acknowledges the evil in the most express terms, and will show himself ready to concur in any rational plan that may provide for the liberty of the individual, without hazarding the safety of the community. At the same time he expects that the evil, such as it is, be not exaggerated or misrepresented. In general, it is not unjust, that, when the rich man contributes his wealth, the poor man should serve the state in person;—otherwise, the latter contributes nothing to the defence of that law and constitution from which he demands safety and protection. But the question does not lie between rich and poor. The laws of England make no such distinctions. Neither is it true, that the poor man is torn from the care and support of a wife and family, helpless without him. The single question is, Whether the seaman[1], in times of public danger, shall serve the merchant, or the state, in that profession to which he was bred, and by the exercise of which alone he can honestly support himself and his family? General arguments against the doctrine of necessity, and the dangerous use that may be made of it, are of no
- ↑ I confine myself strictly to seamen;—if any others are pressed, it is a gross abuse, which the magistrate can and should correct.
