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.
To call upon any man to accuse himself, is only to call upon him to commit perjury, and has therefore been always accounted irrational and wicked: in those countries where it is practised, the confession is extorted by the rack, which indeed is so necessary on such occasions, that I should not wonder to hear the promoters of this clause openly declaring for the expediency of tortures.
Nothing is more evident than that this bill, however the importance of the occasion may be magnified, was drawn up without reflection, and that the clauses were never understood by those that offered them: errours like these must arise only from precipitation and neglect, for they are too gross to be committed either by ignorance or design.
To expose such absurdities is, indeed, easy, but not pleasing; for what end is answered by pointing at folly, or how is the publick service advanced by showing that the methods proposed are totally to be rejected? Where a proposition is of a mixed kind, and only erroneous in part, it is an useful and no disagreeable task to separate truth from errour, and disentangle from ill consequences such measures as may be pursued with advantage to the publick; but mere stupidity can only produce compassion, and afford no opportunities for inquiry or dispute.
Admiral WAGER replied:—Sir, this clause, however contemptuously treated, has been already passed into a law by a senate which brought no dishonour upon the British nation, by a senate which was courted and dreaded by the greatest part of the universe, and was drawn up by a ministry that have given their posterity no reason to treat them with derision and contumely.
In the reign of the late great queen, this method of proceeding was approved and established, and we may judge of the propriety of the measures followed in that war by the success which they procured.
Those, therefore, by whom this bill was drawn up have committed no new absurdities, nor have proposed any thing which was not enacted by the wisest of our predecessors, in one of the most illustrious periods of our history.
Mr. GYBBON answered:—Sir, I am far from thinking a proposition sufficiently defended by an assertion that it was admitted by our predecessors; for though I have no inclination to vilify their memory, I may without scruple affirm, that they had no pretensions to infallibility, and that there are in many of our statutes instances of such ignorance, credulity, weakness, and errour, as cannot be considered without astonishment.