Sir John BARNARD spoke to this effect:—­Sir, it is not without regret that I rise so often on this occasion:  for to dispute with those whose determinations are not influenced by reason, is a ridiculous task, a tiresome labour, without prospect of reward.

But, as an honourable gentleman has lately remarked, that by denying the necessity of the bill, instead of making objections to particular clauses, the whole design of finding expedients to supply the sea service is at once defeated; I think it necessary to remind him, that I have made many objections to this bill, and supported them by reasons which have not yet been answered.  But I shall now no longer confine my remarks to single errours, but observe that there is one general defect, by which the whole bill is made absurd and useless.

For the foundation of a law like this, sir, the description of a seaman ought to be accurately laid down, it ought to be declared what acts shall subject him to that denomination, and by what means, after having once enlisted himself in this unhappy class of men, he may withdraw into a more secure and happy state of life.

Is a man, who has once only lost sight of the shore, to be for ever hunted as a seaman?  Is a man, who, by traffick, has enriched a family, to be forced from his possessions by the authority of an impress?  Is a man, who has purchased an estate, and built a seat, to solicit the admiralty for a protection from the neighbouring constable?  Such questions as these, sir, may be asked, which the bill before us will enable no man to answer.

If a bill for this purpose be truly necessary, let it, at least, be freed from such offensive absurdities; let it be drawn up in a form as different as is possible from that of the bill before us; and, at last, I am far from imagining that a law will be contrived not injurious to individuals, nor detrimental to the publick; not contrary to the first principles of our establishment, and not loaded with folly and absurdities.

Mr. VYNER then spoke:—­Sir, a definition of a seaman is so necessary in a bill for this purpose, that the omission of it will defeat all the methods that can be suggested.  How shall a law be executed, or a penalty inflicted, when the magistrate has no certain marks whereby he may distinguish a criminal? and when even the man that is prosecuted may not be conscious of guilt, or know that the law extended to him, which he is charged with having offended.

If, in defining a seaman on the present occasion, it be thought proper to have any regard to the example of our predecessors, whose wisdom has, in this debate, been so much magnified; it may be observed, that a seaman has been formerly defined, a man who haunts the seas; a definition which seems to imply habit and continuance, and not to comprehend a man who has, perhaps, never gone more than a single voyage.

But though this definition, sir, should be added to the amendments already proposed, and the bill thereby be brought somewhat nearer to the constitutional principles of our government; I cannot yet think it so much rectified, as that the hardships will not outweigh the benefits, and, therefore, shall continue to oppose the bill, though to some particular clauses I have no objection.