in the different marble quarries round the town.’  On 14th October the report is that ’the different press-gangs, with their officers, literally scoured the country on the eastern roads and picked up several fine young fellows.’  Here, again, no distinction is drawn between men really impressed and men who were arrested for being absent beyond the duration of their leave.  We are told next that ’upon a survey of all impressed men before three captains and three surgeons of the Royal Navy, such as were deemed unfit for His Majesty’s service, as well as all apprentices, were immediately discharged,’ which, no doubt, greatly diminished the above-mentioned 600.

The reporter at Portsmouth begins his account of the ‘press’ at that place by saying, ’They indiscriminately took every man on board the colliers.’  In view of what we know of the heavy penalties to which officers who pressed more than a certain proportion of a collier’s crew were liable, we may take it that this statement was made in error.  On 14th March it was reported that ’the constables and gangs from the ships continue very alert in obtaining seamen, many of whom have been sent on board different ships in the harbour this day.’  We do not hear again from Portsmouth till May, on the 7th of which month it was reported that ’about 700 men were obtained.’  On the 8th the report was that ’on Saturday afternoon the gates of the town were shut and soldiers placed at every avenue.  Tradesmen were taken from their shops and sent on board the ships in the harbour or placed in the guard-house for the night, till they could be examined.  If fit for His Majesty’s service they were kept, if in trade set at liberty.’  The ‘tradesmen,’ then, if really taken, were taken simply to be set free again.  As far as the reports first quoted convey any trustworthy information, it appears that at Portsmouth and Plymouth during March, April, and the first week of May, 1340 men were ’picked up,’ and that of these many were immediately discharged.  How many of the 1340 were not really impressed, but were what in the navy are called ‘stragglers,’ i.e. men over-staying their leave of absence, is not indicated.

TheTimes_ of the 11th March 1803, and 9th May 1803, also contained reports of the impressment operations.  It says:  ’The returns to the Admiralty of the seamen impressed (apparently at the Thames ports) on Tuesday night amounted to 1080, of whom no less than two-thirds are considered prime hands.  At Portsmouth, Portsea, Gosport, and Cowes a general press took place the same night....  Upwards of 600 seamen were collected in consequence of the promptitude of the measures adopted.’  It was added that the Government ’relied upon increasing our naval forces with 10,000 seamen, either volunteers or impressed men, in less than a fortnight.’  The figures show us how small a proportion of the 10,000 was even alleged to be made up of impressed men.  A later Times report is that:  ’The impress