Works of the late Doctor Benjamin Franklin/On the Impreſs of Seamen
ON THE IMPRESS OF SEAMEN.
JUDGE Foſter, p. 158. "Every Man."—The concluſion here from the whole to a part does not ſeem to be good logic. If the alphabet ſhould ſay, Let us all fight for the defence of the whole; that is equal, and may. therefore, be juft. But if they ſhould ſay, Let A B C and D go out and fight for us, while we ſtay at home and ſleep in whole ſkins; that is not equal, and therefore cannot be juſt.
Ib. "Employ."—If you pleaſe. The word ſignifies engaging a man to work for me, by of- fering him fuch wages as are fufficient to induce him to prefer my fervice. This is very different from compelling him to work on fuch terms as I think proper. Ib. "This ſervice and employment, &c."—Theſe are falſe facts. His employments and ſervice are not the ſame.—Under the merchant he goes in an unarmed veſſel, not obliged to fight, but to tranſport merchandize. In the king's ſervice he is obliged to fight, and to hazard all the dangers of battle. Sickneſs on board of king's ſhips is alſo more common and more mortal. The merchant's ſervice too he can quit at the end of the voyage; not the king's. Alſo, the merchant's wages are much higher.
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, 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 their places, or the emoluments expected, are ſufficient inducements? The buſineſs then is, to find money, by impreſſing, ſufficient to make the ſailors all volunteers, as well as their officers; and this without any freſh burthen upon trade.—The ſecond of my premiſes is, that twenty-five ſhillings a month, with his ſhare of the ſalt beef, pork, and peas-pudding, being found ſufficient for the ſubſiſtence of a hard-working ſeaman, it will certainly be ſo for a ſedentary ſcholar or gentleman. I would then propoſe to form a treaſury, out of which encouragements to ſeamen ſhould be paid. To fill this treaſury, I would impreſs a number of civil officers who at preſent have great ſalaries, oblige them to ſerve in their reſpective offices for twenty-five millings a month with their ſhares of meſs proviſions, and throw the reſt of their ſalaries into the ſeamen's treaſury. If ſuch a preſs-warrant were given me to execute, the firſt I would preſs ſhould be a Recorder of Briſtol, or a Mr. Juſtice Foſter, becauſe I might have need of his edifying example, to ſhow how much impreſſing ought to be borne with; for he would certaily find, that though to be reduced to twenty-five ſhillings a month might be a "private miſchief" yet that, agreeably to his maxim of law and good policy, it "ought to be borne with patience" for preventing a national calamity. Then I would preſs the reſt of the Judges; and, opening the red book, I would preſs every civil officer of government from 50l. a year ſalary, up to 50,000l. which would throw an immenfe ſum into our treaſury: and theſe gentlemen could not complain, ſince they would receive twenty-five ſhillings a month, and their rations: and this without being obliged to fight. Laſtly, I think I would impreſs ***