieut’s Atkinson and Oakes. As at Chester too, a place of rendezvous had been procured with difficulty, for at first no landlord could be found courageous enough to let a house for so dangerous a purpose. At length, however, one Cooper was prevailed upon to take the risk, and the flag was hung out. This would seem to have been the only provocative act of which the gang was guilty. It sufficed. Anticipation did the rest; for just as in some individuals gratitude consists of a lively sense of favours to come, so the resentment of the mobs sometimes avenges a wrong before it has been inflicted.

“On Saturday the 23rd of February 1793, at the hour of half-past seven in the evening, a mob of a thousand persons, of whom many were women, suddenly appeared before the rendezvous. The first intimation of what was about to happen came in the shape of a furious volley of brickbats and stones, which instantly demolished every window in the house, to the utter consternation of its inmates. Worse, however, was in store for them. An attempt to rush the place was temporarily frustrated by the determined opposition of the gang, who, fearing that all in the house would be murdered, succeeded in holding the mob at bay for an hour and a half; but at nine o'clock, several of the gangsmen having been in the meantime struck down and incapacitated by stones, which were rained upon the devoted building without cessation, the door at length gave way before an onslaught with capstan-bars, and the mob swarmed in unchecked. A scene of indescribable confusion and fury ensued. Savagely assaulted and mercilessly beaten, the gangsmen and the unfortunate landlord were thrown into the street more dead than alive, every article of furniture on the premises was reduced to fragments, and when the mob at length drew off, hoarsely jubilant over the destruction it had wrought, nothing remained of His Majesty's rendezvous save bare walls and gaping windows. Even these were more than the townsfolk could endure the sight of. Next evening they reappeared upon the scene, intending to finish what they had begun by pulling the house down or burning it to ashes; but the timely arrival of troops frustrating their design, they regretfully dispersed.

[The Press-gang Afloat and Ashore by J. R. Hutchinson, New York, E. P. Dutton & Co., 1914 (Admiralty Records_ 1. 2739--Lieut. Atkinson, 26 Feb. and 27 June 1793) Page 96 (Reprint edition) ]

It does perhaps indicate how matters may have gone in Hull had there not been a garrison full of Militia and Yeoman soldiery within the town, and given time, how much damage could be caused when the mob was allowed to run riot. In Hull, regardless of the military presence, riots and violence against members of the Service were not unknown either.

While not everyone was in favour of the activities of the Press-gang, for example at Selby, in 1792, there was held a meeting of the Mariner’s Society, one of the first acts of which was to protest against the enormities of the Press-gang and the slave-trade. One of their rules stated: “If any member of this society engage in the impress service, or the slave trade, he shall be immediately excluded all benefit of this society for ever.”

Sometimes however, events were less public; there survives a report of a severe incident in 1794 when a member of a gang was shot dead:

“At Hull, Mark Darley, a seaman on the Impress Service; he had, in company with a Midshipman and another seaman, made a forcible entry into a house in which one Mark Bolt, a mariner, lodged, whom they endeavoured to impress, when Bolt fired a pistol loaded with slugs at Darley, and killed him; Coroner’s verdict – homicide in self defence.”

[The Freemason’s Magazine, or Complete and General Library, 1794, London, 1794, reported deaths section, p. 238: Google Books]

It was reported in the newspapers that great consternation arose at Hull when a horseman arrived at Hull with the grave news that men had been sighted coming ashore in Holderness. Fearing that it was the French either making a raid or doing something far more serious prompted the following:

“Last Monday afternoon, information was brought by express to the Mayor of this town that a number of men landed near Patrington from a privateer said to be within the Humber. Part of the Corps of Invalids stationed at the Citadel at this place and several volunteer seamen, who had just entered to serve His Majesty’s Navy, all armed as Hamlet says cap-a-peė were immediately dispatched to meet the enemy, but were prevented giving signal proof of their prowess by a second messenger who met them on the road near Hedon, and informed then that instead of French enemies, those who had landed were the crews of several colliers, who had quitted their ships to avoid being impressed by His Majesty’s Sloop of War, the Queen, then lying at anchor in the Humber.”

[Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteer Forces of the East Riding 1689 – 1908 by R.W.S. Norfolk, East Yorkshire Local History Society, 1965, p. 13]

It is perhaps noteworthy that under the law, Darley should have been indicted for wilful murder, but, perhaps by public demand, was as good as acquitted instead. Not all attacks on the Press were fatal; some led to riotous gatherings that had perhaps ulterior motives, such as plundering and/or pillaging, it is difficult to determine with certainty after all this time.

Reported in the Hull Advertiser of 21 July 1798 was the following:

Designed by Richard Hayton 2008
email richard@yorkshirehistory.com