--------------------------------

NAPOLEONIC WAR

-------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | Total |
| | Seamen | | | additional |
| | voted for | | | number |
| Year. | the navy | Increase. | 'Waste.' | required. |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| | /38,000\ | | | |
| 1803 | \77,600/ | 39,600 | -- | 39,600 |
| 1804 | 78,000 | 400 | 3,492 | 3,892 |
| | | |(for nine | |
| | | | months) | |
| 1805 | 90,000 | 12,000 | 4,680 | 16,680 |
| 1806 | 91,000 | 1,000 | 5,400 | 6,400 |
| 1807 | 98,600 | 7,600 | 5,460 | 13,060 |
| 1808 | 98,600 | -- | 5,460 | 5,460 |
| 1809 | 98,600 | -- | 5,460 | 5,460 |
| 1810 | 113,600 | 15,000 | 5,460 | 20,460 |
| 1811 | 113,600 | -- | 6,816 | 6,816 |
| 1812 | 113,600 | -- | 6,816 | 6,816 |
| 1813 | 108,600 | Reduction | -- | -- |
| | /86,000\ | | | |
| 1814 | \74,000/ | Do. | -- | -- |
-------------------------------------------------------

(No 'waste' is allowed for when there has been a reduction.)

It is a reasonable presumption that, except perhaps on a single
occasion, the merchant service did not furnish the men required--not
from any want of patriotism or of public spirit, but simply because
it was impossible. Even as regards the single exception the evidence
is not uncontested; and by itself, though undoubtedly strong, it
is not convincing, in view of the well-grounded presumptions the
other way. The question then that naturally arises is--If the navy
did not fill up its complements from the merchant service, how
did it fill them up? The answer is easy. Our naval complements
were filled up largely with boys, largely with landsmen, largely
with fishermen, whose numbers permitted this without inconvenience
to their trade in general, and, to a small extent, with merchant
seamen. It may be suggested that the men wanted by the navy could
have been passed on to it from our merchant vessels, which could
then complete their own