The ATTORNEY GENERAL spoke next, to this purport:—­Sir, the clause before us cannot, in my opinion, produce any such dreadful consequences as the learned gentleman appears to imagine:  however, to remove all difficulties, I have drawn up an amendment, which I shall beg leave to propose, that the contracts which may be affected as the clause now stands, shall be void only as to so much of the wages as shall exceed the sum to which the house shall agree to reduce the seamen’s pay; and, as to the forfeitures, they are not to be levied upon the sailors, but upon the merchants, or trading companies, who employ them, and who are able to pay greater sums without being involved in poverty and distress.

With regard, sir, to the reasons for introducing this clause, they are, in my judgment, valid and equitable.  We have found it necessary to fix the rate of money at interest, and the rate of labour in several cases, and if we do not in this case, what will be the consequence?—­a second embargo on commerce, and, perhaps, a total stop to all military preparations.  Is it reasonable that any man should rate his labour according to the immediate necessities of those that employ him? or that he should raise his own fortune by the publick calamities?  If this has hitherto been a practice, it is a practice contrary to the general happiness of society, and ought to prevail no longer.

If the sailor, sir, is exposed to greater dangers in time of war, is not the merchant’s trade carried on, likewise, at greater hazard?  Is not the freight, equally with the sailors, threatened at once by the ocean and the enemy?  And is not the owner’s fortune equally impaired, whether the ship is dashed upon a rock, or seized by a privateer?

The merchant, therefore, has as much reason for paying less wages in time of war, as the sailor for demanding more, and nothing remains but that the legislative power determine a medium between their different interests, with justice, if possible, at least with impartiality.

Mr. Horace WALPOLE, who had stood up several times, but was prevented by other members, spoke next, to this purport:—­Sir, I was unwilling to interrupt the course of this debate while it was carried on with calmness and decency, by men, who do not suffer the ardour of opposition to cloud their reason, or transport them to such expressions as the dignity of this assembly does not admit.  I have hitherto deferred to answer the gentleman who declaimed against the bill with such fluency of rhetorick, and such vehemence of gesture; who charged the advocates for the expedients now proposed, with having no regard to any interest but their own, and with making laws only to consume paper, and threatened them with the defection of their adherence, and the loss of their influence, upon this new discovery of their folly and their ignorance.

Nor, sir, do I now answer him for any other purpose than to remind him how little the clamours of rage and petulancy of invectives contribute to the purposes for which this assembly is called together; how little the discovery of truth is promoted, and the security of the nation established by pompous diction and theatrical emotions.