PENSION-BILL REVIVED AND LOST.

Mr. Pulteney revived the bill which he had formerly prepared for the encouragement of seamen. After a long dispute, and eager opposition by the ministry, it passed both houses, and obtained the royal assent. Mr. Sandys having observed, that there could be no immediate use for a great number of forces in the kingdom; and explained how little service could be expected from raw and undisciplined men; proposed an address to the king, desiring that the body of marines should be composed of drafts from the old regiments; that as few officers should be appointed as the nature of the case would permit; and he expressed his hope, that the house would recommend this method to his majesty, in tender compassion to his people, already burdened with many heavy and grievous taxes. This scheme was repugnant to the intention of the ministry, whose aim was to increase the number of their dependents, and extend their parliamentary interest, by granting a great number of commissions. The proposal was, therefore, after a long debate, rejected by the majority. Motions wore made for an inquiry into the conduct of those who concluded the convention; but they were overruled. The pension-bill was revived, and so powerfully supported by the eloquence of sir William Wyndham, Mr. Pulteney, and Mr. Lyttelton, that it made its way through the commons to the upper house, where it was again lost, upon a division, after a very long debate. As the seamen of the kingdom expressed uncommon aversion to the service of the government, and the fleet could not be manned without great difficulty, the ministry prepared a bill, which was brought in by sir Charles Wager, for registering all seamen, watermen, fishermen, and lightermen, throughout his majesty’s dominions. Had this bill passed into a law, a British sailor would have been reduced to the most abject degree of slavery; had he removed from a certain district allotted for the place of his residence, he would have been deemed a deserter, and punished accordingly; he must have appeared when summoned, at all hazards, whatever might have been the circumstances of his family, or the state of his private affairs; had he been encumbered with debt, he must have either incurred the penalties of this law, or lain at the mercy of his creditors; had he acquired by industry, or received by inheritance, an ample fortune, he would have been liable to be torn from his possessions, and subjected to hardships which no man would endure but from the sense of fear or indigence. The bill was so vigorously opposed by sir John Barnard and others, as a flagrant encroachment upon the liberties of the people, that the house rejected it on the second reading.