on her gun-deck, without counting two bow, and three stern chasers on both the decks. In the same dock-yard, there was another 44 on the stocks, with a round stern, carrying the same number of guns. If a cannon were mounted at every port, each of these forty-fours would carry 72 guns; but, without counting bow and stern chasers, they would carry 62. I believe our frigates never carry guns in the gangways, as these do. But indeed as the American vessels have two complete decks of guns, they may to all intents and purposes, be called lineof-battle ships.

To under-rate ships in this manner is a meanness quite unworthy the American nation. If a 120-gun ship be considered as a 74, or a 62-gun frigate as a 44, there is no reason why, according to this new system of arithmetic, they should not call a sloop of war a gun boat, and a battery of 20 guns a martello tower.

The discipline in the American ships of war is fully as severe as in ours. The Congress indeed has passed an act to abolish corporal punishment; but I was told by many officers of rank in the navy of the United States, that if this act had been enforced, they, in common with most of their brother officers, would have resigned their commissions; as discipline on board a ship could not be otherwise maintained. It does not however appear that punishment is inflicted arbitrarily or undeservedly.

When the pay is equal, American seamen prefer

a birth on board a man of war, to one on board a merchantman. Now I can venture to assert, from my own experience, that the watermen on the Thames, who are mostly seamen, and the sailors of Liverpool, of Bristol, or of any other of our commercial towns, would not shew such a preference with regard to the navy of Great Britain. Whence does this arise? Partly, I believe, from the arbitrary manner in which our sailors are too often treated, but chiefly, from the horror with which all seafaring men look upon our system of Impressment. There is not a fisherman, not a common seaman, in the whole British dominions, but feels himself aggrieved by the continuance of this wicked system. I know Judge Foster maintained that

66

Impressment cannot be complained of otherwise than as a Private Mischief, which must be submitted to, for avoiding a public inconvenience." But the reader will excuse my quoting what Dr. Franklin says in his remarks upon the Judge's argument.*

"I do not see the propriety of this must. The private mischief is the loss of liberty and hazard of life, with only half wages, to a great number of honest men. The public inconvenience is merely a higher rate of seamen's wages. He who thinks that such private injustice must be done, to avoid public inconvenience, may understand law, but

* Vide the Posthumous and other Writings of B. Franklin, 2 vols. London, 1819. Vol. ii. p. 109.

seems imperfect in his knowledge of equity. Let us apply this author's doctrine to his own case. It is for the public service that courts should be held, and judges appointed to administer the laws. The judges should be bred to the law and skilled in it, but their great salaries are a public inconvenience. To remove the inconvenience, let press-warrants issue to arrest and apprehend the best lawyers, and compel them to serve as judges for half the money they would have made at the bar. Then tell them, that though this be, to them, a private mischief, it must be submitted to, for avoiding a public inconvenience. Would the learned Judge approve such use of his doctrine?"

Dr. Franklin afterwards says: "Modern prac tice,' supported by ancient precedents,' weighs little with me. Both the one and the other only shew, that the constitution is yet imperfect, since in so general a case, it doth not secure liberty, but destroys it; and the Parliaments are unjust, conniving at the oppression of the poor, where the rich are to be gainers or savers by such oppression."

It must indeed appear wonderful, that in the present enlightened age, and in a self-styled free nation, such tyranny should be endured. Adam Smith has well said, that the property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the

Ꮓ

66

most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in the manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbour, is a plain violation of his most sacred rights."

names.

The French oblige every fishing-boat that goes to sea, to take a proportionate number of men on board, and compel all these men to register their This serves as a sort of nursery for seamen; and the government can at any time call upon them, when they want sailors. This plan, though sufficiently oppressive and tyrannical, is at any rate better than the indiscriminate impressment allowed by the British.

I have heard several officers of the United States' navy give it as their opinion, that in the event of their having a much larger number of ships than at present, there would be some difficulty in finding sailors to man them. The government has accordingly in contemplation to create a sort of naval militia, in which every seaman will be obliged to enrol himself, and which, in the event of any sudden emergency, will be required to furnish a certain number of men. To render such a regulation as little oppressive as possible, it is proposed to organize a corps, in which every seaman who enrols himself will be entitled to a certain pension or certain privileges during his life, in consideration of

which he may, in case of need, be obliged to serve in the national fleet, before the naval militia is

called upon.

Something of the sort will probably be done, for the government will find it very difficult to compete with the merchants; and the people of the United States are too equitable and too high spirited ever to submit to that system of impressment which prevails in England.

Another circumstance that makes the Navy of the United States a favourite with the seamen, is, that sailors are only enlisted for two years. They may indeed be detained three, if the good of the service require it, but after this time they have a right to go where they please. In the British Navy, the difficulty of getting seamen is greatly owing, to their being obliged to enlist for an unlimited period. A sailor will often not object to a service that may last three years, but will not, without force, enlist for life.

While on service, greater liberty of going on shore is granted to the American seamen, than to the British.

Sailors, like all other men, get tired of being kept on board a ship, and picture to themselves the pleasure of being on shore in much too vivid colours; but let them once go, and when they have spent any little money they may have, they are glad to return again to the ship, as to a home.