As this is, therefore, my lords, a bill contrary to all former laws, and inconsistent with itself; as it only tends to produce a bad end by bad means, and violates the constitution not to relieve, but to oppress; as the parts, singly considered, are defective, and the whole grounded upon a false principle; it neither requires any longer debate, nor deserves any farther consideration; it is rather to be detested than criticised, and to be rejected without any superfluous attempt for its amendment.

[The aforementioned lords were all who spoke in this debate.  The question being then put, Whether the bill should be committed?  It passed in the negative.

  Content 47, Proxies 10.—­57. 
  Not content 92, Proxies 17.—­109.

But a protest was entered on this occasion, signed by twenty-eight lords; the former part of it was drawn from the speech of the duke of ARGYLE, and the latter part of it from that of lord CARTERET.]

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 20, 1742.

ON THE SECURITY AND PROTECTION OF TRADE AND NAVIGATION.

The same day that the lords read a first time the indemnification bill, they read also, for the first time, a bill sent from the commons, entitled, An Act for the better protecting and securing the trade and navigation of this kingdom in time of war.  As this bill had a remarkable rise, passed the commons without a division, and the end proposed by it was so commendable, it may be proper to give some account of it before we proceed to the debate thereon in the house of lords.

It may be remembered, that we have mentioned great cause of complaint on account of the losses sustained by the British merchants from the enemy’s privateers, who were not sufficiently checked.  The merchants and traders of London, Bristol, and other cities, having applied to the administration in vain, presented petitions to both houses, setting forth, among other things, “that notwithstanding the growing insolence of the Spanish privateers, the applications of the suffering merchants for protection and redress, had been neglected; that numbers of his majesty’s most useful subjects have been reduced to want and imprisonment, or, compelled by inhuman treatment, and despairing of a cartel for the exchange of prisoners, had enlisted in the service of Spain; that there had been various neglects and delays in the appointment of convoys, and some of the commanders of the few that had been granted, deserted the ships under their care at sea, and left them as a prey to the enemy,” etc.

One petition farther says, “That the want of ships of force properly stationed, encouraged the enemy to increase the number of their privateers.”

Another, “That most of the captures were almost on our coast, in the Channel and soundings, at a time when the naval force of Britain was greater than ever was known, a few ships of which might have ruined the enemy’s privateers.”