Page images
PDF
EPUB

to fight in defence of them and their properties, for fuch wages as they think fit to allow, and punish them if they refufe? Our author tells us that it is "legal." I have not law enough to difpute his authorities, but I cannot perfuade myself that it is equitable. I will, however, own for the prefent, that it may be lawful when neceffary; but then I contend that it may be used fo as to produce the fame good effects the public fecurity, without doe ing fo much intolerable injuftice as attends the im preffing common feamen. In order to be better understood, I would premife two things; First, that voluntary feamen may be had for the fervice, if they were fufficiently paid. The proof is, that to ferve in the fame fhip, and incur the fame dan gerst you have no occafion to imprefs captains, lieutenants, fecond lieutenants, midhipmen, purfers, for many other officers. Why, but that the profits of their places, or thetemoluments expect ed, are fufficient inducements The business then is, to find money, by impreffing, fufficient to make the failors all volunteers, as well as their officers and this without any fresh burther upon trade. The fecond of my premifes is, that twenty-five fhillings a month, with his fhare of falt beef, pork, and peafer pudding, being found, fufficient for the fubfidence of a hard-working feamen, it will certainly be fo for a fedentary fcholar or gentleman. would then propafe to form a treafury, out of which encouragements to feamen fhould be paid. To fill this treafury, I would impress a number of civil officers, who at prefent have great falaries, oblige them to ferve in their refpective offices for twenty-five fhillings a month, with their fhares of mefs provifions, and throw the rest of their falaries

into the feamen's treafury. If fuch a prefs-warrant were given me to execute, the firft I would prefs fhould be a Recorder of Bristol, or a Mr. Juftice Fofter, because I might have need of his edifying example, to fhow how much impreffing ought to be borne with; for he would certainly find, that though to be reduced to twenty-five fhillings a month might be a private mifchief, 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 prefs the reft of the Judges; and, opening the red book, I would prefs every civil officer of government from 50 1. a year falary, up to 50,000 1. which would throw an immenfe fum into our treasury: and thefe gentlemen could not complain, fince they would receive twenty-five fhillings a month, and their rations; and this without being obliged to fight. Lastly, I think I would imprefs ***.

***********

ON THE CRIMINAL LAWS, AND

THE PRACTICE OF PRIVATEERING.

LETTER TO BENJAMIN VAUGHAN, ESQ.

March 14, 178.5.

A

MY DEAR FRIEND,

MONG the pamphlets you lately fent me, was one, entitled, Thoughts on Executive Juftice. In return for that, I fend you one on the

fame fubject, Obfervations concernant l' Exécution de l' Article II. de la Declaration fur le Vol. They are both addreffed to the judges, and written, as you will fee, in a very different fpirit. The English author is for hanging all thieves. The Frenchman is for proportioning punishments to offences.

If we really believe, as we profefs to believe, that the law of Mofes was the law of God, the dictate of divine wisdom, infinitely fuperior to human; on what principles do we ordain death as the punishment of an offence, which, according to that law, was only to be punished by a reftitution of fourfold? To put a man to death for an offence which does not deferve death, is it not a murder? And, as the French writer fays, Doit-on punir un délit contre la focieté par un crime contre la nature.

Superfluous property is the creature of fociety. Simple and mild laws were fufficient to guard the property that was merely neceffary. The favage's bow, his hatchet, and his coat of fkins, were fufficiently fecured, without law, by the fear of perfonal refentment and retaliation. When, by virtue of the first laws, part of the fociety accumulated wealth, and grew powerful, they enacted others more fevere, and would protect their property at the expence of humanity. This was abufing their power, and commencing a tyranny. If a favage, before he entered into fociety, had been told— "Your neighbour, by this means, may become owner of an hundred deer; but if your brother, or your fon, or yourfelf, having no deer of your own, and being hungry, fhould kill one, an in"famous death mut be the confequence :"-he would probably have preferred his liberty, and his common right of killing any deer, to all the ad

66

66

66

88

vantages of fociety that might be propofed to him. That it is better a hundred guilty perfons fhould efcape, than that one innocent perfon fhould fufler, is a maxim that has been long and generally appro ved; never, that I know of, controverted. Even the fanguinary author of the Thought; agrees to it, adding well," that the very thought of injured innocence, and much more that of Suffering inno cence, niuft awaken all our tendereft and most compaffionate feelings, and at the fame time. raife our higheft indignation against the inftru-. "ments of it. But, (he adds) there is no danger

66

66

of either, from a ftrict adherence to the laws." Really!Is it then impoffible to make an unjust law? and if the law itself be unjust, may it not be the very inftrument" which ought to raise the "author's and every body's highest indignation?"? I fee, in the last newspapers from London, that a woman is capitally convicted at the Old Bailey, for privately ftealing out of a fhop fome gauze, vas lue fourteen fhillings and three pence Is there any proportion between the injury done by a theft, value fourteen fhillings and three pence, and the punishment of a human creature, by death, on a gibbet? Might not that woman, by her labour, have made the reparation ordained by God, in pay, ing fourfold? Is not all punishment, inflicted be yond the merit of the offence, fo much punishment of innocence? In this light, how vaft is the annual quantity, of not only injured but fufering innocence, in almoft all the civilized ftates of Europe!

But it feems to have been thought that this kind of innocence may be punished by way of preventing crimes. I have read, indeed, of a cruel Turk in Barbary, who, whenever he bought a new Chif

tian flave, ordered him immediately to be hung up by the legs, and to receive a hundred blows of a cudgel on the foles of his feet, that the fevere fenfe of the punishment, and fear of incurring it' thereafter, might prevent the faults that fhould merit it. Our author himself would hardly approve entirely of this Turk's conduct in the government of flaves; and yet he appears to recommend fomething like it for the government of English fubjects, when he applauds the reply of Judge Burnet to the convict horfe-ftealer; who being asked what he had to say why judgment of death fhould not pass against him, and anfwering, that it was hard to hang a man for only ftealing a horfe, was told by the judge," Man, thou art not to be hanged only for ftealing a horfe, but that horfes may not be ftolen." The man's answer, if candidly examined, will, I imagine, appear reafonable; as being founded on the eternal principle of justice and equity, that punishments fhould be proportioned to offences, and the judge's reply brutal and unreasonable, though the writer "wifhes all judges to carry it with them whenever they go to the circuit, and to bear it in their minds, as containing a wife reafon for all the penal ftatutes which they are called upon to put in exécution. It at once illuftrates, fays he, the true grounds and reafons of all capital punishments whatfoever, namely, that every man's property, as well as his life, may be held facred and inviolate.". Is there then no difference in value between property and life? If I think it right that the crime of murder should be punithed with death, not only as an equal punishment of the crime, but to prevent other murders, does it follow that I must approve of the fame puifhment for a little invafion on my property by theft?

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »