Are not our ships to pass a single league beyond their
limits, in the honour or preservation of their country? Are they to lie
unactive within the sound of the battle, and wait for their enemies on
this side the cape?
The third clause, my lords, is, if not absurd like the former, yet so
imperfectly drawn up, that it can produce no advantage; for of what use
will it be to station an officer _where his majesty shall think fit?_ At
all the royal docks there are officers already stationed, and in any
other place what can an officer, deputed by his majesty, do more than
hire workmen, who will as cheerfully and as diligently serve any other
person? And why may not the captain of the vessel procure necessaries
for money, without the assistance of a commissioner?
In the fourth clause, my lords, nothing is proposed but what is every
day practised, nor any authority conferred upon the court of admiralty,
than that which it always possessed, of punishing those who disobey
their orders. The provision against the crime of wilfully springing a
mast, is at least useless; for when did any man admit that he sprung his
mast by design? Or why should it be imagined that such an act of
wickedness, such flagrant breach of trust, and apparent desertion of
duty, would in the present state of the navy escape the severest
punishment? Would not all the officers and mariners on board the ship
see that such a thing was wilfully done? Would not they cry out--"You
are springing the mast," and prevent it, or discover the crime, and
demand punishment?
The fifth clause, my lords, is without any penal sanction, and,
therefore, cannot be compulsive; nor is any thing of importance proposed
in it, which is not already in the power of the senate.
Pages:
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240