>>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 3:05:23 PM UTC, Dexter Kenfield wrote:

>>>> But in the current thread, we still have my original question: why is

>>>> this captain, whoever he is, receiving the man's wages from the LYON

>>>> either at the time or well after the time he was impressed? I'll take

>>>> another look through the documents and see if there are any hidden clues.

>>>> Dexter

>>> I am surprised this has not been answered - our British friends are obviously forgetting their naval history!

>>> The answer is that what happened here was the legal requirement - captains of the merchant navy were required to settle and pay the back pay of crew members in full on the spot if they were impressed into Her Majesties service.

>> That's something I didn't know, and can't see how it would have worked
>> when seaman were impressed direct from their ship at the end of the
>> voyage.  Did the press gang hang around while the master of the merchant
>> ship worked out the wages owing for the seamen that were being seized?

>> Graeme Wall

> The answer is yes. Think of it the other way around. What were the chances that an impressed man would ever catch up/with see again the ship or captain that had employed him? Considerably less than 100%, so this legal requirement made sense. Captains were indeed required to settle their accounts on the spot. Given the character of naval officers, I don't think they would have stood around for long though, which is why a sensible captain would have his accounts up-to-date before sailing into port. As a historical note, the American colonies were made exempt from impressment by Act of Parliament in 1708.