The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-05-16
POLITICAL.
CO. Nh MICA TTOW MS.

TO the Printers eftie Boston Patriot
SIRs,
A few words more on the subject of
pressing. In strictness, we have nothing to
do with the question, whether lmpressments
Of seamen in England are legal on illegal
Whatever inequity or inhumanity that go
vernmcnt may inf!ict on their own subjects,
we have no authority to call them to an &c
count for it. Bat when they extend that
power to as, foreign nation, it is natural
Tor us. and it is cur duty as we'll as interest
30 consider what it is among themselves.
The most remarkable case in which this
subject has been touched in Westminster
Hall, is IN Cowner's Reports, page SIP. Rex
VS.. John Iubbs. The report of the case is
very long, and shall only observe, that the
question of the legality of the power of i'm
pressment, was not before the court. The
question was whether the Lord Mavor had
a right to expect thirty or forty watermen
for his barges. Lord Mansfield sufficiently
expresses his alarm and his apprehension
OF the consequences of starting question
relative to this subject, in the following
words: am very sorry that either of the
respectable parties before the court, the CT
ty OF London on the one hand, or the Lords
Commissioners of the Admiralty on the o.
Their, have been prevailed upon to agitate
this question:" &c.
I" was in hopes the court would have had
an opportunity of investigating this point to
the bottom, instead of being urged to discuss
it SO instantaneously," sc. / own wished
for more deliberate consideration upon
this subject; but being prevented of that,
am bound TO say what my present sentiments
are. TIE ho7pe'' Of flressiRg is founded up
on immemorial usage. allowed for all ages.
IL il be so founded, and allowed for ages, it
70 hox-
it be indicated or justified by any reason
but the safety of the state: and the practice
is deduced from that trite maxim of the
constitutional law of England, that private
Slischicf had better be submitted to, than
public detriment and inconvenience should
ensue. To be sure there are instances
where private men must give way to the
public good. In every case of pressing, E.
very man must be very sorry for the act,
and for the necessity which gives rise to it,
1t ought therefore to be exercised with the
greatest moderation and only upon the most
cogent necessity, and though, it be legal
hoTSer. it may, like many others, be abused
IN the exercise of it,"
The case is too long to traHscribe but it
is worth reading My remarks upon it shall
bs short.
1. Lord Mansfield most manifestly dread
ed the question, probably on account of the
innnmerabie difficulties attendingit, as well
as the nationaluproar it would most certain
ly excite.
2. His Lordship carefully avoided the use
Of the word right. He knew the sense,
force, and power of words too well to profane
that sacred expression, by applying it to
practice so loose and underlined, so irregu-
lar and capricious, so repugnaDt to the in
herent, hereditary, unalienable ihdefeasible
birth rights of British subjects.
3. He calls it a frdcticc and ho7ver,
but he does not even venture to call it a pre-
rogative of the crown.
4. He does not even affirm that there ex-
lists such an immemorial usage, allowed for
ages. He says elf it be so founded and al
lowed for ages" The existence of such
an immemorial usage allowed Cor ages, was
probably one of the principal points he
wished to investigate.
s. He does not affirm that such custom,
usage, power or practice could be pleaded
or gwen in evidence against Magma Charta.
If his Lordship had been allowed time to
investigate the subject to the bottom, he
perhaps would not have found evidence of a
ny such immemorial usage allowed for ages.
He certainly world not have found it alloy
ed by any national act or legal authority,
and without one or the other, how can it be
said 70 have been allowed ? Allowed by
whom! BY those who committed the trcs-
pass, and no others. His Lorclship msreo.