Mr. John Luttrell said: Sir; I am induced to offer a few observations upon the imperfections of the Bill before you,² that we may not too hastily adopt an opinion which has been frequently held forth by the friends of administration, that provided our trade from Great Britain and Ireland should increase, though that, of America do suffer, you will have a greater number of seamen. Sir, it has been said, in support of the assertion I have alluded to, that very few American seamen return in English vessels from that coast. I think it a very fortunate circumstance that they do not, because we have no employment for them, and they therefore must become a burthen to this country. But I will appeal to my naval friends on the other side of the House, whose knowledge of maritime concerns is very extensive, if American seamen are not always impressed in every part of the world to man the King's ships whenever the service requires men? . . . But, Sir, I have ever considered America to be a great nursery, where seamen are raised, trained, and maintained in times of peace to serve this country in times of war, and though I shall readily admit, from the distance of their shores, that you cannot lay hands upon them the first half hour of an armament, yet am I persuaded that you may be possessed of some thousands within the time usually prescribed for the return of English seamen from foreign services. As I am up, Sir, I would wish to say a word or two upon that part of the Bill which principally relates to the commanders of his Majesty's ships of war, employed for what the Bill stiles the protection, but would be much more properly termed the destruction of the trade, and it may possibly not be found quite so easy in practice as to some people it appears in theory, either to seize these vessels, or to discover false clearances or certificates. . . . I have no doubt but the Americans, by being put into the calamitous situation they are, and feeling the tyranny of the mother country, will endeavour to carry on a trade at the risk of the fine imposed under this Act of Parliament; . . . Sir, on the score of seizure I shall revert to my former arguments, that the King's ships cannot keep the seas in safety, in the northern parts of the coasts of America, for more than half the year. Whenever they can cruize, the Americans will have the advantages, that a perfect knowledge of the shoals, soundings, rocks, creeks, and places of shelter can afford them; by which means they must frequently escape your most vigilant researches: besides it is not a very pleasant service for an officer to risk the King's ships upon a lee-shore, with which he is totally unacquainted, not in pursuit of an enemy, but to destroy a friend. Upon the whole, Sir, I consider this Bill to be somewhat less cruel than that which is meant to demolish the New England provinces by famine; in every other respect I hold it to be equally mischievous. It is with real concern I see humanity and sound policy giving way to that hated revenge which involves indescriminately the innocent with the guilty. By this oppressive Act you will certainly extend the unhappy differences which already but too generally prevail in America, to every province; nay, I fear I may say, to almost every individual upon that vast continent: therefore, I protest against the measure.