could get three pounds fifteen ſhillings in the merchant's ſervice, you take from him fifty ſhillings a month; and if you have a 100,000 in your ſervice, you rob this honeſt induſtrious part of ſociety and their poor families of 250,000l. per month, or three millions a year, and at the ſame time oblige them to hazard their lives in fighting for the defence of your trade; to the defence of which all ought indeed to contribute (and ſailors among the reſt) in proportion to their profits by it; but this three millions is more than their ſhare, if they did not pay with their perſons; but when you force that, methinks you ſhould excuſe the other.
But it may be ſaid, to give the king's ſeamen merchant's wages would coſt the nation too much, and call for more taxes. The queſtion then will amount to this: whether it be juſt in a community, that the richer part ſhould compel the poorer to fight in defence of them and their properties, for ſuch wages as they think fit to allow, and puniſh them if they refuſe? Our author tells us that it is "legal." I have not law enough to diſpute his authorities, but I cannot perſuade myſelf that it is equitable. I willy however, own for the preſent, that it may be lawful when neceſſary; but then I contend that it may be uſed ſo as to produce the ſame good effects—the public ſecurity,—without doing ſo much intolerable injuſtice as attends the impreſſing common ſeamen. In order to be better underſtood I would premiſe two things; Firſt, that voluntary ſeamen may be had for the ſervice, if they were ſufficiently paid. The proof is, that to ſerve in the ſame ſhip, and incur the ſame dangers, you have no occaſion to impreſs captains, lieutenants, ſecond lieutenants, midſhipmen, purſers, nor many other officers. Why, but that the profits of
