Ib. "I am very ſenſible, &c"—Here are two things put in compariſon that are not comparable: viz. injury to ſeamen, and inconvenience to trade. Inconvenience to the whole trade of a nation will not juſtify injuſtice to a ſingle ſea-man. If the trade would ſuffer without his ſervice, it is able and ought to be willing to offer him ſuch wages as may induce him to afford his ſervice voluntarily.
Page 159. "Private miſchief muſt be borne with patience, for preventing a national calamity." Where is this maxim in law and good policy to be found? And how can that be a maxim which is not conſiſtent with common ſenſe? If the maxim had been, that private miſchiefs, which prevent a national calamity, ought to be generouſly compenſated by the nation, one might underſtand itſ: but that ſuch private miſchiefs are only to be borne with patience, is abſurd!
Ib. "The expedient, &c. And, &c." (Paragraphs 2 and 3).—Twenty ineffectual or inconvenient ſchemes will not juſtify one that is unjuſt.
Ib. "Upon the foot of, &c."—Your reaſoning, indeed, like a lie, ſtands but upon one foot; truth upon two.
Page 160. "Full wages."—Probably the ſame they had in the merchant's fervice.
Page 174. "I hardly admit, &c." (Paragraph 5).—When this author ſpeaks of impreſſing, page 158, he diminiſhes the horror of the practice as much as poſſible, by preſenting to the mind one ſailor only ſuffering a "hardſhip" (as he tenderly calls it) in ſome "particular caſes" only; and he places againſt this private miſchief the inconvenience to the trade of the kingdom. But if, as he ſuppoſes is often the caſe, the ſailor who is preſſed, and obliged to ſerve for the defence of trade, at the rate of twenty-five ſhillings a month,
