SECTION TWO

It has been decided to sub-divide this article at this point because the termination of the Treaty of Amiens was a watershed in military and naval history. This point of demarcation is more distinct than that at the beginning of the new century, and is therefore deemed the most appropriate place to commence a new sub-division.

With the recommencement of hostilities, this time against a Napoleonic France, it became necessary to re-man the navy, to bring laid up ships out of ordinary and resume patrolling the seas. In the Humber, this was resumed by the arrival of His Britannic Majesty’s Ship La Fortunee, a thirsty-six gun frigate, sent to begin the harvesting of men for the fleet from vessels leaving or entering the river.

[Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteer Forces of the East Riding 1689 – 1908 by R.W.S. Norfolk, East Yorkshire Local History Society, 1965, p. 22]

At such times of national danger as these, it is almost a ubiquitous occurrence that newspapers report the press as being “hot”. In Hull, this was announced in the Advertiser of the 12 November, 1803: “On the night of Monday the hottest press ever known broke out at this place; part of the military were employed in securing the entrances of the different streets, and a great many persons were taken up, several of which, after undergoing an examination were sent on board the Tender. A similar measure has also been [ordered] in every port throughout the kingdom.”

[Hull Advertiser, 12 November, 1803]

Controversial methodologies, when used by government or a governmental agency such as the Royal Navy are often viewed differently by different sections of the community in which they are meant to apply or are active. In the case of the Impress Service, there seems to have been three prevailing standpoints. One, that as perceived by the working classes, the classes from which the vast majority of impressed men were harvested, held the Service in dread and loathing; two, the mercantile and middle classes who sought only the protection of their trade and if that necessitated impressment, then amen; third, and finally but by no means least, there is the opinion of those men tasked with carrying out impressment, those navy men who had no real option but to obey their orders whatever their personal thoughts might have been. Some were grateful for employment while others hated such an appointment.

There survives a narrative contemporary with the above, by Sir William Henry Dillon, KCH, Vice Admiral of the Red in which he describes in detail, but in certain cases not enough detail, his time as the Impress Officer at Hull, the precise date is uncertain, but must relate to this period immediately after the termination of the Peace in 1803. The relevant passage is here quoted in full.

“I could scarcely believe the assertion, but he repeated it with such positive assurances that I hastened thither [the Admiralty Office, London]: and, sure enough, in the hall I saw a piece of paper stuck up, and my name on it – ‘Wanted, Lieut. D.-‘. Upon inquiry, I was ordered to proceed to Hull, upon the Impress Service. This news was so astounding that I was completely taken aback, as I thought it a degrading appointment. None, generally speaking, but worn out lieutenants were employed in that Service…

Upon my calling at the Admiralty and sending up my name to him, I experienced a very great reception. He told me that Lord St. Vincent had changed the whole system relating to the Impressment Service by nominating young and active officers to it instead of old ones. ‘His Lordship’, he said, had heard a great deal about you, and has selected you accordingly. You must go. Do not refuse, as you may be sure it is to lead to something better.’ Upon these assurances I yielded to his advice, and thanking Mr. Marsden, withdrew.

The next day I left home for Hull, where I arrived in due time. I had not been out of the stage one minute when I met one of my shipmates of the Crescent, the sail-maker. He hailed me with a cheerful countenance, but when he heard the reason for my presence in that town, he took to his heels and was out of sight in no time. I was to place myself under the orders of a Commander Grey [Edward Grey, Commander, 29-4-1802], and with that officer I soon put myself into communication. I had to select my gang and establish a rendezvous. ….

I soon commenced operations, and picked up many men. I will not enter into all the details [sadly! RGH] of my adventures in the dark and out of the way corners that I was obliged to visit on this, to me, unpleasant service, but I will mention two or three of them where I narrowly escaped with my life.

The Admiralty sent a vessel to receive such men as were pressed or that voluntarily entered for the navy. When I had my doubts of the safety of any in my lock-up room, they were sent off to the vessel. But all my proceedings were under the inspection of my superior. There was also a Surgeon appointed to inspect the men, as to their being in sound health, wind and limb. This examination took place in the apartments of my rendezvous [the place is never named, which is a shame RGH] every morning about 9 o’clock. On one occasion I had stopped a strong powerful man as he was coming to his labours in the dock (I have often wondered that he did not throw me into it). He replied to my questions that he was not a seaman but a carpenter, and took a ruler out of the slash pocket of his trousers to prove his assertion. ‘Carpenters,’ I observed, ‘are wanted in the Navy as well as seamen. Come along with me.’ When he resisted, I made the agreed signal to my men, who were watching my action. They instantly closed, and four of them took hold of the carpenter. In taking him to my place of security, they unluckily passed through the street where this man resided. He called out to his wife while passing under the window. She made an appearance an, when she saw him under the power of the press-gang, bust out in wild lamentations. Her screams brought a large number of persons to the spot, some of whom made an attempt to rescue her husband; but they failed. When I reached the rendezvous, I lodged the carpenter safe. Shortly afterwards I was called upon by an individual who came from a firm of merchants, a clerk I suppose, who offered me £300 to liberate him. I told this gentleman he had made a mistake, his proposal being useless. He had better retrace his steps, as the pressed man would be sent to serve in the Navy. ….”

In point of fact, as is later related, the carpenter effected his escape by leaping from a window at the rendezvous leaving behind him only his hat and shoes, the navy had nothing else of him! The narrative later continues:

“On one occasion I was assaulted by a shower of brickbats; on another, a volley of either musket or pistol balls was fired into my room one evening as I was reading at my table. Fortunately I escaped serious injury; but it became necessary for the Mayor to interfere, and some constables were directed to watch over my person. …. “

There then follows a description of the social engagements this poor unfortunate officer was made to endure, but from his words they were very much to his pleasure and satisfaction. The officer seems to have spent all of six weeks in Hull as Impress Officer, after which by some string pulling, he was given a post on board the Africaine. He had, in that time, by his own calculations secured 150 men for the Navy – in six weeks! As he says it “which must have proved that I had not been idle.”

[A Narrative of My Adventures (1790-1839) BY Sir William Henry Dillon, K.C.H., Vice Admiral of the Red, Vol. II, Navy Records Office, pp. 9 – 14]

William Dillon’s superior officer at Hull was Commander Edward Grey, whose promotion to that rank saw him sent to Hull as Regulating Officer and Superintendent of the Impress Service. He began his task in March 1803 and remained on duty at Hull until August 1810, where, by his “zealous and unremitted exertions, he secured the services of no less than 2,305 seamen, a number considerably greater, we believe, than ever had been raised at that port by any of his predecessors”.

[Royal Naval Biography, by John Marshal. Lieut. Royal Navy, Supplement part III, London, 1829, p. 169: Google Books]

The Impress, although not meant to take shipyard workers, were prone to do so from time to time, and the bounties then available were tempting to some. It is reported in 1811 for example that “A woman in Wincolmlee who had betrayed seven men to the gang was attacked by the mob in her own house, stripped of most of her clothing and thrown into a filthy ditch.” Parish constables had to come to her rescue.

[The Humber Region at War, 1793-1815, by Edward Gillett, Humberside Leisure Services, Heritage Publication no. 12, 1988, p. 9]

Another anecdotal story relates to the pressgang using the Bull Inn, on the corner of Beverley Road and Stepney Lane. As a coach from Beverley or beyond, or any leaving Hull northwards approached, it was stopped by the gangers and any passengers they suspected to be sailors thereon immediately impressed. One story concerning this location relates that as the press-gang stopped a coach and dragged from it an unwilling and struggling sailor. The gang was violently attacked by several women that had been haymaking in the neighbouring field, and put to flight. The rescued sailor was placed into a carrier’s wagon and escorted by the pitch-forked women as far as the Newland Toll Bar.

[The Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Soc. Vol. XXV", T. Sheppard; p. 157]

In Hull, on the 18 th January, 1806, the Hull Advertiser announced that in the previous twelve months, covering all of 1805 alone, 1,400 men had been taken by the press-gang in the Hull area. This equates to almost four men every day of the entire year, a quite astonishing number. Nationally the Navy never had a strength of 200,000 men, though perhaps 300,000 or more saw service at various times [during the war – RGH]; but over 100,000 were lost, or something like 60 for every 1,000 of the population, more realistically, 60 for every 250 adult males in the British Isles. Only about 7 percent were battle casualties. About twice as many deaths were from hazards of the sea and as many as 80 percent from sickness and accidents. ….. Every place, however far inland, had to provide a quota of seamen under the 1795 Act; 731 in the case of Hull, about 12 percent of the number required from London. Whitby, a much smaller town but with a much higher proportion of seamen and shipwrights, had to raise 573, Scarborough had to find 275, and Bridlington 50.”

[The Humber Region at War, 1793-1815, by Edward Gillett, Humberside Leisure Services, Heritage Publication no. 12, 1988, p.4 & 10]

Just to recap:

“The Royal Navy often found it difficult to recruit enough men to operate on all their ships particularly during wartime. The Navy had three means to gaining seamen for the service, volunteers, The Impress Service and the Quota Act[s] (from 1795 onwards)

Volunteer:

Received conduct money, 2 months wages in advance (to buy clothes and a hammock). Majority of volunteers were officers although some had been sent to the Navy by their parents at a young age. Joining the Navy as a volunteer was also a way of escaping prison for being in debt. Few men chose a career in the Navy as life was hard and discipline was harsh.

‘Better one volunteer than three pressed men’

Impressment:

The Impress Service was an organisation based in many small towns, especially those with a port, to ‘press’ men into the Navy. They were from a base known as the ‘Rendezvous’. Press Gangs in larger towns were led by a Captain, smaller towns had a Lieutenant. These officers rarely went to sea themselves. They employed a senior officer known as a Regulating Officer, who would then appoint some of the local hard men as ‘gangers’ to form press gangs.

Being a ganger ensured you would not be a pressed man. These gangs were paid to travel around the surrounding countryside areas to seek suitable recruits. A pressed man had to be aged between 18 and 55 years of age, although this was not always adhered to if they looked old/young enough. Some gangs took bribes from men, who would pay for their freedom, sharing the bribe between them.

Press Gangs targeted Merchant ships in port, often boarding them and taking any men they wanted, although officers and apprentices were exempt from being pressed. Merchant seamen were exempt from being pressed for the first two years they spent at sea. Some Merchant Captains built hideaways for any valuable members of the crew to hide in when the press gang boarded his ship. Press Gangs would also get into fights with locals, who tried to wrestle a captured man from their clutches. Unscrupulous villagers would also ‘tip off’ the press gangs as to the whereabouts of potential recruits for a pound reward.

An official law passed in 1740 said that no foreigner was to be pressed into the Navy but they could volunteer. If, however, they worked on a British merchant ship for 2 years, they became liable for pressing. Similarly, if they married a Briton, they became British citizens and therefore, could be pressed into the service. Some foreigners had Protection orders that prevented them from being pressed, although these orders could be ignored if the Admiralty gave the order to ‘press from all protections’ during times of crisis. Protection orders had to be carried at all times otherwise they could be pressed without redress.

Once pressed, the men would be held at the rendezvous building under lock and key. The regulating officer would inspect them and decide if they were fit for service, sending for a surgeon if a man claimed he was ill or suffering from some defect. The surgeon was paid a shilling for every man he inspected and was only to keen to help the Impress Service.

Impressments were last used in Britain during the Napoleonic wars of 1803 – 1815.

The Quota Act

In 1795, the British Prime Minister, William Pitt, decided to bring in The Quota Act which said that each county had to provide a quota of men depending on its population and the number of seaports it had. These men would have to serve at sea. Counties offered a bounty for men to join up but this proved unproductive so instead they asked men convicted of petty crimes to choose between going to sea and going to jail. The consequence of this meant that many diseases such as Typhus were brought onto healthy ships and existing crews were infected .”

[Information courtesy of: The Royal Naval Museum, Life in Nelson’s Navy by Dudley Pope and www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk ]

The 1795 “Quota Act” previously mentioned is titled and introduced thus:

Anno regni tricesimo quinto George III. C. 5. [1795]

CAP. V.

An act for a certain number of men, in the several counties of England, for the Service of his Majesty’s navy. March 5, 1795

Whereas it is expedient for the public service of the present conjuncture, that the most effectual measures should be adopted, for providing a speedy supply of men to serve in his Majesty’s navy: may it therefore please your majesty that it be en-acted; and be it en-acted by the King’s most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and by commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that there shall be levied, with within that part of Great Britain called England, the Dominion of Wales and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, in the several counties, ridings, and divisions, herein-after mentioned, such able-bodied men to serve his Majesty in the navy of Great Britain, at such times and in such manner, as is herein directed; and that the number of men to be levied by virtue of this act shall be as follows (that is to say),

…..

…..

For the east riding of the county of York, with the town and county of the town of Kingston upon Hull, one hundred and seventy-five; for the west riding of the said county, six hundred and nine; and for the north riding of the said county, with the city and county of the city of York, two hundred and ninety-seven.

…..

…..

A subsequent act dated only eleven days after the above, has a longer preamble, here presented in full:

CAP. IX.

An act for procuring a supply of men from the several ports of this kingdom, for the service of his Majesty’s navy [March 16, 1795]

Whereas it is expedient for the public service, at the present conjuncture, that the most effectual measures should be adopted for providing a speedy supply of men to serve in his Majesty’s navy: and whereas, in order to carry the same into effect, his majesty has been pleased, by and order of council, bearing date the eighteenth day of February one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, to direct that an embargo should be laid on all British ships or vessels within the several ports of this kingdom; which is now in force: may it therefore please your Majesty that it be en-acted; and be it en-acted by the king’s most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that there shall be levied within the kingdom of Great Britain, in the several ports herein-after mentioned, such able bodied men to serve to serve his Majesty in the navy of Great Britain, at such times, and in such manner, as is herein directed; and that the said embargo on all British ships and vessels, from time to time, being within the limits of such ports respectively, (except to such ships or vessels as shall be, from time to time, exempted from such embargo by any order or orders of the lords of his Majesty’s most honourable privy council), shall continue and be in force at each port, according to the intent and effect of this act, until the whole number of men by this act required to be levied at all the said ports respectively shall be levied, approved of, and inrolled [sic] in his Majesty’s said service, in the manner herein directed, and according to the true intent and meaning of this act, or until such embargo shall be declared to be generally taken off by his Majestyin council: and that the number of men to be levied by virtue of this act shall be as follows: ……..

For those who may wish to examine the 1795 Quota Act in more detail, I would recommend visiting: books.google.com via this reduced link: http://tinyurl.com/2yxbbx For Yorkshire it meant a total of 1081 men had to be provided for service with the Navy, while individual ports had to supply the following: Hull 731; Bridlington 50; Scarborough 275; and Whitby 573.

[Nelson’s Navy by Brian Lavery, Conway Marine Press, 1989, p. 122]

In the news of March 27 1801, there was a brief story about the more caring side of the press-gang, when, it was reported:

“On Wednesday last, the press-gang going on board a vessel in the Humber, found a poor boy on board nearly exhausted with hunger, and the most cruel treatment. He was immediately taken on shore, and examined at the Town-hall, when such a scene of villainy and barbarity on the part of the Master [of the vessel] was developed, as was almost beyond conception.

“It appears the inhuman wretch had taken him an apprentice only a short time ago, and with him received a premium of 12 guineas, from the overseers of a parish in the south. The boy was taken under the care of the Governors of the Workhouse, and every attention paid to him which humanity can suggest. We understand the master was this morning fully committed to take his trial for the above offence .”

[Hull Advertiser, 28 March 1801]

An interesting aside from the Hull Advertiser dated August 10, 1804 says:

“The Lords of the Admiralty have instituted a prosecution against John Chapman, a journeyman book-binder, of North Shields, for forging a Greenland protection, with a view of protecting a seaman from being impressed.”

[Hull Advertiser, 10 August, 1804]

Most readers of this will be aware that on the 21 st October 1805, the British fleet under the shared commands of Admirals Nelson and Collingwood defeated the combined fleets of France and Spain at the Battle of Trafalgar. It is not necessary here to venture into that except for these missives sent to the king from Hull congratulating him on the victory and lamenting the death of Admiral Nelson. Almost in passing they make mention to the ‘matchless courage of the seamen and marines in general’. These were the same men pressed from the high seas, from ports and harbours around the coasts, yet this is the only official epitaph they receive from the citizens of a proud and grateful town and nation. They have been included here to illustrate the total lack of respect most often shown to the fighting men of not only the navy but of the army too, for the common foot soldier was treated to much the same lack of concern and compassion. They were quite literally cannon fodder, hardly human at all to any but their own family, friends, and shipmates.

To the KING'S Most Excellent Majesty,

The humble Address of the Wardens, Elder Brethren,

and Assistants of the Trinity-House of

Kingston-upon-Hull.

Most Gracious Sovereign,

WE, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Wardens, Elder Brethren, and Assistants of the Trinity-House of Kingston upon-Hull, anxious to repeat our Congratulations at every Event which is likely to promote the- Prosperity, Honor, and Happiness of this Kingdom, presume to approach the Throne with our sincere Congratulations on the late signal and important Victories, which, under Divine Providence, your Majesty's Fleets, commanded by the late Vice-Admiral Lord Nelson and Sir Richard now Admiral Strachan, achieved over the Combined Fleets of France and Spain off Trafalgar and Cape Ortegal; Victories which while they reflect the highest Honor on the Judgment and Intrepidity of the Admirals and Officers, and on the matchless Courage of the Seamen and Marines in general, must strike the Foe with Terror and Dismay.

Deploring as we most sincerely do, with the rest of your Majesty's loyal Subjects, the Death of that invaluable brave Officer Admiral Lord Nelson, yet we trust and hope that Victories like these, complete and honorable, and beyond Example decisive and destructive to the superior united Force of the Enemy, must blast their every Hope of again facing your Majesty's Fleet; and we fervently trust that it may please the Almighty to continue to go forth with your Majesty's Fleets and Armies, until your Majesty can give to your faithful and loyal Subjects a safe and honorable Peace.

Given under our Common Seal,' the 26th Day of November, in the Forty-sixth Year of your Majesty's Reign.

John Thackray.and Thomas Locke, Wardens.

[Transmitted by the Right Honorable Earl Fitzwilliam; and Samuel Thornton, Esq; and John Staniforth, Esq; Representatives in Parliament for Kingston upon Hull.]

The companion letter, sent by the Mayor and Aldermen of the town and port of Kingston upon Hull, is of a similar vein yet even more dismissive of the actual seamen who gave their lives, limbs, and sanity on that memorable day:

To the KING’S Most Excellent Majesty.

The humble Address of the Mayor, Recorder,

and Aldermen of Kingston-upon-Hull.

Most Gracious Sovereign,

WE, your-Majesty's dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen of Kingston-upon-Hull, beg Leave to approach your Throne, with our warmest Congratulations, on the splendid and decisive Victory, obtained by your Majesty's Fleet over the combined Forces of France and Spain; an Event which, we earnestly hope and trust, will lead to the Deliverance of Europe, from the unjust Aggrandizement and insatiate Ambition of France.

Though we may justly contemplate, with Pride and Exultation, the eminent Superiority displayed by your Majesty's Navy, in the Battle of Trafalgar; we must ever deeply Lament the Loss of the gallant and illustrious Commander on that memorable Day, whose Skill and Valour have so often frustrated the ambitious Designs of our Enemies; and in whose Death, shone so conspicuously the Virtues which adorned his Life, Love of his Country, Loyalty to his King, and pious Resignation to the Will of his Creator.

Given under our common Seal, this 23d Day of November, in the Forty-sixth Year of your Majesty's Reign,

Will. Jarrat, Mayor.

[Transmitted by the Right Honorable Earl Fitzwilliam; and Samuel Thornton, Esq; and John Staniforth, Esq; Representatives in Parliament for Kingston-upon-Hull]

[London Gazette Issue 15867 published on the 26 November 1805. Page 5; http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk ]

Another anecdotal story comes from one William Clowes who claimed to have escaped the clutches of the gangers at Hull. His narrative seems to be somewhat fanciful, but an examination of some of his salient points of detail would appear to verify his story, and as he was to become a Primitive Methodist preacher, it similarly seems doubtful that it is untrue.

“At about ten o’clock one morning, being at the Dog and Duck [see Old Harbour Photographs section at: http://www.yorkshirehistory.com/harbour/W16.htm RGH] inn, where several officers were stationed, I was provoked to fight. The officers appeared to be diverted with the combat, nor did I expect that my opponent and myself were soon to become the objects of their seizure. Scarcely, however, had we ended our conflict before we were pressed to go on board of a ship of war which was in the Humber. As the gang was not immediately at hand, we were put into a kitchen, and had we not been removed at the moment we were, I had formed the design for escaping, by ascending a table which stood under a window whose upper sash was let down, and leaping head first through. Just as I was about to spring through the window, which had I done, I would undoubtedly have been killed, we were arrested by some constables, who led us to the rendezvous. As we were going down High Street, still bent on making my escape, I rushed from the constables and ran up Grimsby-lane into the market place, which was crowded with market people. The constables pursued me shouting “Stop thief!” but I cried “It is only the Press-gang. I have done nothing amiss.” Some attempted to seize me but others allowed me to pass them without interruption. Thus circumstanced, none stayed my flight, for I turned twisted and leaped, and ran, till I eluded all my pursuers. However, being nearly exhausted and greatly fluttered, I entered into my master’s china shop, into which I was followed by the constables who had seen me enter. They took me thence back to the rendezvous, that I might accompany other pressed men on board a vessel awaiting our arrival. Mr. Smith, my master, together with the landlord of the inn in which the captain of the press-gang lodged, successfully entreated the captain to grant my opponent and me our liberty. When the captain had pronounced our freedom he admonished us never to be out of our houses after nine o’clock at night. I then determined not merely to abide by his admonition, but to be out of the town by nine o’clock in the morning.”

[The Journals of William Clowes A Primitive Methodist Preacher … from the year 1810, Hallam and Holliday, London, 1844, pp. 9-10; Google Books]

On the international stage at this time, relations between the new United States of America and Great Britain were teetering on the brink. The state of affairs is very well and succinctly described by N.A.M. Rodger:

“The difficulty with the United States arose from the difficulty of distinguishing the nationality of people who looked and sounded more or less the same. Moreover the law of Britain and most other countries defined nationality by birth, but the United States permitted nationality to be gained by a period of residence. There were therefore many people who were British in the eyes of English law and American in the eyes of United States law. This would have been a substantial difficulty in any circumstances, but it was compounded by the refusal of Jefferson and Madison to issue any official citizenship documents. Their position was that all persons aboard American ships were to be regarded as U.S. citizens without further evidence. This claim, unsustainable in U.S. or any other law, was designed to make negotiations impossible. Behind it lay the advice of Albert Gallatin, the long-serving Secretary of the Treasury, who calculated that 9,000 men, half the seamen in the American deep-sea merchant ships were British subjects. [My emphasis, RGH] ….

In the absence of official documents, U.S. consuls issued unofficial ones, which were often respected, but left numerous occasions of dispute. Even the most scrupulous consuls had to depend on unverifiable declarations for their evidence of citizenship, and by no means all were scrupulous in a business which earned large fees. British officers in turn, desperate for men and convinced with some reason that there were many British deserters sailing under the U.S. flag, had all the excuses they required to treat any document with scepticism. The result, according to modern research, was that about 6,500 U.S. citizens were pressed into the Royal navy of whom about 3,800 were subsequently released .”

[The Command of the Ocean, by N.A.M. Rodger, A naval history of Britain 1649-1815, Penguin Books in association with the National Maritime Museum, ISBN-13 978 0 141 02690 9; ISBN-10 0 141 02690 1; 2005, pp 565-6]

Among other, lesser reasons, the above dispute eventually led to the War of 1812 being declared between the United States and Britain. Yet more succinct is the following description of that war:

“British interference with American trade, impressment of American seamen, and “War Hawks” drive for western expansion lead to war. American attacks on Canada foiled; U.S. Commodore Perry wins battle of Lake Erie (1813). British capture and burn Washington (1814) but fail to take Fort McHenry at Baltimore. Andrew Jackson repulses assault on New Orleans after Treaty of Ghent ends war (1815). War settles little but strengthens U.S. as independent nation.”

[ http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001247.html ]

With the Navy, and the army having to fight in two theatres of war, Europe and the Americas, the need for men was even more serious, and the Impress continued their activities up to and beyond the final battle in the European theatre, Waterloo in June 1815.

However, little is then heard of the business of the gangers in the press until on September 28, 1811, there was reported the following harrowing account:

“On Tuesday night, a mob assembled and broke the windows of a woman in Wincolmlee, suspected of having given information against seven seamen, who had just before been seized by the press-gang, and sent on board the tender. A similar assemblage took place the next morning, and again proceeded to acts of violence, dragged the woman out, pulled off most of her clothes, and threw her into a ditch; and in all probability would have done her some serious injury, had not the constables been called to the spot, who succeeded in rescuing her from the hands of her tormentors, and conducted her to a place of security.”

[Hull Advertiser, 28 September, 1811]

After the Battle of Leipzig or the Battle of Nations, 16-19 October 1813, and the enforced abdication of the Emperor of the French, Napoleon Bonaparte on 6 April 1814, and his subsequent exile to the Mediterranean island of Elba, from which he escaped, landing at Cannes on 1 April 1815, there was panic in the dark rooms of Whitehall and the Admiralty. Ships had in the hiatus been laid up in ordinary, their crews dismissed and dispersed. Then the Ogre had reappeared, and regained control of France including nearly all her military forces. Again drastic measures were called for, the navy needed to be re-established in strength and the only means at their lordship’s disposal was the dreaded press-gangs. In Hull by this time it seemed the bad days were behind them, so when the gangers resumed their activities, they were met with very stiff resistance as evidenced by the following from the Advertiser of May 27, 1815:

“About six o’clock on Wednesday evening, as the officers of the Impress at this town were attempting to take a seaman near the entrance of the Old Dock, by great exertion he extricated himself from their hold, and by the assistance of some men at the dock bason [sic] made his escape; during the struggle a mob had collected together, and the pressgang were annoyed for a considerable time, by having stones, bricks and dirt thrown at them, and with much difficulty effected their retreat. After this the tumult in great part subsided until nine o’clock, when the mob assailed the house of the Rendezvous, the sign of the Spurn Lights, occupied by Mr. Smith, near the South-end, not satisfied with breaking all the windows and doors, and pulling down part of the front wall, they proceeded into the house, and destroyed all the furniture, linen, glass, &c. The beds they tore open, and strewed the feathers into the street; the liquors and ale they drank or carried away in pitchers. Most of this riotous procedure was the work of young lads and women, the latter encouraging the boys in this wanton destruction of property; a few men were observed in the mod, one of them, John Bewell, was taken up and examined before the magistrates yesterday, who committed him to prison for rioting, aiding and assisting in demolishing the house of Mr. Smith, two others were remanded for further examination. Several magistrates and part of the 58 th Regiment went to the spot as soon as information was given them of the outrage – the mob instantly dispersed, and necessary measures have since been taken to prevent a re-occurrence of disturbance.”

Post script: June 4 th,

A reward was offered for the apprehension of offenders in this affair, in which notice the name of the occupant of the Spurn Lights emerged as Matthew Smith.

As most will know, on June 18 th 1815, Bonaparte was finally defeated by the combined armies of Lord Wellington and General Blucher on the field of Mont St. Jean at the battle called Waterloo.

It was announced on the Monday prior to the 3 rd August, 1816, that Matthew Smith aged 43 years; late of the Waterloo Tavern, and the Naval Rendezvous in this town, had died. It is uncertain whether the Waterloo Tavern was a reincarnation of the Spurn Lights public house that was located at 41 Humber Street.

Sheahan describes possibly the same event, but has it dated July 1815, the narrative being much more colourful, and perhaps more imaginative:

As the sailor escaped “…. The gang applied for assistance at the Mansion House, and dispersed to their several homes; but the mob, now exasperated, proceeded in a riotous manner through the Market-place and Humber Street to the pressgang rendezvous. Here the Riot Act was read, but it was of no avail, for the mob (many of whom were sailors) completely wrecked the house. Some of them entered the neighbouring block yard of Mr. John Atkins, and brought from thence a spar about thirty feet long, which they used as a battering ram, and with which they destroyed the front of the building. They tossed the ale casks and spirit kegs into the street, and broke and threw the furniture into the river. This affair cost the town about twelve hundred pounds. The wrecked rendezvous stood on the site of the building now numbered 41, in Humber Street. The rendezvous was afterwards held at the Labour in Vain public house in the same locality.”

[History of the Town and Port of Kingston upon Hull, by James Joseph Sheahan, 2 nd Edition, John Green, Beverley, 1866; pp. 194-5]

Compared to the Spurn Lights public house, the Labour in Vain was located at number 46 Humber Street. Both addresses fell within the sub-area called locally, the South-end. Today, nothing remains of these buildings, and even the street plan as been altered, so that their precise location on the ground can no longer be discerned with certainty.

So decisive was the victories of Trafalgar and Waterloo that Britain was able to retain naval sea power for the following hundred years, so decisive indeed that the navy was once again reduced drastically in ships and men. Best summed up perhaps by the following lines of doggerel:

God and the Navy we adore,

In time of danger, not before!

The danger passed, and all things righted,

God is forgotten and the Navy slighted

After 1815 there was little cause for the Impress to be used, and after a protracted campaign in Parliament, an act was passed making it illegal.

“Impressment was last used in Britain during the Napoleonic wars of 1803-1815. Although not used after that period, the right to use impressment was retained. In 1835, a statute was passed that exempted sailors who had been impressed and had served for five years in the navy from any further impressment. In 1853, the navy introduced continuous service for sailors who wished to make a career in the navy. After a fixed number of years, they would receive a pension. This reduced the need for general impressment and it died out in the form that it had been used previously.”

[http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheet_impressment.htm ]

Eventually, on 25 August 1835, it was announced in the London Gazette that the act of Parliament for “for the encouragement of the voluntary enlistment of seamen, and to make regulations for more effectually manning His Majesty's Navy” came into force, thereby sending the evils of impressment into history – or so it was thought. In the twentieth century however in two world wars, a new face was provided and impressment once again reared its head from the past. This time it was called Compulsory National Service. By what ever name, it amounted to the same, and in England lasted until the early 1960’s.

"Cheerily, lads, cheerily! There’s a ganger hard lo wind'ard;

Cheerily, lads, cheerily! There’s a ganger hard a-lee;

Cheerily, lads, cheerily! Else 'tis farewell home and kindred,

And the bosun's mate a-raisin' hell in the King's Navee.

Cheerily, lads, cheerily Ho! The warrant's out, the hanger's drawn!

Cheerily, lads, so cheerilee! We’ll leave 'em an R in pawn!"

When a seaman jumped ship, an ‘R’ was written against his name to denote that he had ''run” So, when he shirked an obligation, monetary or moral, by running away from it, he was said to “leave an R in pawn”

Richard Hayton © 2008

Designed by Richard Hayton 2008
email richard@yorkshirehistory.com