^{page 32 note 1} Admiral Frankland condemned the use of the “woolly race” in vessels of war, and wished to discourage it by selling all negroes, free or slave, found on board French privateers. Governor Thomas would not allow this, probably because the negroes on the English privateers would be treated in the same way (Frankland to Clevland, 28 April, 1757, and his reply to charges, 20 July, Adm. 1/306). The English must therefore have employed some negroes, especially at Jamaica; indeed, the Dowdall privateer of Jamaica had fifteen negroes in her crew, and the Queen Anne had twenty. The owners themselves lamented the necessity of filling up their crews in this manner, and ascribed it to Admiral Davers' press-gang, which took up all their white sailors (Second petition of the Manning party, 28 Nov.,' 1745, with annexed affidavit of Curtin, C.O. 137/57; Trelawny to Lords of the Admiralty, 21 Dec, 1743, Adm. 1/3817). However, we may infer from the general tone of surprise and disapproval that negroes were seldom enlisted in the crews of English privateers. Governor Robinson of Barbados expressly said so, and argued from it that the English would lose rather than gain by an agreement to exchange free negroes taken in privateers (Robinson, answers to queries, 20 Feb., 1746/7, C.O. 28/46). This is what might be expected, for there were fewer free negroes in the English islands than in the French, and the owners of valuable slaves would hardly expose them to capture at sea when they could employ them profitably on land. The fate of free negroes taken in arms at sea was very hard. Sometimes the colonial authorities agreed to respect their freedom if it could be lawfully proved; Trelawny and Larnage made such an arrangement in 1746 (Larnage to Maurepas, 13 March, 1746, A.N. Colonies, C⁹A 68). But the English courts obstructed this humane disposition. John Hudson Guy, Chief Justice of Jamaica, declared that a letter of a Spanish Governor was not enough to prove the freedom of a negro. The Vice-Admiralty Court of New York invented another way to produce the same result. It accepted the Governor of Havana's certificate, but decided that the English purchasers had bought the prisoners in good faith and ought not to suffer by the mistake; therefore the negroes were not to have their freedom until the purchase-money had been refunded, presumably by themselves (Hough, C. M., Reports of Cases in the Vice-Admiralty of the Province of New York, pp. 29–31)Google Scholar. A grotesque example of the arguments employed in court against the negroes' freedom is to be found in the speech of Peter Vezian, quartermaster of the Revenge privateer, at New Providence. This speech may indeed be a mere literary composition invented or half-remembered after the event (Jameson, J. F., Privateering and Piracy in the Colonial Period, N.Y., 1923, pp. 407–10Google Scholar). Some Governors refused to make any arrangements for exchanging prisoners of this colour, fearing to be imposed upon by certificates of freedom falsely obtained from the enemy's authorities. Even where the Governors and courts agreed to respect the freedom of negroes and mulattoes, they had still to reckon with the Admirals. Frankland took the law into his own hands so far as he could, by selling as slaves all the free negroes taken by the ships under his command. Commodore Douglas followed his example, and told the Governor of Martinique that he could treat English negroes in the same way.

^{page 33 note 1} Trelawny to the Lords of the Admiralty, 21 Dec, 1743, Adm. 1/3817; Holmes to Pitt, 29 Oct., 1761, Adm. 1/236.

^{page 34 note 1} Samson to Maurepas, 15 May, 1745, A.N. Colonies, C⁹A 67; Vernon to Trelawny, 24 May, 1740, S.P. 42/85; Preamble to the Barbados Act of 30 Oct., 1754, C.O. 30/10; Tomlinson Papers (Navy Records Society, 1936), pp. 185–6.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} St. Kitts Council Minutes, 29 May, 1735 (St. Kitts Administrator's Office); Antigua Act of 1739, C.O. 8/7; Barbados Act of 30 Oct., 1754, CO. 30/10.

^{page 35 note 2} Lascelles and Maxwell to the owners of the Royal Captive, 24 Oct., 1746, Letter-Books of Messrs. Wilkinson and Gaviller, Vol. III.

^{page 36 note 1} Directors of the Chamber of Commerce of Guienne to Maurepas, 10 Oct., 1744, 9 and 30 March, 25 May, 1745, Archives de la Gironde, C, 4263 ff. 7, 13, 15, 19. It was in order to prevent these powers from being abused for private interests that an Ordinance of 1693 forbade the Commissaires de la Marine to own shares in privateers; they were still allowed, however, to take shares in the enterprise of fitting out for priva teering frigates borrowed from the Crown (Lebeau, , Nouveau Code des Prises, I, pp. 176, 196).Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 2} There is a good essay on this subject by ProfessorClark, Dora Mae, in the Essays in Colonial History presented to Charles McLean Andrews (New Haven, 1931), pp. 198–224.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 3} 6 Anne, c. 37; 13 Geo. II, c. 3; 29 Geo. II, c. II; Gentleman's Magazine, xxvii, p. 140. These foreign seamen were exempted from impressment by 13 Geo. II, c. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} 14 Geo. II, c. 38; Admiralty Minutes, 20 Feb., 1744/5, Adm. 3/50. Tomlinson, in his otherwise enlightened Essay upon the Manning of the Navy, proposed to return to the practice of limiting wages in the merchant service (Tomlinson Papers, pp. 128, 182).Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 2} Pari. Hist., XV, 844.Google Scholar Speeches in Parliament are never very reliable authorities for this kind of fact, even when they are correctly reported. Grenville was at this period a member of that quasi-Opposition which aimed at out-ranting Pitt, so his statements on a popular grievance are to be accepted with caution. But he had been a Lord of the Admiralty, and an active one, for some time; nor can he be accused, in general, of distorting facts. See also A Letter to the Mayor of —, ... by a Member of Parliament (London, 1758), passim, especially pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 1} Lascelles and Maxwell engaged a man to go out to be coachman at Barbados, whose chief reason for leaving England was the hope of escaping the press-gang. He was afraid he would not get his wages paid in the navy for two or three years; and as he had been a sailor, he probably spoke from experience (to Jonathan Blenman, 8 April, 1755, Letter-Books of Messrs. Wilkinson and Gaviller, Vol. VII.)

^{page 39 note 1} See the whole debate, Parl. Hist., XV, 839et seqq. For the effect of delay in the payment of wages on the manning of the French navy, see Berryer's letter to La Clue, 21 April, 1759, A.N. Marine, B² 363.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} St. Lo to Burchett, 10 Nov., 1728, Adm. 1/230; Davers to Corbett, 22 June, 1746, Adm. 1/233.

^{page 40 note 1} Vernon to Corbett, 5 Sept., 1742, Adm. 1/232; Knowles to Corbett, 10 July, 1744, Adm. 1/2007; Cotes to Clevland, 20 April, 1759, Adm. 1/235; A Letter to the Mayor of — ... By a Member of Parliament, pp. 54–6.Google Scholar Since Knowles reappears in several different capacities in the essay, it is necessary to explain that he served in the Leeward Islands, 1743–5;, acting as Commodore in the winter months; in 1746–7; he was in North America, partly as Governor of Louisbourg and partly as Commodore; and early in 1748 he arrived at Jamaica as Rear-Admiral in command of the station.

^{page 40 note 2} Tomlinson wrote that in spite of the Act, “ We found seamen full as averse to enter voluntarily in the Navy as if no such Act had passed.” (Tomlinson Papers, p. 121, note).

^{page 41 note 1} This rule was sometimes broken, as by Kerusoret at Cap Francois, who pressed from some ships which were actually under sail with his own permission (Fleury to Massiac, 5 Feb., 1759, A.N. Colonies, C⁹A 103). The press-gangs sometimes took men from the outward-bound ships in the Thames, to the great loss of the ship-owners. Henry Lascelles had to explain to some correspondents in Barbados the delay of their ship; the Captain “ had all his hands on board, and was ready to depart, but that very morning there were number of press boats appeared all at once in the Poole, and swept away every man they could meet with, not except ing Mates. Captain Williams had some little notice of it an hour or two before, altho' it was so unlooked for, an sent his people ashoar, but this will not avail him much, for they dare not appear on board and it has detained him as well as many others in the same readiness ” (to Clarke and Whitaker, 12 June, 1741, Letter-Books of Messrs. Wilkinson and Gaviller, Vol. I.)

^{page 41 note 2} This, at least, was Forrest's contention in 1745 (see his letter to Corbett, 26 Nov., 1745, S.P. 42/30 f. 117).

^{page 42 note 1} Tomlinson Papers, pp. 123, 124 note.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 2} Vernon to Burchett, 19 July, 1740, Adm. 1/232; Deposition of Manning, 10 Nov., 1745, Adm. 1/233; Jamaica Council Minutes, 11 Oct., 1759, C.O. 140/38; see also C.S.P. Col., 1702–3;, no. 124, by which it appears that one in five was the rule at Jamaica in Benbow's time.

^{page 42 note 3} Admiralty Minutes, 21 Jan., 1743/4, Adm. 3/47; Orders to Davers, 10 June, 1745, Adm. 2/64, p. 225.

^{page 43 note 1} Lascelles and Maxwell to Samuel McCall, 13 May, 1755, Letter-Books of Messrs. Wilkinson, and Gaviller, , Vol. VII; Tomlinson Papers, p. 177.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 2} Vernon, orders to Mitchell, 26 June, 1742, S.P. 42/90, f. 209; Robinson to Newcastle, 25 June, 1743, C.O. 28/46; Orders to Ogle, 2 March, 1742/3, Adm. 2/59, p. 349; Davers to Corbett, 5 Aug., 1745, Adm. 1/233.

^{page 43 note 3} Rodney, orders to O'Bryan, 13 July, 1762 (Public Record Office, Rodney Papers, Vol. 2, p. 294); Ourry to Clevland, 13 July, 1762, Adm. 1/2246; see also the very detailed description in the Tomlinson Papers, p. 185,Google Scholar and C.S.P. Col. 1710–11;, no. 172 (i), in which the Lords of the Admiralty describe the way men were pressed at the return of their ships from the colonies. Yet the seamen sometimes refused to sail without convoy (Henry Lascelles to Ruth Miller and George Maxwell, 20 April, 1741, Letter-Books of Messrs. Wilkinson and Gaviller, Vol. I). Perhaps an outward convoy was not so dangerous to their liberty.

^{page 44 note 1} Wentworth to Vernon, 12 July, 1742, C.O. 5/42.

^{page 44 note 2} Trelawny to Wager, 8 Aug. and 22 Sept., 1739, Library of Congress, Vernon-Wager MSS.; Wentworth to Vernon, 5 and 12 July, 1742, C.O. 5/42; Vernon to Wentworth, 6 and 14 July, 1742, ibid.; Trelawny to Newcastle, 29 July, 1742, and 10 Nov., 1744, C.O. 137/57; Trelawny to the Lords of the Admiralty, 21 Dec, 1743, Adm. 1/3817. See my book, War and Trade in the West Indies, pp. 119, 121–3, for further details of the Manning-Davers controversy.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 3} Jamaica Council Minutes, 2 Dec, 1745, C.O. 140/31; second address of merchants favourable to Davers, 6 Feb., 1745/6, Adm. 1/233.

^{page 45 note 1} Trelawny to Newcastle, 29 July, 1742, C.O. 137/57.

^{page 45 note 2} Trelawny to Newcastle, 10 Nov., 1744, C.O. 137/57; second petition of Manning party against Davers, 28 Nov., 1745, and annexed affidavit of Henry Ram, C.O. 137/57; Petition of Drake and Long to the King, 1746, S.P. 42/89.

^{page 45 note 3} Vernon to Wentworth, 14 July, 1742, C.O. 5/42.

^{page 46 note 1} Historical Manuscripts Commission, House of Lords MSS., New Series, VII, p. 227;Google ScholarC.S.P. Col. 1704–5;, no. 437. The Jamaica privateers said in a later controversy that the Act of 1708, which remedied the situation, resulted in the return of hundreds of seamen to Jamaica. (C.S.P. Col. 1710–11;, no. 170 (iii).)

^{page 46 note 2} Trelawny to Lords of the Admiralty, 21 Dec, 1743, Adm. 1/3817; Shirley to Newcastle, 31 Dec, 1747, C.O. 5/901. Dudley reported the same thing in Queen Anne's reign, but he attributed the popularity of Rhode Island to other causes besides immunity from the press-gang (C.S.P. Col. 1702–3;, no. 1094; 1704–5;, no. 410).

^{page 46 note 3} Damer Powell, J. W., Bristol Privateers and Ships of War (Bristol, 1930), p. 140. Laporte-Lalanne complained that the “Frères de la Coste,” who did all the coasting trade of St. Domingue, were beginning to disappear in order to escape Périer's press-gangs (to Machault, 5 June, 1756, A.N. Colonies, C⁹A 99).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 1} Trelawny to Newcastle, 4 Nov., 1745, C.O. 137/57. An instance of this at Bermuda is given in Popple's letter to Newcastle, 26 May, 1741, CO. 37/29.

^{page 47 note 2} Knowles to Corbett, 15 Oct., 1744, Adm. 1/2007.

^{page 47 note 3} The Voyages and Cruises of Commodore Walker (ed. Vaughan, H. S., 1928), pp. 41et seqq.;Google ScholarJameson, J. F., Privateering and Piracy in the Colonial Period (N.Y., 1923), pp. 382–91.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 1} Warren to Corbett, 8 Sept., 1744, Adm. 1/2654; Knowles to Corbett, 15 Oct., 1744, Adm. 1/2007; Jameson, , Privateering and Piracy, p. 415.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} Davers to Corbett, 22 June, 1746, Adm. 1/233; Knowles to Corbett, 15 Oct., 1744, Adm. 1/2007.

^{page 48 note 3} La Touche-Tréville to Machault, 16 Jan., 1757, A.N. Marine, B⁴ 77.

^{page 49 note 1} Knowles' memorial to the Admiralty, 1743, Adm. 1/2006; Knowles to Corbett, 17 March, 1743/4, 15 Oct., 1744, Adm. 1/2007; Warren to Corbett, 24 May, 1744, Adm. 1/2654; Robinson to Newcastle, 10 May, 1744, C.O. 28/46.

^{page 49 note 2} Shirley to Newcastle, 1 and 31 Dec., 1747, C.O. 5/901. For an account of armed disturbances between sailors and press-gangs at Cork, see Adm. 2/371 (Lords of the Admiralty to Bedford, 8 Dec, 1758). See also Powell, Darner, op. cit., p. 206,Google Scholar and Williams, Gomer, The Liverpool Privateers (London, 1897), pp. 157–9.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} Trelawny to Newcastle, 12 June, 1744, and 4 Nov., 1745, C.O. 137/57.

^{page 50 note 2} Lisle to Mathew, 24 Oct., 1743, Adm. 1/2041; Mathew to Lisle, 25 Oct., ibid.; Lisle to Corbett, 25 Oct., ibid.; Antigua Assembly Minutes, 21 June, 1743, C.O. 9/15; Knowles to Corbett, 15 Oct., 1744, Adm. 1/2007; Robinson to Newcastle, 24 March, 1744/5, C.O. 28/46.

^{page 50 note 3} Corbett to Thompson, 27 Oct., 1741, Adm. 2/474; Orders to Windham, 12 Aug., 1745, Add. MSS. 19031, f. 192.

^{page 51 note 1} James Wymble received one for 150 men in 1740, on condition that half of them should be landmen (Minute of Lords Justices, 25 Sept., 1740, S.P. 43/99). When the French navy was hard pressed for sailors, it too obliged privateers to take a proportion of landmen (Chamber of Commerce of Guienne, minutes, 29 Nov., 1758, Archives de la Gironde, C. 4256, f. 75). Henry Lascelles and son complained of “the great expence in procuring protections which oblige us to find the Government with one man in four” (to Thomas Applewhaite, 17 March, 1739–40;, Letter-Books of Messrs. Wilkinson and Gaviller, Vol. I).

^{page 51 note 2} St. Lo, however, did so in 1728 (St. Lo to Burchett, 24 June, 1728, Adm. 1/230). The French Government, like the English, was sometimes reduced to pressing from privateers, limiting their numbers or even sup pressing them altogether (Chamber of Commerce of Guienne, minutes of 29 Nov., 1758 and 22 April, 1762, Archives de la Gironde, C 4256, ff. 75, 166; memorial of the Nantes Chamber to Massiac, 28 Oct., 1758, C 4321, no. 52).

^{page 51 note 3} 6 Anne, c. 37. For the discussion of pressing which preceded this Act, see the House of Lords Journals, XVIII, pp. 373 and 406;Google Scholar also Historical Manuscripts Commission, House of Lords MSS., New Series, VII, pp. 226–7, 231. 309–10.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 1} The Case of Jonathan Blenman, Add. MSS. 32921, f. 29.

^{page 52 note 2} C.S.P. Col. 1702–3;, nos. 124, 888, 1179; 1704–5;, no. 910; 1708–9;, nos. 747 (iv and v), 753; 1710–11;, no. 112; see also Mae Clark, Dora, op. cit., pp. 208–9.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 1} Antigua Assembly Minutes, 24 Nov., 1743, C.O. 9/15; Trelawny to the Lords of the Admiralty, 21 Dec, 1743, Adm. 1/3817; letter of Blenman in Barbados Council Minutes, 21 Sept., 1744, C.O. 31/23. Some people of Barbados asked the Governor for warrants of arrest against the officers of the navy under this Act, but he would not sign them (Robinson to Newcastle, 10 May, 1744, C.O. 28/46; Auchmuty to Corbett, 27 Nov., 1746, Adm. 1/3881; Lords of the Admiralty to Newcastle, 15 March, 1742/3, S.P. 42/26, p. 24).

^{page 53 note 2} Parker to? Sandwich, 23 Sept., 1780, Adm. 1/242.

^{page 54 note 1} Trelawny tried to prove this by asserting that the press-gang produced very few sailors, and those of the most useless kind, since the crews of the little North American craft were quite unfit for men-of-war (Trelawny to Lords of the Admiralty, 21 Dec, 1743, Adm. 1/3817). This can hardly have been true, for no Admiral would have found it worth his while to press on such terms. But we do hear sometimes of press-gangs which lost more men than they took.

^{page 54 note 2} Admiralty Minutes, 17 and 22 March, 1745/6, 10 April, 1746, Adm. 3/53 ? Petition of the West India Agents, 9 April, 1746, House of Commons Journals, Vol. XXV, p. 117.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 1} Knowles to Corbett, 18 Jan., 1747/8, Adm. 1/234. But it is fair to Knowles to add that Governor Shirley, a far more judicious man, bore him out (Shirley to Newcastle, 1 Dec, 1747, C.O. 5/901).

^{page 55 note 2} Except by the incurably factious Attorney-General of Barbados (Barbados Council Minutes, 19 Jan., 1757, C.O. 31/28).

^{page 56 note 1} Jamaica Council Minutes, 7 Aug., 1739, 6 Feb., 1739/40, C.O. 140/30.

^{page 56 note 2} Barbados Council Minutes, 21 Sept., 1744, C.O. 31/23.

^{page 56 note 3} The Council of Jamaica had done so in 1726, but that was in a special emergency when the squadron had to be enabled to undertake a service of great strategic and political importance (C.S.P. Col. 1726–7;, no. 374 i.)

^{page 56 note 4} Antigua Council Minutes, 6 July, 1757, C.O. 9/23; Workman to Moore, 26 Oct., 1757, Adm. 1/307; Moore to Clevland, 29 Oct., ibid.

^{page 57 note 1} Trelawny to Wager, 8 Aug. and 22 Sept., 1739, Vernon-Wager MSS. The heavy mortality and the Act of 1708 had forced the Jamaica squadron to rely very much on the soldiers in Queen Anne's war. The Governor reported again and again that the regiment suffered great fatigue in performing this service without which the ships could not leave harbour (C.S.P. Col. 1702–3;, nos. 1055, 1119; 1704–5;, no. 164; 1706–8;, no. 1223; 1708–9;, nos. 68, 174, 339, 542).

^{page 57 note 2} Jamaica Council Minutes, 29 April, 1747, 24 May, 1748, CO. 140/32.

^{page 57 note 3} Jamaica Council Minutes, 11 Oct., 1759, 13 Nov. and 16 Dec, 1761, C.O. 140/38 and 140/42. Earlier in the war the Council had insisted, like those of other colonies, on proof of an emergency and the limitation of the period for which the pressed men were to be kept on board (Council Minutes, 25 Oct., 1756, CO. 140/38).

^{page 57 note 4} Knowles to Corbett, 18 Jan., 1747/8, Adm. 1/234; Frankland to Clevland, 16 June, 1757, Adm. 1/306; Moore to Clevland, 29 Oct., 1757, and 13 Oct., 1758, Adm. 1/307.

^{page 58 note 1} Only once, at Antigua in 1757, did a colonial legislature invoke this part of the Act by ordering its agent to petition the Admiralty for supernumeraries to reinforce the squadron (Antigua Council Minutes, 3 Feb., 1757. C.O. 9/21).

^{page 58 note 2} C.S.P. Col. 1708–9;, nos. 376, 649.

^{page 58 note 3} See the correspondence of Admiral Knowles with Governor de Vaudreuil on this subject: Knowles to Vaudreuil, 23 Jan., 1748, A.N. Colonies, C⁹A 73; Vaudreuil to Knowles, 6 Feb., ibid.; Vaudreuil to Maurepas, 22 Feb., 1748, Vol. 74; Knowles to Chastenoye, 29 Feb., 1748, Vol. 72.

^{page 59 note 1} Knowles to Corbett, 15 Oct., 1744, Adm. 1/2007; Warren to Corbett, 22 Dec, 1744, Adm. 1/2654; Holmes to Bart, 8 Aug., 1761, Adm. 1/236; Valeur, Derny, High Court of Admiralty Papers, 42/50; Charming Elizabeth, Fay, High Court of Admiralty Papers, 42/59. For similar complaints about French seamen, see Samson to Maurepas, 15 May, 1746, A.N. Colonies, C⁹A 67. The custom of pressing returned prisoners into the King's service was not unknown at home in England. On 6 July, 1757, the Admiralty decided not to use this method, but it changed its mind within a month and ordered all such prisoners to be secured (Minutes, 6 July and 4 Aug., 1757, Adm. 3/65).

^{page 59 note 2} The Admiralty encouraged its commanders in the West Indies to get control of the returned prisoners if they could. (Orders to Lee, 15 March, 1744/5, Adm. 2/63, p. 340; to Legge, 12 Sept., 1747, Adm. 2/70, p. 275; Lee to Corbett, 9 July, 1745, Adm. 1/305; Douglas to Clevland, 29 Nov., 1760, Adm. 1/307.) In 1748 it asked Newcastle to make the colonial governors acquiesce (Lords of the Admiralty to Newcastle, 5 Feb., 1747/8, S.P. 42/33, f. 23). Putting a guard on Flags of Truce was not an infallible precaution against attempts to escape, for English privateers sometimes boarded the vessel, overpowered the guard, and removed the prisoners to enlist them in their own crews (L'Abarer to Pocock, Dec, 1747, Adm. 1/2289; Pocock to Corbett, 12 Jan., 1747/8, ibid.).

^{page 59 note 3} See also Admiralty Minutes, 3 April, 1761, Adm. 3/68.

^{page 60 note 1} The correspondence of Messrs. Lascelles and Maxwell is full of complaints of the press-gang : see their letters to Benjamin Charnocke, II Feb., 1743/4; to Pantaliam Fernandez, 17 Feb., 1755; to Jonathan Blenman, 21 April, 1755; to Thomas Stevenson, 30 April, 1755, etc.— all in the Letter-Books of Messrs. Wilkinson and Gaviller.