Tales of the Press Gang

Whenever I try to find tales of the sea, I struggle somewhat. This is a perfect example of one of the ways I’ve ended distracting myself with when setting out to find sea stories: a quick pivot instead to look for a nautical account that might lead to a possible story, and then a descent down a rabbit hole / rat hole into something that is only loosely naval. In this case, historical newspaper reports relating to The Press, aka the press-gang (or pressgang ) and the practice of impressment.

Let’s start with an example of how appreciated the press-gang weren’t:

A mob responds, June 1815

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000230/18150605/002/0001 Hampshire Chronicle - Monday 05 June 1815

About six o’clock on Wednesday evening, as the Officers of the Impress at Hull were attempting to take a seaman, by great exertion he extricated himself from their hold; during the struggle a mob had collected together, and the press-gang were annoyed for a considerable time by them. After this, the mob assailed the house of rendezvous, the sign of the Spurn Lights, 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 the street; the liquors and ale they drank or carried away pitchers.

When another mob remonstrated against the press in Bristol, there was a tragic result when a body of marines saw fit to retaliate by firing their weapons:

*A “hot press” and a “justifiable homicide”, April, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000532/18030404/040/0003 Gloucester Journal - Monday 04 April 1803

A very hot press took place took on Saturday night, at Bristol. The press-gangs were uncommonly numerous, and attended by some of the military. At many of the avenues of that city, parties of the military were stationed, to prevent any escape. Upwards of 200 men were picked up; many of whom, not being seamen, have been discharged.

On Sunday afternoon, as the gang and a party of the marines were conducting some of the pressed men to Lamplightr’s-hall, in order to put them on board his Majesty’s frigate in King-road, they were violently assaulted in the Hotwell-road by large mob, who, not content with using the most opprobrious and irritating language, pelted them with mud, stones, glass bottles, both whole and broken, as greatly to endanger their lives. The officers, both naval and military, repeatedly conjured the thoughtless multitude to desist and disperse, but without effect; till at length, the marines, whose extreme forbearance had excited the astonishment and admiration of the spectators, irritated beyond further sufferance, without orders from their commanders, fired, as it were involurtarily, among the crowd, by which one boy was unhappily killed, and two or three other persons wounded. A Coroner’s Jury were convened; from the strong depositions laid before them the very outrageous conduct of the mob, and particularly the evidence a gentleman who swore that he saw a soldier’s hat knocked off his head by stones twice in the space of two minutes, before they fired, they returned the verdict of Justifiable Homicide.

The boy who unfortunutely lost his life on this occasion, was a poor helpless lad, labouring not only under great bodily, but mental debility, in consequence of fits; to the attacks of which in the streets, he was so subject,that at the instant he fell, the neighbouring inhabitants, accustomed to see him in those paroxysms disease, concluded he was then labouring under one them, till they saw the blood gushing from the wound. The other persons who were wounded, we are rejoiced state, are in a fair way of recover.

There were also deaths in other situations:

Press-gangs at the Barbican, June, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002194/18030603/005/0004 Sun (London) - Friday 03 June 1803 Plymouth, June 1— Last night the Impress for Seamen was very hot, and late in the evening a large mob, consisting chiefly of women,collected round the Press-gangs at the Barbican, when one of the Marines very imprudently discharged his pistol among them, and killed Gilbert Rekestrew, the Master of one of the Fishing Smacks at this Port (who was leaning over the rails of the Barbican), on the spot, the ball having entered his heart. He has left a wife and live small children. The Jury are now sitting on the body.

A fatal occurrence, April, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002643/18030420/018/0003 British Press - Wednesday 20 April 1803 A fatal occurrence took place on Monday last at Gravesend. As a press-gang, headed by a naval officer, was attempting to press some men, an obstinate conflict took place, by which two men were killed. On the same day another press-gang entered the house of Mr. Phillips, of the Plough and Harrow, at Gravel-hill, Greenhithe, when, with the most horrid imprecations, they insisted on searching every room in the house. On his resisting their attempts, a scuffle ensued. Phillips knocked three of the men down, hangers were drawn, the landlord was overpowered; two of his maid servants being greatly alarmed about the safety of their master, going out of the house to call for assistance, were knocked down by two of the press-gang, who at length decamped, but left Mr. Phillips in a doubtful state.

On occasion, a vigorous defence against the press could lead to prosecution:

A riot at Boston, March, 1804

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000237/18040316/010/0003 Stamford Mercury - Friday 16 March 1804 THE KINO V. TUXFORD & OTHERS. [Special Jury.] This was a prosecution instituted by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty against John Tuxford, Edward Tuxford, Wm. Rose, Morris Buff, John Rilatt, Richard Stevenson, and Richard Barsnip, the principal instigators of and operators a riot at Boston, on the 22d of August last, in which a midshipman, and 5 men under him, constituting a press-gang, were forcibly dragged from the Angel inn, and violently assaulted and ill used. No defence was attempted, as the evidence against six of the defendants was clear, and the season For counsel to offer palliatives of their conduct will be when judgment is about to be pronounced on them in the Court of King’s Bench.—All but Richard Stevenson were found guilty.—It appears the unpleasant affair which gave birth to this prosecution, had some connexion with the recent election, the orange and blue party fancying that the introduction of the press-gang into Boston was attributable to those who espoused the cause of the opposite hue; and, under this impression, tumultuous assemblage of persons proceeded to the most indecent outrages.

But it wasn’t just mobs that took up the cause of pressed men, as the following, rather unfortunate, incident, with black humour potential, in which a wife harries the press-gang for taking her husband, and with fatal result, dramatically shows,:

A dreadful affray, May, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000230/18030516/001/0002 Hampshire Chronicle - Monday 16 May 1803

The impress on Saturday, both above and below Bridge, was the hottest that has been for some time—the boats belonging the ships at Deptford were particularly active, and it is supposed they obtained upwards of two hundred men, who were regulated on board the Enterprize till late at night, and sent in the different tenders to the Nore, to be put on board such ships whose crews are not completed.

The impressed men, for whom there was not room on board the Enterprize on Saturday were put into the Tower, and the gates shut, to prevent any of them effecting their escape.

The impress on the River was Sunday continued with the utmost activity.

On Saturday, about two o’clock, a dreadful affray happened at Hungerford-stairs, in consequence of a man of war’s boat, in which were a midshipman and a gang of seamen, impressing some watermen at that place. Having pressed several they put ashore to take another, when the wife of the last pressed man clung to her husband, and not being able to separate them, she was conveyed away with him in the boat; some coal heavers returning at this moment to work, immediately assailed the boat with glass bottles, and coals from the lighters, till most of the people within her were desperately wounded, and amongst the others, the unfortunate woman: the midshipman and three of his crew were beaten into the water and the whole had probably perished, had not a barge come at this moment belonging to one of the Insurance Offices, to demand the release of a pressed man belonging to that Office, then in the boat: recovering their man, and finding the situation of the press-gang, they took the boat in tow, and proceeded towards Blackfriar’s-bridge: to this place the mob pursued her, and being joined by additional numbers, they insisted upon sinking the boat with her crew but this was successfully resisted by the Master of the Insurance barge, who sailed with them below London-bridge, and put them singly on board their tender. The poor woman is said to have died of her wounds. Three of the gang were taken to an hospital with very little hopes of recovery.

At other times, members of the press-gang themselves found themselves subject to the law, as in the following report:

Are you a constable?, April, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002643/18030407/009/0004 British Press - Thursday 07 April 1803

Last week, as a Lieutenant of a press-gang was in pursuit of two men at Lynn, they eluded him by entering a house, when the former asked a man in the street if he was not a constable, to which he answered in the affirmative, whereupon the Lieutenant charged him in the King’s name to aid and assist him in taking the two men. The Constable (who was also a Sheriff’s Officer) in return enquired if he was not Lieut. ——, to which he replied that he was; when the Bailiff told him that he was his prisoner, at the suit of ——, for 40l. and took him away.

As the previous example shows, it seems to be have been generally held that the press-gang couldn’t just break in to someone’s premises to impress them without the support of a constable. However, the following press-gang appears not to have got that memo:

Riotous and forcible breaking and entering, May, 1806

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002194/18060503/020/0004 Sun (London) - Saturday 03 May 1806 CAUTION TO PRESS-GANGS.
LIVERPOOL QUARTER SESSIONS.
THE KING V. CLEMISON, J. SHIBRIDAN, AND P. CONNOR.

This was an Indictment against the three persons above-mentioned, charging them with riotously and forcibly breaking into the dwelling-house of John Harrison, and of violently beating, wounding, and assaulting him in his own premises.

This Cause excited an unusual interest, and must be considered as of peculiar importance to Maritime places, as it involves the question, Whether a Pressgang, in the exercise of their duty, have a legal right to make forcible entry into a dwelling-house for the purpose of discovering concealed Seamen ?

Mr. PARR opened the case on the part of the prosecution. After some prefatory remarks on the important nature of the duty he had undertaken, and the momentous consequences which the decision of this day might eventually involve, he declared it as his opinion, that the right of personal liberty was a privilege of such importance, that without it all other rights are nugatory, and all other human enjoyments entirely valueless; not, he said, that false species of liberty which had spread desolation through the fairest provinces of Europe, and seemed to consist in the right of every than, however depraved, to do as he pleased, but that moderate and measured liberty which submits to the restraints of virtue and the laws, and is compatible with the order and welfare of society. In this country, however, this right to personal liberty admitted of several legal infringements, and among the rest was the practice of impressing seamen for His Majesty’s Navy. However much, he said, this practice may be deplored, as repugnant to the genuine feeling of liberty, and hostile to the spirit of the British Constitution, it was now become certain, that without it our maritime superiority could not be maintained, and without that, not one of the blessings we at present enjoy could for a moment be secured.

The good of the whole, therefore, clearly demanded a partial sacrifice. But as this practice, (justified by necessity alone) itself is of itself sufficiently ungrateful to the general feeling, particular care should be taken that it may not be aggravated by unnecessary instances of severity or oppression. In the case before the Court, he maintained that the manner in which the undisputed privilege of His Majesty had been exercised, was illegal, oppressive, and cruel; and he lamented that the forcible entry into the house of the Prosecutor had been made under the authority of the law, as supposed to have been laid down in a late case at the Lancaster Assizes. Mr. PARR strenuously combated this doctrine, which, he conceived, could not have been rightly understood; and denied that there ever existed any law, written or unwritten, which would warrant a press-gang, or any other persons whomsoever, to enter, in the night, or the day, with force of arms, into the peaceful habitation. of any of the meanest of His Majesty’s subjects, for the purpose of impressing seamen known to be there concealed; much less, as in the present case, on a bare suspicion. He closed his address with a well-grounded hope, that the verdict of the Jury would be such as was consistent with the justice of the case, and finally conducive to promote the best interests of the country

It was then clearly proved by several Witnesses, that on the night stated in the Indictment the Defendants, with some others, came to the house of the above-named John Harrison, in order to search for a Seaman of the name of Bell, whom they supposed to be there concealed. The door being fastened, they demanded entrance, which being refused, they knocked out the windows, got into the house, and abused the occupier, Harrison, in a shameful manner. They found the seaman, who is now on board a Ship of War.

The Defendants did not set up any general defence, but Capt. Cumberland was called on the part of the, Defendant Clemison, to whom he gave a most excellent character.

The RECORDER, in a very able and impartial manner, then gave his opinion of the law, in which he acceded to the several propositions before stated; and the Jury pronounced a verdict of Guilty against the Defendants.

Other encounters with the law played out in different term, with even more comic potential. For example, here we have a case in which the press-gang impress a constable, and then a High Constable, before a personal acquaintance saved the day:

A very extraordinary outrage, November, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000230/18031121/005/0003 Hampshire Chronicle - Monday 21 November 1803

The following are the particulars of a very extraordinary outrage committed by a press gang at Margate, on Tuesday se’nnight as related by the parties who were the sufferers:—

About ten o’clock at night, Mr. Lancells, who is grocer and tallow chandler, was going round his premises with a lantern, as was his usual custom, to see every part was safe from the danger of fire, when he heard a voice exclaim, “Who is that fellow with the lantern?” Mr. Lancells replied, “Who calls me that fellow?” The Captain instantly ordered his men to seize and take him to the boat. Mr. Lancells informed him that he was a constable, and commanded the Captain in the King’s name to keep the peace, and added that he was a tradesman, a housekeeper and in all those capacities exempted from the Impress Act. The only answer was, “D——n his eyes, take him on board.” He was then dragged from his own door in the Market-place to the Pier, where he was overtaken Mr. Gore, the High Constable, who is also Captain of the Volunteers. Mr. Gore interposed his authority, with his staff of office in his hand, upon which the Captain ordered his gang to seize Mr. Gore, which was done accordingly, and he was dragged into the boat after Mr. Lancells, where they were detained near two hours in the rain under a guard of sailors, while the pressgang proceeded round the town, and pressed several other persons as little liable to the impress as Mr. Gore or Mr. Lancells. Among the persons impressed was Mr. Brett, the farmer, North Down, near Margate. The Civil Power was at an end; the officers of the law being impressed, Mr. Brett had no one to apply to for protection, bur was obliged to submit to the same violence the other gentlemen had suffered. They were all taken on board the Texel, where Mr. Gore happening to know the pilot, received some civilities. The Captain of the Texel was bed, it being three o’clock in the morning when they reached the ship: but Captain Byng was no sooner informed what had happened, than he invited Mr. Gore and Mr. Lancells to breakfast, and made them every apology for the outrage that had been committed, expressing the deepest concern for their sufferings, and informed that his boat should take them on shore whenever they pleased to depart from the ship. They were accordingly landed at Margate on the evening of the day after they had been impressed.

When a member of the Volunteers was pressed in Chester, the rest of his company took unkindly to it, and saw to take matters for releasing him into their own hands:

On pressing a member of the Volunteers, January, 1804

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000174/18040116/012/0003 Morning Post - Monday 16 January 1804 RIOT AT CHESTER. A press-gang stationed at Chester having, on the 28th ult. pressed one of the Volunteers, who had been at sea, and lodged him in gaol, a great number of the members of the Corps to which he belonged, proceeded after their parade, to the prison and demanded the man. On receiving a refusal, they threatened to proceed to violence, when Major Wilmot, their Commander, came up, and declared that he would put the first of them to death that attempted to force the gaol: upon which he was seized by the Volunteers, some of whom called out to have his sword broken over his head. By the assistance of some friends, he was, however, rescued from them unhurt. They then turned their fury against the gaol, the windows of which they first forced in, and then the door; upon which the gaoler, in order to secure the rest of the prisoners, gave up the man in question, who was chaired thro’ all the principal streets of the city. The naval rendezvous house was the next object of attack, the windows and doors of which they destroyed. At their approach the press-gang retired; but leaving their colours, the Volunteers tore them from their staff, and dragged them in the kennel. — Lieut. Colonel Cuyler, the Inspecting Field Officer of the Volunteers in the district, sent to and called upon, the Mayor and Magistrates to use their authority, who sent a note to Lieut. Burchell, earnestly requesting him to take his gang out of Chester, till troops should arrive in the city. The Magistrates at the same time, sent an express upon the subject to Prince William of Gloucester, who commands the district, in consequence of which, four companies of the Shropshire Supplementary Militia were immediately marched in from Liverpool, and, at the end of some days, peace was restored.

The event also made it into Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register, a popular newsletter of its time:

Rescued unhurt, January, 1804

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000050/18040107/001/0010?browse=true Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register - Saturday 07 January 1804 At Chester, on the morning of the 28th of December, a press gang, stationed in that city, took up a seamnan, who proved to belong to the Chester Volunteer Infantry; and, in consequence of the threats of some of the corps to rescue him, he was lodged in the Northgate jail, The volunteers, soon after, paraded for exercise, and on their parade repeated their threats of rescue, for which they were reprimanded by the commanding officer; but were, at the same time, assured, that every proper effort should be made in order to obtain the release of their comrade. In the evening of the same day, a body of the volunteers, about 400 in number, suddenly assembled, in their regimentals and with side arms, marched immediately to the Northgate, and demanded the man, who had been lodged there by the press-gang. On receiving a refusal, they were proceeding to attatck the jail, when one of their officers, Major Wilmot, (a gentleman who had served long in the regulars) came up, in his regimentals, and, after urging them in vain to desist, declared, that he would put the first of them to death that attempted to force the jail; upon which he was immediately seized by the volunteers, who pinnioned his arms, some of them calling out, at the same time, “down with him!” and others “ break his sword over his head!” By the assistance of some friends, he was rescued from them unhurt. They then turned their fury against the Jail, the windows of which they first forced in, and then the door; upon which the jailor, in order to secure the rest of the prisoners, gave up the man in question, who, by his rescuers was chaired through all the principal streets of the city, amidst shouts of exultation and triumph! The naval rendezvous house was the next object of attack. At their approach the press-gang retired; but, leaving their colours, the volunteers tore them from their staff, and dragged them in the kennel, after having destroyed the windows, doors, &c. of the house! Lieutenant Colonel Coyler, tie Inspecting Field Officer of the volunteers in the district, sent to and called upon, the mayor and magistrates to use their authority; but, what were they to do against such a number of armed men? All they could do, was what they did, to wit, to send a very civil note to Lieutenant Burchell, earnestly requesting him to take his gang out of Chester, as it was not in the power of the magistrates to afford them protection against the volunteers, ‘till troops should arrive in the city. The magistrates at the same tinme, sent off an express to His Royal Highness Prince William of Gloucester, who commands the district, stating that the safety of the city could not be answered for, unless he sent a strong detachment of troops; in consequence of which application, four companies of the Shropshire Supplementary Militia were immediately marched in from Liverpool, and, at the end of some days, peace was restored.— And, is it already come to this? Is this the sort of force which is to enable us “ to hurl back the threats of the enemy?” Are these the troops, whose gay and lofty plumes, in Hyde Park, so completely eclipsed the poor regular army and the militia? Are these the heroes, who received the thanks of the House of Commons? Are these the Knights whose banners are wrought by the hands of Royal ladies, and presented by Majesty itself?

[TH: Cobbett then goes on to ask what consequences were felt by the volunteers, whether seamen would simply join the volunteers to avoid the press if word of this action got out, etc etc]

The Editor of the Chester Courant, however, appears to have taken issue with Cobbett’s report:

A scandalous and unfounded statement, January, 1804

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000388/18040124/011/0003 Chester Courant - Tuesday 24 January 1804 MISREPRESENTATION and FALSEHOOD. CHESTER TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1804. WE are much surprised, and we may add, not a little concerned, reading in “ Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register,” of the 14th inst. a most scandalous and unfounded statement of the disturbance which took place in this city, on the night of the 28th of December last. As few copies of the Political Register- find their Way into this part of the country, we shall take the liberty of copying from this abusive and illiberal publication, such passages most of our readers know, and hundreds of our fellow-citizens can witness, to be infamous falsehoods.

Without further preliminary observations, we now proceed with Mr. Cobbett’s mis-statement:

1st.—” At Chester, on the morning of the 28th of December, a press gang stationed in that city took up a seaman, who proved to belong to the Chester Volunteer Infantry; and, in consequence of the threats of some of the corps to rescue him, he was lodged in the Northgate jail. The volunteers soon after paraded for execise, and on their parade repeated their threats of rescue, for which they were reprimanded the commanding officer; but were at the same time assured, that every proper effort would be made in order to obtain the release of their comrade.”

At the parade on Wednesday, the 28th ult. on the Roodee, it was mentioned that some person belonging to the Artillery Company, that one their members had that morning been impressed; a circumstance which gave the company much uneasiness, but which Major Wilmot endeavoured to remove, by assuring them, that such measures would be taken as would no doubt procure the release of the man belonging to the company; which they peaceably left the parade.

2d.—” In the evening of the same day, a body of the volunteers, about 400 in number, suddenly assembled, in their regimentals and with side-arms, marched immediately to the Northgate and demanded the man who had been lodged there by the press-gang.”

We do not attempt to deny that there were upwards of 400 persons assembled on this occasion, but either Mr. Cobbett’s correspondent has led him into a gross mistake, or he has maliciously added a cypher to the number. It is equally false that they were marched in a body, or that they wore their side arms; —some came during the disturbance, and others out of curiosity long after the rescue had taken place. We appeal to our fellow-citizens as to the truth of this assertion —we only wish to vindicate the general character of the corps, a duty we owe them, and which, regardless of what the editor of the Political Register may say, we are determined to discharge.

3d.—” On receiving a refusal, they were proceeding to attack the jail, when one of their officers, Major Wilmot (a gentleman who had served long in the regulars) came up, in his regimentals, and, after urging them in vain to desist, declared that he would put the first of them to death that attempted to force the jail; upon which he was immediately seized by the volunteers, who pinnioend his arms, some them calling out the same time, ‘down with him!’ and others ‘break his sword over his head!’ By the assistance of some friends, he was rescued from them unhurt.”

Major Wilmot’s unremitted exertions on this occasion, must ever rank him high in the esteem of his fellow-citizens. His request and solicitations that they would quietly disperse, were not altogether in vain. As to the expression attributed to him—that his arms were in consequence pinnioned, and that some cried out ‘down with him!’ and others ‘break his sword over his head,’ we must pronounce to a base and detestable falsehood.

4th—” They then turned their fury against the jail, the windows of which they then forced in, and then the door; upon which the jailor, in order to secure the rest of the prisoners, gave the man in question, who, by his rescuers was chaired through all the principal streets of the city, amidst shouts of exultation and triumph! The naval rendezvous was the next object of attack. At their proach the press-gang retired; but leaving their colours, the volunteers tore them from their staff, and dragged them in the kennel, after having destroyed the windows, doors, &c. the house! Lieut.-Col. Cuyler, the Inspecting Field Officer of the Volunteers in the district, sent to and called upon the Mayor and Magistrates to use their authority; but, what were they to do against such a number of armed men? All they could do was what they did, to wit, to send a very civil note to Lieutenant Burchell, earnestly requesting him to take his gang out of Chester, as it was not in the power of the Magistrates to afford them protection against the volunteers, ‘till troops should arrive in the city.”

We are perfectly at a loss to understand Mr. Cobbett when asks “ what were they (meaning the Magistrates) to do against such a number of armed men?” If he had omitted the word “such,” our answer then would hare been— nothing. But in this instance Mr. Cobbett’s correspondent has again deceived him, for we positively assert, that there Were but few individuals who wore their side arms, and others who were only merely spectators of what was transacting. It is possible that application might have been made to Lieut. Burchell, but we must confess we did not see the necessity of sending this “ civil note,” as the gang were seen in the streets of the city, during the disturbance, unmolested by any person.

5th.—” The Magistrates at the same time, sent off an express to His Royal Highness Prince William of Gloucester who commands the diftrict, stating that the safety of the city could not be answered for, unless he sent strong detachment of troops; four companies of the Shropshire Supplementary Militia were immediately marched in from Liverpool, and at the end of some days, peace was restored.”

We believe the Magistrates did not delay their information td His Royal Highness of this event, accompanied with a request that he would send a detachment of troops to protect the city, in consequence of which, a detachment of 100 of the two flank companies of the Shropshire Militia came into the city the following evening, TWENTY HOURS AT LEAST AFTER THE PEACE OF THE CITY HAD BEEN RESTORED! On the Saturday following a second message was transmitted to His Royal Highness by the magistrates, stating that the city had been tranquil since 10 o’clock in the evening of Wednesday the 28th ult.

6th.—“I cannot refrain from expressing my fears, that, as the news of it shall reach the several sea ports, particularly the collier towns, the volunteer corps will become very convenient asylums for all those seamen, who happen to be in port, and who wish to have an infallible protection against press warrants.”

To ease the serious apprehensions and fears expressed bv Mr. Cobbett on this point, we can assure him that a11 those members of the corps, who have been at sea, have been discharged from the regiment.

It was not our intention to say any thing on this unpleasant subject, until the result of the inquiry by the officers of the corps had been made public, had we not been imperiously called upon by the gross misrepresentations of Mr. Cobbett, and his insidious remarks, tending in alarming degree to promote a jealousy between the volunteers of the kingdom and the troops of the line: In this, however, we sincerely hope and trust, the design will be frustrated.

On occasion, it seems that personal contacts could also be used to gain release from the press, as is demonstrated in this example involving several young apprentices:

The Lord Mayor of London intervenes, April 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002643/18030416/021/0003 British Press - Saturday 16 April 1803

POLICE. MANSION-HOUSE. Thursday four Master tradesmen waited upon the Lord Mayor, and thanked him for the order which his Lordship sent with Mr. Nelson, the Deputy Water-Bailiff, for the liberation of their apprentices, who were impressed on Monday last, as they were going down the river to amuse themselves at Greenwich. In the course of their address, they detailed the particulars of the great trouble and inconvenience which they experienced in the present case; and insisted, that they being Freemen and Liverymen of London, and their apprentices being bound for the freedom of the city, the latter were not liable to be impressed, and that consequently the conduct of the press-gang, who had so impressed them, was a violation of the rights and privileges of the city of London.

The Lord Mayor answered, that he should be always ready to protect the liberties of the city of London, and commended the Gentlemen for their exertions upon the present occcasion.

At other times, freedom was given to the press to retrieve deserters who had made their way into the City:

Deserters in the City, July, 1801

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001475/18010725/008/0002 London Courier and Evening Gazette - Saturday 25 July 1801 Mansion-House. Application having been made to the Lord Mayor, in consequence of a number of sailors having deserted from His Majesty’s service, and taken refuge in the City, press warrants were granted on Thursday night last to apprehend all sailors who might found in the City. Two or three press-gangs, assisted some City officers, searched several public-houses, where they found about twenty seamen who were lodged for the night in the different compters, and yesterday morning they were brought before the Lord Mayer, when sixteen of them were found to be press-able, and were sent on board the tender opposite the Tower. The officers made heavy complaints against the mistress of a public house, who had resisted their authority, and obtained a summons against her.

On Thursday evening a press gang, consisting of about fourteen persons, having received information of a number of sailors who lately belonged to the Company’s ships, being secreted in some public houses in Leadenhall-street, proceeded thither, properly armed, with an intention to impress them, and take them on board the tender. The sailors, however, having intimation of their approach, instantly collected together and resisted the gang. A general engagement immediately ensued, and the sailors, after a difficult scuffle, proved victorious, and obliged the press gang to relinquish their purpose. Several, we are sorry to hear, were wounded on both sides, and a number of windows were broken during the affray.

The request of Government, July, 1801

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002428/18010727/031/0003 Oracle and the Daily Advertiser - Monday 27 July 1801 The Lord-Mayor, &c. at the request of Government, consented to permit, for one month, a press of seamen within the City, but under inspection of the Peace-Officers. Upwards of 1500 sailors have been since pressed. A combat took place on Saturday in Leadenhall-street, between some sailors belonging to East-India ships, and a press-gang. The sailors, by putting the press-gang to flight, proved how well they be qualified to fight the French.

In Portsmouth, it seems that the mayor shirked his responsibility in chastising the press on at least one occasion:

Dereliction of Mayoral duty, May, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002429/18030505/014/0003 Oracle and the Daily Advertiser - Thursday 05 May 1803 COURT OF KING’S BENCH, MAY 4. THE KING V. THE MAYOR OF PORTSMOUTH. Mr. GARROW moved for leave to file a criminal information against the Defendant, on the following grounds, which were stated by affidavits. A press-gang belonging to the ship Russell, lying in Portsmouth harbour, went to Gosport on the impress service. Under pretence of discharging their duty, they committed several assaults and enormities. A female (on whose part the present motion was made) had been most severely and brutally beaten and kicked by the Officers leading the gang. She was knocked down, and her arm was broken. An enormity of this nature appeared to the Magistrate of Gosport in such a light, that they thought it proper to grant warrants against the offenders, who afterwards retired on board their ship within the jurisdiction of the Mayor of Portsmouth, who was repeatedly and formally required to back the warrant, but positively refused so to-do. For this criminal dereliction of his duty, the information was now moved. He hoped that the Mayor would be able to justify himself, and shew sufficient cause against the Rule he trusted the Court would grant him; but he was convinced that it would never be endured in this country— a country where the subjects are better protected by the law than any other on the face of the Globe, that any body of men, under colour of the impress service, should break the peace, and commit outrages of this nature, or that Magistrates should in such a case, be allowed with impunity to refuse their protection, or their assistance, to those of His Majesty’s subjects who claimed it. Rule nisi granted.

A woman of bad character, May, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000230/18030509/011/0004 Hampshire Chronicle - Monday 09 May 1803 COURT OF KING’S BENCH, May 4. Mr. Garrow moved for leave to file criminal information against a magistrate, for a criminal refusal to do his duty. The person against whom he moved, was a person of good character, and he hoped would able to give a satisfactory answer to the charge he now made against him. He was mayor of great maritime town, in which a press-gang, headed by an officer and a midshipman, of His Majesty’s ship Russel had committed gross assault on the person of a woman. They not only knocked her down, but beat her, kicked her, and broke her arm. Complaint was made of this fact before Mr. Bingham, a magistrate of Gosport, who granted his warrant to apprehend the offenders; but as they were on board the ship, without the jurisdiction of Portsmouth, it was necessary the warrant should backed by the mayor. The constable accordingly applied him for this purpose; but he refused to do it, alleging that the woman, on whose complaint the warrant was granted, was of bad character. The constable went a second time, and made a formal demand of having his warrant, but was again refused.

Lord Ellenborugh asked whether it was proved to the mayor that the warrant was signed by Mr. Bingham, and that the offenders had escaped within his jurisdiction. Both these points being answered in the affirmative, a Rule Nisi was granted.

Geography also appears to have played a role in denying the activities of the press in the following case, although whether it is to be believed may be another matter!

Island privileges, April, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002643/18030412/013/0004 British Press - Tuesday 12 April 1803

The Journal of Commerce contains a letter from Jersey, speaking of some disturbances, originating from the pressing of some sailors, contrary to the established privileges of the island. It is stated that the boat belonging to the press-gang was seized by the inhabitants, and carried ashore, and that a confidential officer was dispatched to London, to remonstrate on the subject. We are not inciined to give any credit to this statement.

Sometimes, however, the threat of impressment might seem to be considered a useful situation to be in, as the following two reports of the same affair demonstrate:

Felonious and burglarious intent?!, April, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000175/18030422/009/0003 Morning Post - Friday 22 April 1803

John Holt was indicted for burglariously breaking and entering into the house of the Duchess Dowager of Chandos, Grosvenor-square, with an intent feloniously and burglariously to steal the goods and chattels therein.

The Butler and Housekeeper proved the prisoner’s being found in the house.

The prisoner in his defence stated, that he had run in there, finding a door open, in order to avoid a press-gang.- Verdict— Not Guilty.

Being in liquor, April, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002643/18030422/037/0004 British Press - Friday 22 April 1803

John Holt was indicted for burglariously breaking into the house of the Duchess Dowager of Chandos, with intent to steal.

Elizabeth Humphries stated, that she was housekeeper to the Duchess Dowager of Chandos, in Grosvenor-square; and that the night on which the prisoner got into the house, she had secured the back-door with a fork, which she had placed over the latch. About four o’clock in the morning she was alarmed by a noise like the cracking of wood, and soon after heard some person coming up stairs. She had placed a bar across her bed-room door, which the prisoner removed, and entered her apartment; she put the curtains on one side, and saw the prisoner, on which she screamed out “ Mr. Burton! Mr. Burton! (meaning the steward) here is a man.” Mr. Burton made the alarm, and the prisoner was taken into custody.

She said he had got into the house by a ladder which led to the back-door where several workmen were employed repairing the premises.

Burton, the house steward, said, he was alarmed by the house-keeper, and ran out into the street, and brought in the watchman. No property was found upon the prisoner, or any thing removed in the house.

The prisoner, in his defence said, that he had been drinking in a public-house, and that a pressgang came in, and to escape being taken by them he ran into the prosecutor’s house. Being in liquor he fell asleep, and when he awoke did not know where he was. He denied having any intention to commit a robbery The prisoner’s intent to steal not being proved, the Jury pronounced him Not Guilty.

And another affair involving the law, again described in two different reports:

May it please the ruffians, April, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000061/18030426/011/0004 Hull Packet - Tuesday 26 April 1803

PRESS-GANGS.

The scandalous outrages that have been committed by Press-Gangs, call for the immediate interference of the Board of Admiralty. Custom and State necessity authorise the practice of impressing seamen; buc it never was intended, that persons not accustomed to a sea-faring life, and pursuing useful industry, should be deprived of their liberty, dragged like felons through the streets, beat and cut with hangers, and put on board a tender, merely because it pleased a set of ruffians, called a Press-Gang.

At Union-Hall, on Friday, William Wortley deposed, that on the preceding morning, about eleven o’clock, as he was going up Tooley-street, where he had been in the discharge of his duty, he saw several persons standing near the corner of the Bridge-yard, who, from their appearance, he took to be a press-gang. Seeing they had stopped a man, whom he heard them ask for his protection, he stopped for a minute, to see how it would end. A man of the gang came to him; and said, “What business have you here?” The witness replied, “I certainly have as much right here as you.” He was then asked, “ If he had, ever been at sea?” He replied he had been two or three times to Gravesend, for pleasure, but no further. Just upon this, the prisoner in custody, who acted as the officer of the gang, consisting of nine men, came up, and ther man, who had been speakiog to the witness, said, “Here is a volunteer.” This Wortley denied, telling him he was a police-officer. This did not satisfy the other; for he seized him bythe collar, and said, “you are a volunteer, and shall go along with us.” The witness then putting his hand to his coat pocket to pull out his book, and produce his warrants of appointment, one as a police-offiqer, and the other on the impress service; the prisoner, without further cerenony, pulled his cutlass from under his, coat, and gave Wortley so severe a cut on the head, through his hat, that he had nearly bled to death before the wound was dressed. Before he became quite insensible, he requested that he might be taken to some neighbouring surgeon’s, to have his wound dressed; but this was refused. The men then under the direction of the prisoner, dragged him to Mill Stairs, laid him in their boat, (for he could not sit up) and took him on board the tender, where the surgeon dressed his wound. Several persons deposed to the same effect.

The prisoner is a press-master, who is employed under the Lieutenant who has the charge of the impress fervice, but had not any warrant.

The Magistrate said, that the prisoner had exercised the authority reposed in him in a scandalous and cruel manner. He was immediately ordered to be committed to take his trial for the offence, and the complainant was left to the care of the surgeon.

James Bennet was also ordered to find bail, for having assaulted the boy, and the names of the whole gang were sent to the Admiralty, with an account of their conduct.

Atrocious circumstances and disrepute, April, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002593/18030416/018/0004 General Evening Post - Saturday 16 April 1803

Union Hall—Yesterday one of those atrocious circumstances that in their tendency bring Government and their Officers into disrepute, and which are generally occasioned by the cruel and intemperate conduct of some, and the rapacity and indiscretion of others. Officers and persons under them in the impress service, came on to be heard before Mr. Carpenter Smith and Mr. Fournier, the Sitting Magistrates.

As we do not wish in the smallest degree to irritate the public mind, or prejudge the accused person, we lay a simple narrative of the transaction before our readers.

William Wortley, one of the Police Officers attending this Office, was in Tooley-street about 11 o’clock in the forenoon in the execution of his duty; at the corner of the Bridge-yard, he saw several persons standing, whom he conjectured to be a press-gang; on coming up, he found that he was right, as they had just stopt a man, whom they were asking for his proteetion. He (W.) stopt on the kirb; when a man of the gang came up and shoved him, and a boy into the street, faying, “What business have you here?” Wortley replied—” I believe I have as much business here as you.” Some farther conversation took place, in the course of which the man asked if he had ever been at sea? He said, he had made two or three Gravesend voyages for pleasure, but never farther. Just at this period, Mr. Press-Master, the prisoner, came up; when the man in question said, “ Here’s a volunteer.” Wortley denied this, said he was a Police Officer, and would produce his warrant; this would not satisfy the Officer, as he called himfelf; but he collared him; and on Wortley’s putting his hand back to take his book out of his pocket to produce his warrant of appointment, drew from under his coat a cutlass, with which he struck him so violent a blow on the head as to cut through his hat to the length of four inches in the front slantwise toward the right temple; his head was cut to the length of two inches and upwards, and of so great a depth as to render it astonishing that the unfortunate man survived long enough to be taken on board the tender, and have his wounds dressed. In vain did the poor man beg he might be allowed to go to a Surgeon in the neighbourhood to have his head dressed. In vain did some of the most respectable of the neighbours state that he was a Police Officer, to their knowledge, and that it surely must be improper to take him in the shocking state he was in, when they could not keep him. This was replied to, by a drawn cutlass being flourished at them, with a declaration, that if they interfered with him he would serve them the same as he did him. He was then by the Press-Master’s order dragged away from thence to Mill-Stairs, some distance from where the occurrence happened, put on board their galley, laid along (for he was unable to sit up), and c onveyed to the tender, where the surgeon dressed his head, which he declared was so hurt, the material blood vessels being separated, that unless he was extremely careful his life would be endangered.

Mr. Little, Mr. York Hatton, Mr. Eamer, and Mr. Perkins, all resident shopkeepers on the spot, and who were present when the business happened, corrobororated the evidence, and deposed as to the cruel and intemperate conduct of the prisoner.

It is scarcely necessary to observe, that in a place like Tooley-street such a transaction just at noon day could not pass unnoticed, and still less that it would pass without exciting the most marked indignation of the populace. Fortunately for the public quiet, Mr. Fournier, the Magistrate arrived and promised the persons present that every proper step should be taken to punish the guilty parties.

As soon as Mr. Fournier arrived at the office, he, with the advice and conjunction of his brother Magistrate, sent to the, Commanding Officer of the tender off the Tower, to send this Press-Master and his gang to the office as prisoners, and release their officer; this was immediately complied with. The Press-Master had not any Warrant to impress any person, nor had any person with him. He said, he acted under the verbal orders of his employer, Lieut. Denham, who was not present at the transaction.

Lieut. Denha, being before the Magistrates, was asked to produce his press warrant. He did. On reading it, Mr. Smith observed, that “ there was an express direction contained in it, that his power should not be delegated or transferred to any other; and that no proceedings should be had under it, unless he was personally present.” Lieut. D. admitted this: only observing, that this person having been a Master’s mate, and coming to him very strongly recommended, he thought he might safely entrust him in the execution of the duty; but he denied having given him any directions to go in the streets to impress any passengers—he was not to do so, unless he found them corning or going out of any boat about the stairs by the river side.

The Magistrates, conceiving there was sufficient evidence before them, fully committed the press-master to the county gaol until the prosecutor is out of danger, and his busy assistant until he finds bail.

It seems to have been not uncommon for the owners of public houses to protect their establishments from the press gang, as this prosecution against a press-gang entering one such hostelry demonstrates:

An obstinate landlady, July, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002428/18010727/026/0003 Oracle and the Daily Advertiser - Monday 27 July 1801

The Master of the Swan Public-house, opposite the India-House, appeared to a summons, calling upon him to answer a complaint of his obstructing the entrance of a peace-officer and a press-gang into his house on Thursday night.

A Constable said, that on accompanying a pressgang to the house, he observed there a number of sailors and some women, seemingly prepared to resist their authority, and that, on account of the obstinacy of the Landlady, they were unable to secure any of the seamen.

The Landlord stated, that having ocasion to rise early the next morning, he went to bed by ten o’clock on Thursday night, soon after which he was disturbed by his daughter coming to inform him that a press-gang had come into the house. He could not believe, her, as he had never before known such a circumstance. On his coming down he found a number of people in his tap-room, and his wife told him she had received a cut on-the arm, and was otherwise much hurt, by a number of people who were strangers to her. He saw a pistol thrust through the window, and threats were uttered by the people against any who should oppose them. He then ordered the door to he opened, and demanded to see the warrant, which being shown to him, he told the people they might search where they pleased, adding, that he had no lodgers, and that if the persons in the tap-room had arms, as the Lieutenant had insinuated, it was a circumstance unknown to him. After this statement, the LORD MAYOR dismissed the complaint.

In the following example, it appears as if one landlady was actively going even further, by actively trying to encourage men to desert the Navy!

Enticing a soldier, November, 1809

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002433/18091117/017/0003

The Day - Friday 17 November 1809

THE KING V. ELIZABETH STONEFIELD. The Attorney-General moved the judgment of the court on the defendant, who had been tried on an indictment for enticing a soldier in his Majesty’s service to desert. Another count was for endeavouring to entice to desert, of which alone she was convicted. It appeared from the affidavits, that on the 4th of February last, the defendant invited this soldier into her house, a public house used for lodgings to sailors, at Liverpool. She asked if he would go to sea, offered him a bounty of 5l. but he refused to go, saying he could not go, for that he was a soldier; he consented, however, to hide himself from his serjeant in a cock-loft with some sailors, who concealed themselves from a press-gang, and where he was afterwards found. It appeared that the defendant wanted this soldier to go to sea, as a substitute for her own son; that she had four sons, all of them at sea in the King’s service; that the fifth had been lately impressed, and she wanted his help to carry on her business at this public house in Liverpool; that she is extremely indigent, living partly by the half pay of two of her sons, who had assigned it to her; but she had lost a part of that, on account of, the ship in which one of her sons was, having been wrecked on the Coast of France, where he is now a prisoner.

Mr. Rein made an able speech for the defendant, in mitigation of punishment. He spoke of her sex—her age 66—of her extreme indigence— of her affection for the only remaining of her five sons, torn from her bosom in her old age, and recommended her to that mercy which the Court could shew her, consistently with the rules of Justice.

The Attorney-General for the prosecution observed, that no advocate could do more than his Learned Friend had done for his client in this case; but it was one in which his public duty called upon him not to relax into a dangerous compassion, for this was a practice which was very injurious to the service; there were no less than fourteen deserters from one regiment, who had gone to sea by this method, by which they got two bounties for one service, and it was impossible to find them. The Court observed, that no discretion was left to the Judges in this case, it depended on the provision of an Act of Parliament, founded upon another statute, both of which needed much amendment. They must either fine the defendant 40l. or imprison her for any period not more than six, ad not less than three months. To fine this defendant in that sum, would, in effect, be to imprison her for a long period . Indeed, because she would have to remain until the fine be paid, and therefore the sentence of the Court upon her was that she be imprisoned in the common jail at Liverpool for three calendar months, and that she do stand in and upon the pillory for one hour, between the hours of twelve at noon and two in the afternoon, according to the form of the statute in that case. made and provided; that this be in the market-place of Liverpool,where the offence was committed.

The following example, in which someone who had tipped off the authorities about a local smuggler, ended up being tipped off in return to the press-gang by way of revenge:

A wanton abuse of power, March, 1805

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002430/18050329/016/0003 Oracle and the Daily Advertiser - Friday 29 March 1805

SUSSEX ASSIZES. HORSHAM; TUESDAY, MARCH 26, THE KING V. SPRY AND OTHERS.

This was an Indictment against Mr. Spry, a Lieutenant of the Navy, and the Impress Officer at Little Hampton, Duke a seaman, and Wm. Meetin, a farmer, for a riot, assault, and false imprisonment, in pressing two persons from Storrington who were not liable to the Impress Service.

Mr. Serjeant SHEPPARD called the particular attention of the Jury to the circumstances of this case, inasmuch, as it involved the most serious consequences to the liberty of all persons in the same class of life with the persons whom he then represented. The Defendant, Spry, was an Officer of the Impress Service, and the case he had to lay before them was that of a wanton abuse of the power which had been intrusted to him for the good and service of his country, into an engine of private revenge and oppression. The poor man who now stood as one of the Prosecutors of this cause, for another of them was dead, both labouring men in husbandry, and one of them Sowten, it was supposed, had given information against some smugglers, particularly against a man of the name of Serle, and in revenge they had caused him to be impressed, although there was no pretence for doing it, according to the laws of the Impress Service, than there was for impressing any man then in Court. He was sorry to add, that from circumstances it appeared, that Lieutenant Spry knew he was aiding in the gratification of this private malice, and not in the fair execution of his duty. For it would be in evidence, that after the pressgang had broken into the poor man’s cottage, and carried him and his son away, the Lieutenant was applied to, and told, that the persons he had taken had never been to sea in their lives. But he refused to release them, and directed them to be sent to Portsmouth. It would be proved too, that he said to one of them, that it was as much a theft to take Master Serle’s tubs as to steal a sheep from the field, and that the impressed man had been peeling against Serle, and was a man of bad character. The Learned Serjeant then animadverted upon the equal security which the law afforded to the lowest as well as to the highest. It threw a hedge and a wall round the poor man’s hut, which it was as criminal to destroy or breakthrough without a legal cause, as violating the security of the proudest mansion. The cottager might sleep as safely upon his pallet of straw, as the Peer upon his bed of down. The latch of the cottage door must no more be lifted up hostilely, than the folding doors Of the Palace be rudely burst open. The law resented the violation of both in one equal degree. He paid many encomiums on the naval character, and although his instructions had obliged him to state these charges against a gentleman of that profession, he declared it would give him the greatest pleasure to hear them disproved.

Mary Sentor stated, that she was the widow of Senter, and that she had a son by a former marriage, of the name of John Mawley. They lived all together on Storrington Common. On the 27th of February last her husband had gone to bed at eight o’clock, when their cottage was surrounded by eight or ten people, who burst into it. They dragged her son, Mawley, from the chimney corner and handcuffed him. Two of them then went up stairs and brought down her husband, one of them dragged him down by the legs, and another by the hair of his head, and then they handcuffed him also. She saw the prisoner Duke, there, and W. Meetings was another of them. There was also amongst them a man of the name of Trevott, who was not in Court. They dragged her husband down without his clothes, but upon his entreaty they allowed him to dress himself before they handcuffed him. She went to the door, and there stood another man, who told her he was the master of the people in the house, and that he had a pistol, and would shoot her if she made a noise; they next compelled her husband and son to go with them. The next day she heard by a letter where her husband was; she immediately set out to Little Hampton, and found him at the rendezvous house a prisoner, and he was sent from thence to Portsmouth, and did not return for a fortnight and three days. He was then very ill, and she fetched him home from a cart. He died in six days after he got home. She added, he had not been at work for three weeks before he was impressed, having met an accident by having been crushed on the side by a waggon.

Thomas Broad, Comptroller of the Customs at Hampton, stated, that Sowten had given information to them a few days before he was pressed, against Serle, and some other reputed smugglers.

Mr. Serjeant SHEPPEILD commented with great force on this evidence, in his reply: and, after a very minute summing up, the Jury found all the Defendant’s guilty— finding the Lieutenant guilty of the false imprisonment, and not of the assault.

The Judge immediately pronounced sentence, which was a fine of £5O on Lieutenant Spry— three months imprisonment on Duke — and twelve months imprisonment, and a fine of £1OO on Meeton.

I’m not sure if we are to take from the following the idea that the press-gang could also be used as “encouragement” for other means?!

A curious circumstance, July, 1805

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002193/18050730/003/0001 Saint James’s Chronicle - Tuesday 30 July 1805

A curious circumstance took place at Brighton on Friday last:— A farmer, who rents the race-ground, having explained to the Jockey Club, that last season he had not received the usual compliment of onefourth of a pipe of wine, threatened to plough up the course if he was not paid what he conceived to be his due. Accordingly, on Friday last he set his plough to work; but a press-gang appearing, the ploughmen fled, and resigned the field to the gentlemen of the turf. The farmer, however, says, he will not be jockeyed out of his wine in this manner, and is determined to have another sort of a race for it in Westminster-Hall.

It would be interesting to know, in the following case, whether the vagrant pressed into service continued his profession when on board ship:

A false prophet?!, February, 1809

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000990/18090218/011/0002 Oxford University and City Herald - Saturday 18 February 1809

A sturdy, ragged vagrant, with a venerable full grown beard, lately made his appearance at Lynn in Norfolk. He soon attracted the notice of press-gang, who by a few general questions, discovered that he was, by profession a prophet, and had practised ten years. He declared that the war would continue three years longer, and then terminate disastrously. The naval officer doubted the truth of his inspiration, and pressed him so strongly to visit a small vessel lying off the coast, that he, at length, reluctantly consented.

In another example, a crippled sailor seems to make a miraculous recovery when spotted by a press-gang:

An apparent cripple, August, 1807

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002194/18070812/012/0003 Sun (London) - Wednesday 12 August 1807 AN IMPOSTOR.—An apparent cripple in sailor’s garb, who lately craved charity about the neighbourhood of Blackfriars Road, seeing a press-gang approaching to examine whether his hull was fit for service, threw away his crutches, and ran off, exclaiming— “They may have my rotten timbers, but d——n, &c. if I don’t make sail, and find my sea legs.”

In the following poem the narrator wishes an encounter with the press-gang on a man who is less than charitable a crippled beggar:

I hate Andrew Jones, December, 1808

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000317/18081203/031/0004 Northampton Mercury - Saturday 03 December 1808

ANDREW JONES.

“I hate that Andrew Jones: he’ll breed
“His children to waste and pillage.
“I wish the press-gang, or the drum
“With its tantara sound would come
“And sweep him from the village!”

I said not this, because he loves
Through the long day to swear and tipple;
But for the poor dear sake one
To whom a foul deed he had done,
A friendless Man, a travelling Cripple.

For this poor crawling helpless wretch
Some Horseman who was passing by
A penny on the ground had thrown;
But the poor Cripple was alone
And could not stoop —no help was nigh.

Inch-thick the dust lay on the ground,
For it had loug been droughty weather;
So with his staff the Cripple wrought
Among the dust till he had brought
The halfpennies together.

It chanc’d that Andrew pass’d that way
Just at the time; and there he found
The Cripple in the mid-day heat
Standing alone, and at his feet
He saw the penny on the ground.

He stoop’d and took the penny up:
And when the Cripple nearer drew,
Quoth Andrew, “Under half-a-crown,
“What man finds is all his own,
“And so, my friend, good day to you.”

And hence I said that Andrew’s boys
Will all train’d to waste and pillage;
And wish’d the press-gang, or the drum
With its tantara sound, would come
And sweep him from the village!

On other occasions, the press appear to have imagined a disguise where there wasn’t one:

A sailor in disguise?, December, 1806

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000174/18061219/016/0003 Morning Post - Friday 19 December 1806 In the Court of King’s Bench, Guildhall yesterday, a Mr. Urquart obtained 50l. damages against a Mr. Fair, the Commanding Officer of a press-gang, for an assault, the latter conceiving the former to be a sailor in disguise. Mr. U. was so rudely handled by the gang, that his coat was torn from his back. Several persons saw the transaction and knowing Mr. Urquart, he was at length released from the gripe of the press-gang.

I’m not quite sure how to read the following?!

City shopmen blanching their tan, July, 1801

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001409/18010731/018/0003 Kentish Weekly Post or Canterbury Journal - Friday 31 July 1801 The city shopmen are now blanching their black tan, lest the press-gangs should take them up, in mistake for loblolly boys —as to nankeen trousers, they are quite exploded behind the counters.

Loblolly boys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loblolly_boy

In the following case, two suitors for one fair both seem to have lost out when they battled over her affections:

Two lovers pressed together?!, February, 1809

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000031/18090208/013/0003 Aberdeen Press and Journal - Wednesday 08 February 1809

Two young men, namced Miller and Brown, who had for some time paid their addresses to a maid-servant in Hatton-garden, London, agreed, with the consent of the fair one, who, it seemed, promised her hand to the victor, to fight for her, and they adjourned to Copenhagen-fields on Friday, to determine the prize. In the interim, notice was sent of their intention to the officer of the tender off the Tower, and towards the close of the battle, when the combatants had severely beaten each other, a press-gang arrived, and carried both the champions off. The fair one has since found consolation for her ioss, in the tender assiduities of a Recruiting Serjeant.

A few years earlier, a prize fight ended up with the press-gang being the winners:

A prize fight delivers, August, 1801

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000682/18010808/013/0003 Royal Cornwall Gazette - Saturday 08 August 1801 Thursday morning a pitched battle was fought in field, at the back of the London Infirmary, Whitechapel, between Edwards, a sawyer, and Johnston, a journeyman wheelwright, for five guineas a side. The contest was put an end to by the arrival a press-gang and several constables, who soon dispersed the mob, secured both the combatants with their seconds, and fifteen stout young men, whom they conveyed on board the tender.

On the other hand, being able to hold yourself in a fight might also help you avoid being pressed:

Prowess of Irishmen as boxers, December, 1823

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001427/18231225/015/0003 Morning Advertiser - Thursday 25 December 1823 PROWESS OF IRISHMEN AS BOXERS. (From the Dublin Morning Post.) The only Irishman have upon record who retained the pugilistic Championship of England for length of time, was the renowned Peter Corcoran. He was a hero of the first milling class from the year to 1776; during which period he won several battles; and amongst other feats of strength performed by Peter, he thumped a whole Pressgang at Portsmouth; and (by way of climax to his exertions) he broke the Lieutenant’s sword over his head. …

The press-gang also showed they could be rather innovative in generating crowds that might contain pressable men:

A cunning plan, November, 1803, (August, 1754)

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003026/18031119/010/0003 True Briton - Saturday 19 November 1803 On the 2nd of August, 1754, about five o’clock in the afternoon, the City of London was greatly alarmed at the sight of two large Birds, which perched themselves on the Cross on the top of St. Paul’s Cathedral; they were very large, and appeared through a Telescope to be Eagles, though some were of opinion they were Cormorants. However they sat very quietly until a man went up into the gallery and fired a gun at them, on which they flew away. Various were the conjectures of the multitude at this uncommon sight, and some who turn every thing to omens cried, “ see, see, how the Spaniards fly away at the firing of a gun—nothing else will bring the Dons to reason.” This being observed to have such an effect to draw so numerous a multitude of people together, and the necessities of the State requiring the Fleet to be suddenly manned, the Press-gang placed two live Turkies on the top of the Monument, which presently attracted a prodigious number of gazers and a great many useful as well as idle fellows were presently picked up for the service of the Fleet.

On another occasion, a pressed man was briefly allowed back on shore to take his wedding vows before being returned to the press tender.

The power of love, March, 1808

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002644/18080306/039/0008 National Register (London) - Sunday 06 March 1808

A striking display of omnipotence of love, occurred at the High Church, Hull, a few days ago. A young woman having given her heart to a sailor, who was impressed and carried on board the tender by the interference of her friends, resolved nevertheless to marry the object of her choice: He was accordingly brought on shore, and escorted by the press-gang to the church, from whence, after the marriage ceremony, he was again conveyed in the tender.

In the following, much longer reminiscence, we hear of tale of man who was pressed before he could make his wedding vows, and what happened next…

The tale of Tom Potts, April, 1802

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000235/18620415/004/0002 Kentish Gazette - Tuesday 15 April 1862 CAUGHT BY THE PRESS GANG. LIEUT. WARNEFORD, R.N.

Tom Potts, when I knew him, not so many years since, a pensioner of Greenwich Hospital, used to spin the following curious yarn to whoever would moisten his clay whilst paying it out. Like most garrulous story-tellers, Potts was distressingly discursive; it will be well, therefore, to eptomise, and tell it mainly in the third instead of the first person.

Potts was dubious as to his place of birth—Devonshire he had no doubt, and somewhere he believed between Exeter and Plymouth. But. if his place birth was obstinately mute to his advent upon earth, he himself knew perfectly well, that, at about eight years of age, he was a small orphan boy in the service of a Mr. Jobson, pork butcher, of Plymouth. Passing on till he had obtained his twentieth year, we find Tom factotum in his master’s much improved business, and moreover growing favour with Jemima, Jobson’s only daughter and heiress. This favourable disposition on the damsel’s part dated, I understood, for a considerable time subsequent to the hasty departure of a much older aprentice— one Philip Jenkens by name, who having been detected in some misconduct was kicked or otherwise forcibly expelled the house by Jobson; and being a tall, likely lad, with other resource, enlisted in the marines, and was not heard of again at Plymouth for many a year. It was all happily settled at last between Tom Potts and Jemima, with old Jobson’s hearty approval. The young couple were to be regularly spliced at church on the Monday, after which “ Potts, late Jobson.” was inscribed in gold letters over the shop. On the day previous, he, seated by the side of the lovely Jemima, made one of a large family-friends’ dinner-party specially invited to celebrate the double event to come off on the morrow —the retirement from business of Jobson, and the union of Jemima Jobson with his successor. Mr. Potts.

Dinner over, the flowing bowl went swiftly round—so swiftly , that Tom, after couple or hours consumed at the pleasant pastime, bethought him that a stroll upon the quay might cool his cranium and render his articulation less thick and uncertain. Apologising, therefore, for a short absence Tom left the gay company, and, as the father of mischief would have it, hitched down from the pegs as he passed through the passage a rough pea-overcoat and shiny hat — the properties of one the guests, a seaman distantly related to the Jobsons— put them on and sallied forth.

He had taken but a few turns on the quay, and feeling considerably qualmish, wisely resplved to get back home as speedily as might be. He taken but a few uncertain steps homewards, when there came tumbling along a party of rough, rollicking, devil-may-care sailors. Precisely how the thing was done, with what expletives, potts had but a hazy recollection; but the fact was indiputable that he was bundled into a man-o’-war’s boat lying at the quay steps, and carried off, spite of kicking and screaming, on board the Serpent sloop of war, lying in the Sound, which at once brought her anchor home, filled, and spread her white wings for the southern hemisphere, with important admiralty despatches.

“It were no manner of use to tell them thunderin’ varmints when I came to,” said Potts, “that I was a respectable master tradesman going to be married the very next day. I might as well have sung psalms to a dead horse. The villains only laughed at me, and a bosan’s mate threatened to give me something to howl for, if I didn’t hold my stupid old-woman’s jaw. The first luff was civiller, and kindly observed that, if what I said was correct, I should most likely obtain a discharge from the service when the “ Serpent” returned to England, which might be in about three or four years, more or less.

“There never was such a dismal go,” continued Potts, “ but blubbering wouldn’t brighten it, so, being always of a cheerful. happy-go-lucky turn of mind, I thought it best to grin and bear it, hoping, of course, that something would turn up an’ Jemima prove constant and kind. Well, something did turn up, that’s certain—and on the very day we»k that I was to have been married too —which was an infernal turn-up with a forty gun French frigate. The “ Serpent” only mounted 20 barkers. The very first broadside knocked me over, and being carried below, the surgeon said my right leg was smashed bad, most likely by a chain shot, that he must whip it off at once—which was done. It makes me hot now to think of it, particularly the first dressing afterwards.

“When was able to talk and be spoke to, I asked how the fight had ended, and was told that it might have gone hard with the “Serpent” had not the “Menelaus” frigate, Captain Sir Peter Parker, hove in sight, when the Frenchman sheered off.

“‘Your are on board the ‘Menelaus’ now,’ said the marine, who. somehow, I seemed to know; ‘you are on board the “Menclaus” now. and will be sent on shore at Malta directly the frigate gets there, with me and other wounded men.’

“The marine had his left arm in a sling. It had been broken by a musket ball, in a brush with boats, not very long before he told me.

“‘You don’t remember me. Potts,’ said he presently. ‘I do you, well, much as you’ve grown. How’s old Jobson and Jemima?’

“‘Why, it’s Phil Jenkins!’ said I, springing up in my berth as well I could.

“’ Right, my boy; and no malice! Why should there be?’

“Now, I had always disliked—I may say, hated—Jenkins, knowing him to be the artfullest, most circumventing beggar that ever breathed. He was uncommon kind to me, both on board and when we were in hospital at Malta; but for a long time, I was afraid to trust him—the more so, as he was always slyly pumping me about the Jobsons —of Jemima in particular, whom, from something I had said when first under the doctor’s hands and light-headed, fancied I had actually married just afore I was kidnapped. I let him think so, though I saw he had some doubts upon the subject from my fighting shy of it. I got a surgeon’s assistant to write a letter for me to Jemima, telling her the sad misfortune I had met with, and hoping to see her soon. An answer came, saying she was true blue, and would be my wife as willingly as if I had still both my precious legs. She hoped I should soon be in old England, as she felt shocking lonely, her father having fallen off a ladder, and so hurt himself the that he was quite imbecile, though harmless, and otherwise in good health. Didn’t Phil Jenkins try all know’d to get a sight of that letter! Finding it was no go with me, the artful vermint managed to worm all about it out of the assistant-surgeon, when, of course, it was no use to keep up the deceit any longer.

“Well, to cut the story short, two or three days the latter was gone, Phil Jenkins comes into the ward, bright and shining, to say his discharge, which I knew he had lodged the money for long before, was come, and that he should embark for England that very day.

“‘I shall not be going into Devonshire,’ says he, ‘for some months to come, if ever, or I’d take a message for Jemima—to Miss Jobson, I mean.’ He shook hands, and away he went.

“My leg healed slowly. It had required to be broken and re-set, but was perfectly cured at last; and with a joyful heart —(my discharge from the service, into I which had been entrapped in such a rascally way, having also come)—I set sail for England about two months after Philip Jenkins.

“It was late evening—Saturday evening, when I reached Plymouth. The shop was being closed; but I could see Jemima through the inner window sitting by the parlour fire alone. In I goes—claws huld of and kisses her like mad— she screeching ten thousand murders, and bawling ‘Philip! Philip! Here’s that Tom Potts come to life again!’ In rushes Philip; floors me; then picks me up with the help of one of the men, who hustles me into the street!’

Jenkins had written from Malta, as from the surgeon of the hospital, stating, that Tom wound having mortified, death had ensued in a few hours. He soon after confirmed the melancholy tidings in person. As Jemima felt “shocking lonely “—particularly since poor Pott’s death, and moreover in pressing need of a man to manage the business, she was easily persuaded to marry her old acquaintance, out of hand; and the serio-comic farce of “Treachery Triumphant “ was played out.

Rage and disappointment threw Potts into a dangerous as fever, from which he did not thoroughly recover for many months. But though reduced to sad straits, bandied about as an unattached pauper from parish to parish, he persistently refused accept any dole from Jenkins or his wife—finally settling down in Greenwich Hospital his admission whereto was not effected without much difficulty. generally wound up his yarn with some doggerel lines, fiercely vituperative of the iniquitous pressing system, illustrating his own experience—which would, however, scarcely repay quotation. —St. James’ Magazine.

After making good an escape from the press by boat on one occasion, on returning the said boat, one unfortunate young was caught up again:

Ran into a boat, July, 1801

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002586/18010727/017/0004 Porcupine - Monday 27 July 1801 On Saturday night a press-gang pursued a seafaring man in Tooley-street, who, to avoid them, ran into a boat and rowed himself to St. Catharine’s, and left the boat to drift, which appearing to belong to his own father, he hired another boat recover it, being the only means of subsistence for an aged parent, when he was again assailed by a fresh gang on the water, to whom he related his case, and added, that if he was suffered to secure his father’s boat, he would, upon the word of an honest seaman, return to them. They permitted him to proceed; after which he honourably performed his promise, and was then indulged with leave of absence, to enjoy the company of his friends.

And here’s another example of an attempted escape via the water:

Threw himself into the water, May, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000171/18030507/017/0003 Lancaster Gazette - Saturday 07 May 1803 A few days ago, a man belonging to a brig lying in the river at Chester, endeavouring to from a press-gang, threw himself into the water, whence he was rescued; but on being conveyed to the infirmary, languished a few hours and died.

Pretending to be a press-gang also seems to have been a strategy for fraudulently extracting pay-offs in exchange for not pressing potential recruits:

A view to plunder, March, 1803

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002643/18030315/034/0004

British Press - Tuesday 15 March 1803

On Saturday evening last, a banditti, to the amount of 21, composed of coal-heavers, &c. formed themselves into two parties, with a view to plunder; and under the pretence of being authorised press-gangs, seized between 40 and 50 labourers coming from their pay-tables, in the neighbourhood of Wapping, from whom they extorted about 20l. for their liberation. But in the high career of their success, two real press-gangs coming up, demanded their warrants; for want of which, every one of those noncommissioned plunderers were sent off to the discharge of more honourable duties in his Majesty’s service. Some produced protections, but the regulating captain very justly concluded that nothing could or ought to protect such audacious impostors.

Recognised as a noted bullock-hunter, November, 1802

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003026/18021106/019/0004 True Briton - Saturday 06 November 1802 Thursday afternoon the inhabitants of Old-street-road were suddenly put into some alarm, by the appearance of a supposed Lieutenant and a Press-gang, who had proceeded from Kingsland-road, and stopped and questioned a number of persons; but a Police Officer happily passing at the time, instantly recognized one of the foremost men as a noted bullock-hunter, smasher, &c. and immediately taking him into custody, the rest of the counterfeit gang fled in every direction, amidst the hisses and the laughter of a number of spectators.

Mock press gang, October, 1804

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002643/18041003/018/0003 British Press - Wednesday 03 October 1804 Ireland. Dublin, Sept. 27. MOCK PRESS GANG.—On Sunday night, four or five persons, who had made a practice of boarding merchant vessels in the river, under the pretence of pressing seamen for the British Navy, were apprehended by some of the Police Officers. Charges of a very serious nature were preferred against them. It seems they had first ill-used, and then robbed the masters and mates of some of the ships; but in their last precdatory excursion they were severely beat, and one of them wounded in a shocking manner, previous to their apprehension. They were detained they whole of Sunday, in St. Andrew’s watch house. They were all committed to Nesvgate by the Lord Mayor elect, Alderman Jenkin.

One of them wore the uniform of a yeomanry corps belonging to the vicinity of this metropolis.

Captain Roberts, who resisted the attack of the above-mentioned banditti, in a very spirited manner, when they boarded his vessel, lies dangerously ill.

Sham press gang, January, 1804

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000235/18040103/003/0002 Kentish Gazette - Tuesday 03 January 1804 Sham Press Gang.— Tuesday William Cowper was charged before the Lord Mayor, at the Mansion-house, with having, in company with five or six others dragged a young along Tower-street, and used him cruelly, pretended that they were a press gang, and as such had a right to impress him. Whitney, the watchhouse keeper, of Billingsgate, and the watchman, said, they were alarmed on Monday night with the cry of “murder,” and going into the street, saw the prisoner and his companions dragging the Prosecutor, who appeared to have been much abused, and was covered with blood. They said they were taking him to the tender; that they belonged to a rendezvous house in the Borough; but, being required by the officer to shew their warrant, they all ran off, and all escaped pursuit, except the prisoner. The prisoner said, in his defence, that he belonged to the tender, and gave, in the names of two midshipmen, who, he said, were with him at the same time. The Lieutenant of the real press gang, however attended, and assured his Lordship, the prisoner and his companions had no order from him act such a manner.

Crying “murder” in an attempt to gain the attention of a crowd who might come to your support when being pressed was also a strategy used elsewhere:

Crying murder, September, 1808

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002193/18080920/010/0003 Saint James’s Chronicle - Tuesday 20 September 1808 Yesterday, a young man, who was in the service of a Gentleman in Upper Spring-street, New Road, was pressed by a press gang, and taken from his master’s house a considerable way down the street. Being alarmed at the sudden change of his situation, he cried out murder, which caused an immense mob to collect. They soon opened the coach, and set the person at liberty; then they attacked the gang, who endeavoured to fly in every direction. Two of them being closely pursued, they took refuge in the shop of Messrs. Marshal and Laurence, butchers, in Durweston-street. The mob several times threatened to destroy the house; but a party of the Life Guards came, and escorted the refugees to their guard-house in Marylebone.

There are many other stories demonstrating how the Royal navy press was scourge of the merchant fleet:

A festivity at Peckham fair, September, 1801

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000156/18010902/002/0001 Bury and Norwich Post - Wednesday 02 September 1801 During the festivity which prevailed at Peckham fair, on Monday afternoon, a press-gang found means to assemble there, for the purpose of impressing three men, and as they came in two coaches, remained undiscovered for sometime, until they laid violent hands on their objects. The alarm being instantly given, the scenes of merriment gave way to those of a very serious aspect: a general battle took place, which created an uproar for half an hour, when the gang was glad to retreat, after being very severely beaten.

Almost all the hands have been impressed out of the Honourable East India Company’s ships, by his Majesty’s Officers on the Downs station; which circumstance will probably retard the dispatch of those ships.

Effecting a rescue, January, 1804

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002193/18040103/016/0004 Saint James’s Chronicle - Tuesday 03 January 1804 On Thursday evening the press-gang entered a publick house opposite the Duke’s Dock, Liverpool, where several of the Duke of Bridgewater’s flatman were drinking, and attempted to impress some of them. Their comrades on board the flats hearing of this, ran to their assistance, and effected a rescue. A terrible affray then took place. The military were sent and twelve of the rioters conducted to the guard-house. A severe battle Was fought betwixt the flatmen and the press-gang.

A whimsical circumstance, April, 1805

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001476/18050413/013/0004 London Courier and Evening Gazette - Saturday 13 April 1805

A whimsical circumstance happened last week off Gravesend. A West Indiaman arrived at that place, and was soon boarded by a press-gang. The crew of the West Indiaman were brought upon deck, and while the Lieutenant was examining them, a health-boat arrived. As no clean bill of health was found on board the West Indiaman, or at least none that was deemed satisfactory, the crew of the West Indiaman, the Lieutenant of the man of war, and all his gang, were ordered to Standgate Creek to perform quarantine for forty days, which they will, no doubt, pass in perfect harmony and good fellowship with each other.

On at least one occasion, however, it seems that the press-gang discovered even worse conditions suffered by a potential recruit than they were likely to inflict upon them.

Abused apprentice discovered, April, 1801

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002586/18010403/019/0004 Porcupine - Friday 03 April 1801 On Wednesday se’nnight, the press-gang, on boarding 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 the master of the vessel was developed, as was almost beyond conception. It appears the inhuman wretch had taken him as apprentice only a short time ago, and with him had received a premium of twelve 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 is confined in the House of Correction, and that the Magistrates are determined to prosecute him with the utmost rigour of the law.

By the time the press-gang was starting to fade from personal lived histories, it was being remembered in books and the press:

The Press-Gang in Tyneside, December, 1895

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000287/18951221/008/0003 Shields Daily Gazette - Saturday 21 December 1895

THE PRESS-GANG SHIELDS.

No man born on Tyneside in the first half of the century can fail to find flickering up at times among the memories of his early childhood, the sweet reminiscences of the lullaby with which every mother sang her little one to sleep. The quaint old air had attached to it but a few poor lines, but their sentiment was burned, by tragic experience, into the heart every woman will sang them:

“Where hez t’ been, maa canny hinny,
Where hez t’ been, maa winsome man,
Aw’s been ti th’ nor’ard, cruisin’ back an’ for’urd,
Aw’s been ti’ th’ nor’ard, cruisin’ sair an’ lang,
Aw’s been ti’ th’ nor’ard, cruisin’ back an for’ard.
But daurna’ come ashore for Bover an’ his gang.’

“Cruisn sair an’ lang” and “daurna come ashore,” so it was with the “bold British tar,” the “ heart of oak.” the “ brave sailor boy,” about whom patriotic sea-song writers weaving their tissue of tawdry, boastful falsehoods. Brave, reckless, fearless, and manly he was truly, but one harrassing anxiety beset him on all hands by day and night, and made him as made the hardiest his comrades when at sea, cast wistful glances round the horizon or when ashore slink and crouch under cover like hunted slave. Never Sallee Rover nor Levantine pirate inspired in the heart of the merchant sailor the dread and detestation that seized upon him when one of his Majesty’s ships hove in sight. No storm that fittered the foreshore with the chafed and splintered fragments of broken wrecks checked the heart-beat of sailor’s wife with sudden a chill as the APPARITION OF THE PROWLING PRESS-GANG.
It was no fear of danger or of death that made the sprightly Shields’ tar turn with disgust from the thought of serving his king and country —unbounded proof that lay on every hand—but the knowledge that every element appealing to the instincts of a brave and free man must be outraged the moment he put his foot on the deck of a British man-o’-war. The merchant service brought him as much, perhaps more danger, perhaps greater risk of violent death. It was a hard, cruel life, but at all events left him at the end ot each voyage a free man, with some the privileges of an Englishman. In thee navy, as he knew it, the short story was one of bondage, of harsh intolerance, of mutilation, and, not seldom, of a convict’s death. The flogging was incessant, and of inconceivable severity. Lashes were given by hundreds, and often enough for lapses of ridiculous triviality. “ I have seen, “ says old Shields salt, “a man tied up to the gang way and
FLOGGED FOR SPITTING ON DECK,
flogged for neglecting to salute a middy, flogged because a hammock did not look white on a deck chair, flogged because the captain had drunk too much wine,” —and it was no fancy flogging, the boatswain’s mate being threatened by the ruffian in command that he should himself be flogged if he did not flog to the pitch his utmost strength. But it is doubtful whether the frenzy of detestation which possessed every English merchant sailor for the navy could have existed, but for the despicable institution known to him as “The Press.” The warships that cruised round the British coasts to protect them were regarded as the worst enemy known to the people of the Tyne. Hovering about in the vicinity of the harbour mouth, they pounced upon the poor little merchant vessel heading up for the port, after an absence possibly two or three years, and overhauling her, took on forced service the pick of her crew, leaving not infrequently a number insufficient to safely navigate her into port. Not only home-faring vessels but ships at the moment of sailing on a long voyage had their “hands “ taken by any navy captain chancing upon them. Resistance being out of the question, the men made
EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS TO AVOID CAPTURE
by hiding in remote out of the way holes and lurking in places contrived by arrangement with the captain and owner. Too often, however, such stratagems failed and poor fellows were ferreted out like escaped felons by the press-officers. Jack’s case was even worse on shore, for here the greater brutality of the press-gang awaited him. Slinking from his ship if he could while she was yet in the offing, he would land at some unfrequented part of the coast and get inland to hide, often to tracked and run to earth by the wretched spies and informers who, to earn the blood money paid them by the naval authorities, resorted to the basest and most cowardly artifices. Escaping detection, perhaps, he would presently be tempted by the prospect of meeting wife, children, and friends, or be driven by the necessity of again taking ship, to face the risks of going into the town, where at every step in the “ narrow street” he was menaced with capture and personal violence at the hands of the gangs of blackguards, and under circumstances
REVOLTING HUMILIATION AND DEGRADATION
haled of to one off the jetties by the river and thrown into a boat to be conveyed to the tender. Down in “ Peggy’s Hole,” just inside the harbour mouth, lay at all times a tender, one being relieved by another as the cargo of captives was gradually accumulated. Once on board, a word of indignant remonstrance or expostulation exposed the hapless wretches to the chances of being loaded with irons or even chained down to the deck, and finally encountering that ultima ratio regium the “cat.’’” Kept for an indefinite time below decks in the hold of the vessel, amid foul stench, darkness, and discomfort, the miserable beings at times took heart to rise upon their sentinels, or, greatly daring, proceeded to the extreme course of capturing the vessel from their custodians when at sea, and running her into port somewhere whence they could make a dash for freedom. On March 3rd, 1771, the impressed men board the Boscawen, cutter, at Shields, overpowered the watch and fifteen of them got clear off. February 12th, 1777, the impressed men on board the union tender at Shields rose upon crew and took possession of the ship, and notwithstanding the fire from Clifford’s fort and the other tenders
CARRIED HER OUT TO SEA.
False “ protections “ could be purchased, which (if they passed muster with the keen and suspicious press officers) might enable Jack to possess his soul in peace. Nor must he blamed if he availed himself of the use of such fraudulent scrip, for the “protections “ issued by the Admiralty were more detestably false than his, as many a poor fellow who had honourably gained, won, or bought one, found to his cost. When “ men were wanted, and men must be had,” the Admiralty took the short course of what was euphemistically called “ suspending “ the protections they themselves had issued. Surrounded by treachery such as this, Jack took sanctuary with the fierce ship carpenters, who were the particular dread of the press-gangs, who hung back as they saw them escort the hunted seamen to and from the docks. When convoy of this sort was not to be had, stratagem was resorted to, and many are the stories of
THE TRICKS PLAYED BY JACK
and his always sympathising towns-fellows in Shields. On one such occasion, a sailor named Bell was impressed, and safely lodged in the house of rendezvous. In the evening his sister, a young woman under twenty, resolved to attempt his rescue, and to that end went to take a “ long farewell” of her brother, who was to be sent off to the tender in the morning. She was readily admitted to an interview, but, in order to prevent any possibility of an escape, brother and sister were bolted and barred in a room by themselves for a few minutes. During this short interval, they managed to change clothes and on the door opened, the young man, apparently snivelling, and wiping his eye, walked off unmolested in female attire, while his sister remained to face the consequences. The heroine, who was soon restored to liberty by order of the magistrates, received several pounds from the crowd of people who went to see her, as a reward for her intrepidity and affection.
COOL AUDACITY SOMETIMES SERVED
to rid a sailor of the consequences of being pressed, or saved him from capture. A sharp old South Shields “ salt” on being impressed and taken on board the tender ran up against the lieutenant on deck and instantly begged pardon. “He couldn’t help it, he was so short-sighted.” As a consequence he was ordered over the ship’s side and got off. A smart young sailor sauntering one day “along the banks” was seized by the chief of one of the press-gangs who pointing pistol at his head pressed him in the king’s name. “ I have a protection “ said the sailor putting his hand into the breast his jacket. “ Let me see it then,” demanded the other. Now you thief, —the first to h————” retorted Jack, as he drew a pistol and pushed the muzzle of into the face his discomfited captor, who was thus obliged to relinquish his prize. The dark story of the press-gang on Tyneside in the early eighteens finds its fitting culmination in the crowning shame of
JOHN BABBINGTON STODART’S DELIBERATE MURDER
by the instruments of a British Government. A bright smart young sailor, a favourite with his captain, the well-beloved of a widowed mother, sisters and aunt, this poor boy’s untoward career and ultimate fate is an epitome of the chicanery, outrage and ruffianism with which the best of England’s sailors were only too familiar. After being pressed again and again —the last time on January 27th, 1804 —and buying with his hard-won earnings a discharge from the noble lords, arrived in the Tyne in April 1804 and, it being Sunday, straightway proceeded to Newcastle to see his mother and sisters. Dining on board ship he was watched by the press-gang who on his landing instantly gave chase. Hunted along the quay and seeing no other possibilities of escape from his old enemies he jumped into the Tyne and struck out for the opposite shore. Infuriated at the prospect of losing their victim the ruffians threatened to fire upon anyone who attempted to go to the swimmer’s assistance. When he had neared the opposite shore he was shot in the head by one of the gang. The bloody business brought in its track no retribution. The poor ill-starred lad who had paid for his “clearance”, who had not even been recaptured and broken arrest, was done to death in the face of English people in an English town on the day consecrated to God’s service, and his murderers left unmolested to sneer at the execrations of the excited “rabble.”— From “The Maister,” by George H. Haswell.

TO DO

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000156/18011216/012/0004 Bury and Norwich Post - Wednesday 16 December 1801 The character of Zanga, in the Revenge, at present sustained by Kemble, was the part in which Mossop shone. As the latter was dressing once for the character, three bailiffs, having learnt that he expected a box from England with stage properties, gained admittance to him, disguised as sailors, came to inform him of the arrival of the box. On acquainting himself with their real character, Mossop said, “ Well, Gentlemen, I confess you have outacted me— however, sit down till I have white-washed my face, and I’ll attend you—though I suppose you will have no objection to my sending for a friend to settle the matter.— The bailiffs acquiesced; when Mossop dispatched his servant with a line to a Lieutenant of the press-gang in the neighbourhood of the Theatre. The gang returned with the servant, and carried the disguised gen-try instantly on board the tender; nor were they released, until one of the Sheriffs of Dublin went the next day on board the ship personally to demand them.

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002194/18040117/020/0004 Sun (London) - Tuesday 17 January 1804

EDINBURGH, JAN. 12. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY.

TUESDAY came on before this Court, the trial of John Herdman, boatman, in the service of the Customs, Leith, accused of murder, or culpable homicide, by striking Peter Geyler, midshipman, on the Impress Service at Leith, on the head with a bludgeon or stick, on the evening of the 12th of November last, which occasioned his death in three days thereafter.

The Pannel plead Not Guilty.

No objection was made to the relevancy of the libel by the Pannel’s Counsel; and the LORD ADVOCATE restricted the charge to culpable homicide only, as he did not think he could make out the crime of Murder, against the Pannel. The usual Interlocutor was then pronounced, restricting the libel to an arbitrary punishment, and remitting the case to a Jury, which was then chosen.

The first Witness called was Mrs. Calderwood, wife of John Calderwood, meal-dealer in Leith, who said, that she remembers her husband being pressed on Saturday the 12th November, and was taken to the rendezvous, where she went, but afterwards returned to lock her shop door; and went to Coming’s, where her husband then was , who had been liberated. Mr. Geyler came in, and said he would have her husband yet, and used him very badly. On the Witness remonstrating with Geyler he struck her; on which the Pannel, who then came in , said it was a shame to use a woman ill. Herdman put out Geyler, and locked the door– The Witness was also locked out, But afterwards admitted into Coming’s, wheN the Pannel went away, and she did not see him again that night—Herdman was sober, but Geyler was mortal drunk that night.

John Calderwood said, he never was at sea, but was pressed from his own door on the 12th November, and carried to the rendezvous, but was relieved in a short time—He then went to Cuming’s, where Geyler came, and insisted on taking the Witness again to the rendezvous—His wife interfered with Geyler for using him badly, when Geyler struck her. Herdman, who was present, interfered, and said it was shameful to strike a woman, and at last put out Geyler, who continued for some time swearing at the back of the door. About an hour after, the Witness left Cuming’s by a back door.—Herdman was sober, but does not think Geyler was so.

John Beatson, midshipman, on the Impress at Leith, remembers Calderwood being impressed, but was not present when any scuffle happened. After Geyler was put out of Cuming’s, he said to the Witness, “D——n that wooden-legged b——r, I’ll do for him, for interrupting me on my duty.” Herdman almost immediately came out, when Geyler repeated his words, and struck Herdman on the head with a stick he had in his hand. The Pannel took the Witness as evidence of his being struck, and said he would have satisfaction. The quarrel continued between Geyler and him along the shore, when Mr. Waddell opened his window, and asked “ what was the matter?” Herdman said he had abused by Geyler, an would have satisfaction. Waddell advised him to let the matter rest that night, and have recourse to the Civil Law. Herdman went back to Calderwood’s, and the Witness saw Mrs. Calder wood home, and Herdman went back to Coming’s with a stick in his hand.

James Thomson, one of the press-gang, said he saw Geyler strike the Pannel with a stick, and Herdman took him a witness.

George Alexander, another of the press-gang, said, about eleven o’clock he saw Herdman, and spoke to him. Shortly after Geyler came out of the house, when Herdman struck him on the head, and knocked him down.— That the Witness lifted up Geyler, took him home, and his wife dressed his wound— That he went up the shore again, and met Herdman, who asked him to take a glass. They accordingly went into a public house, when the Pannel told him how he had been used by Geyler striking him on the head, which raised a large lump on it— That he had gone to Mr. Waddell to complain, who advised him to go home; but he had gone to the watch house, got a stick, and ,having met Geyler near Coming’s, had knocked him down.

Mr. Alexander Waddell, Customs, Leith, said, that on the 12th November, the Pannel called at his house about eleven o’clock, much agitated, and said he had been badly used by Geyler— That he had been struck on the head by Geyler with a stick, and wished the Witness to interfere.—That he asked the Pannel the cause of the quarrel, when he told him he had prevented Geyler from using ill a woman of the name of Calder wood, and said he had gone to Cuming’s, where Geyler had knocked him down. The witness advised, the Pannel to say no more, but let the Law take its course. The Pannel then went away; but in a short time the Witness heard a noise in the street, and went to the window, where he saw the Pannel and another man; when he asked Herdman if that wasthe man who had struck him, Herdman said it was: on which the Witness again advised him to go home, and he would let Captain Nash know the matter in the morning. Next morning he saw the Pannel, who told him he had given Geyler as good a stroke as he had got. The Pannel has been four years in the service. of the Customs; and he considered him as a sober man, and a steady officer. He had lost his leg at Teneriffe, along with Lord Nelson.

Mr. Charles Anderson, Surgeon in Leith, said, he was called to see Geyler on the 13th November, and found him insensible. He had a wound on the back part of his head, but it was not a large one. He died on the evening of the 14th, when his head was opened.—There was a great effusion of blood under the bone, which he thinks was the occasion of his death, but which had proceeded from the external wound.

Mr. Kellie, surgeon in Leith, concurred with the preceding Witness; but was of opinion, that if the deceased had not been much intoxicated , the wound could not have occasioned his death.

The Pannel’s declaration was then read, which closed the evidence on the part of the Crown.

Three Witnesses were examined to the character of the Pannel, who described him as a humane, decent, sober man, and not at all quarrelsome. Two certificates were also read, one from Captain Hutchinson of the Royal Navy, and another from the Physicians at Haslar Hospital, both of which were greatly in favour of the Prisoner.

The LORD ADVOCATE for the Crown, and Mr. F. JEFFREY for the Pannel, each addressed the Jury in very appropriate speeches. —Lord CRAIG, who presided at the Trial, summed up the whole in a candid and humane charge to the Jury. About a quarter after one, the Jury inclosed in the robing room, and in a short time returned a verdict,, all in one voice finding the Pannel Not Guilty. The Pannel was then assoilzied simpliciter, and dismissed from the bar.

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000472/18630918/003/0001 Greenock Telegraph and Clyde Shipping Gazette - Friday 18 September 1863 PRESS GANG IN GREENOCK

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002659/18741003/043/0004 Stirling Observer - Saturday 03 October 1874

A TALE OF THE PRESS GANG

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000101/18910906/012/0002 Reynolds’s Newspaper - Sunday 06 September 1891 THE PRESS GANG