When, therefore, a magistrate receives directions to impress all the seamen within his district, how few will he find who will not declare themselves freeholders in some distant county, or freemen of some obscure borough.  It is to no purpose, sir, that the magistrate disbelieves what he cannot confute; and if in one instance in a hundred he should be mistaken, and, acting in consequence of his errour, force a freeman into the service, what reparation may not be demanded?

I, therefore, propose it to the consideration of the committee, whether any man ought to claim exemption from this law by a title, that may so readily be procured, or so safely usurped.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL spoke next:—­Sir, the practice of impressing, which has been declaimed against with such vehement exaggerations, is not only founded on immemorial custom, which makes it part of the common law, but is likewise established by our statutes; for I remember to have found it in the statutes of queen Mary, and therefore cannot allow that it ought to be treated as illegal, and anti-constitutional.

That it is not inconsistent with our constitution may be proved from the practice of erecting the royal standard, upon great emergencies, to which every man was obliged immediately to repair; this practice is as old as our constitution, and as it may be revived at pleasure, may be properly mentioned as equivalent to an impress.

Mr. VYNER answered:—­This word, sir, which the learned member has by his wonderful diligence discovered in the statutes, may perhaps be there, but in a signification far different from that which it bears at present.  The word was, without doubt, originally French, pret, and implied what is now expressed by the term ready; and to impress any man was in those days only to make him ready, or engage him to hold himself in readiness, which was brought about not by compulsion, pursuit, and violence, but by the allurements of a pecuniary reward, or the obligation of some ancient tenure.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 9, 1740-1.

On the sixty-sixth day, the consideration of the bill for raising seamen was resumed, and a clause read, by which every constable, headborough, tithingman, or other person, was liable to be examined upon oath by the justices of peace, who were empowered to lay a fine upon them for any neglect, offence, or connivance.

Sir John BARNARD rose up, and spoke to the following effect:—­Mr. Chairman, it is the peculiar happiness of the Britons, that no law can be made without the consent of their representatives, and I hope no such infatuation can ever fall upon them as may influence them to choose a representative capable of concurring in absurdities like this.

The folly, the iniquity, the stupidity of this clause, can only be conceived by hearing it repeated; it is too flagrant to be extenuated, and too gross to admit exaggerations:  to oblige a man to make oath against himself, to subject himself by his own voice to penalties and hardships, is at once cruel and ridiculous, a wild complication of tyranny and folly.