HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
import no commodities, staves “and 
Tumber only excepted, which were 
not the growth and produce of the 
countries to which they belonged, 
and that they should not export 
from our colonies sugar, indigo, 
cotton, wool, coffee, or cocoa. 
As to the history and progress of 
this bill, it was first brought into 
parliament, in the house of lords, by 
lord tiolland, who had in vain call- 
ed the attention of the late ministry 
to the subject, in the preceding ses- 
sion of parliament. After a good 
deal of opposition the bill passed 
the lords; but in consequence of 
some iniormality it was thrown out 
in the house of commons, and a 
new bill to the same effect was in- 
treduced by lord Temple, which, 
after much opposition and many 
long and violent debates, was at 
length passed into alaw. ‘To one 
who looks back on the transactions 
_ of that period, it appears incredible, 
that a bill, which effected and pro. 
-fessed 1o effect so little, should have 
- oceasioned so much debate, and ex- 
eited such violence of opposition, 
Those very persons, under whom 
the navigation act had been delibe- 
rately violated for thirteen years 
past, and who had brought in regu- 
lar bills of indemnity to excuse the 
violation of it, exclaimed against 
this bill, which had no other object, 
than to authorize the privy council 
to do that according to law, which 
they had done without law; and 
equally regardless of truth in their 
statements as of consistency in their 
conduct, they had the hardihood to 
naintain, that this was the first de. 
parture from the provisions of the 
navigation act, which any minister 
had ever ventured to propose in 
parliament. Nor was the spirit of 
opposition to this unfortunate bill 
85 
confined to the legislature. The ship 
owners in different parts of the 
kingdom were stirred up to present 
petitions against it ; and so success. 
ful were the artifices used to impose 
upon their minds, that long after the 
bill had passed into a law, they con- 
tinued firmly persuaded, that to this 
harmless and inoperative measure, 
all the distresses, which they after- 
wards suffered, were justly to be 
attributed. 
Our limits will not permit us to 
give a detailed account of the de- 
bates upon this subject in the house 
of commons. They were distin. 
guished, however, by greater length 
and violence on the part of opposi- 
tion, than any that occurred during 
the present session, the debates on 
the new military plans only except- 
ed. The principal speakers on the 
side of opposition were Mr. Rose, 
the master of the rolls, lord Castle. 
reagh, Mr. Percival, and Mr. Can.. 
ning ; and on the side of the minis- 
try, Mr. Fox, the attorney general, 
and lord Henry Petty, The following 
were the chief topics insisted upon. 
It was argued in favour of the 
system formerly pursued, ‘that its 
illegality was a security against its 
adoption, without a real and urgent 
necessity impelling the colonial 
governors to have recourse ‘to it. 
But to this it was a sufficient an- 
swer, that the same measures 
had been pursued, without inter- 
ruption during war, since 1793 3 
and, therefore, either the necessity 
in time of war was permanent, or 
the argument inconclusive. 
It was said, that the colonial 
governors were better judges of the 
necessities of the colonies than the 
privy council. OF a necessity arising, 
of a sudden, from some unforeseen 
and unexpected calamity, this was 
G 3 ‘ true 
