68 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806: 
all the body of the laws of this realm 
made for the support of our naviga- 
tion, the rule of our colonial system, 
and every thing that depends on 
both ; and this is said to be the 
effect of necessity*.”” But, in bring- 
ing forward this triumphant objec: 
tion, in making it his main argu- 
ment against the bill, and enlarging 
upon itin many a declamatory and 
animated period, that acute and 
learned judge seems to have forgot- 
ten, in his zeal against the bill, to 
look into its provisions, where he 
would have found, that it gave no 
authority to the privy council to 
permit a single article to be import- 
ed into the West Indies:by neutrals, 
unless when the necessity of the 
case seemed to requife it. But, it 
would be difficult, we apprehend, 
to make out a case of necessity for 
the importation of an article which 
was notitself necessary to theislands. 
Nor was there much truth or decency 
in the insinuation of the same leam- 
ed personage ‘against the authors of 
the bill, ‘that it contained a mean- 
ing, and had an object, which ithey 
didnot think fit to disclose to par- 
liament ;” for the words of the Dill, 
en which he founded this insinua- 
tion, werc literally the same withthe 
words of an act of parliament+, 
trenching more deeply on the navi. 
_ gation act than the American inter- 
course bill, which had been passed 
some years before, when the friends 
of that learned judge were in oflice, 
and himself in the same judicial si- 
tuation, which he continued still so 
ably to fill. 
The last objection to the Dill, 
which we shall notice, was, that ic 
was inconsistent with our establish. 
ed system of colonial policy, and 
contrary to the provisions of the 
navigation act. ‘lo the first part of 
the objectiou.it was answered, that 
necessity compelled us to deviate, in 
this instance, from our usual course 
of colonial poliey, in order to ob- 
tain the means of subsistence for - 
‘our colonies ; and to the second it 
was replied, that necessity being the 
ground on which the intercourse of © 
our colonies with the United States 
was tolerated, the principle, though 
not the letter of the navigation act, 
required, that the trade thus permit- 
ted, because necessary, should be 
open equally to American and En. 
glish vessels. For, if nut open to 
Americans, it was in the power of 
the United States to interdict) the 
trade entircly, without giving us 
just cause of offence, and thereby 
compel us to admit them toa share 
init: on the same principle, that 
should we atiempt. to exclude 
foreign vessels from the ports of the 
United Kingdom, foreign nations 
might compel us, by retaliating, 
to desist from such a pretension, 
With xespect to the allegation, that 
‘this was the first relaxation of the 
navigation laws enacted by the le. 
gislaturet,”’ itis surprising that such 
an assertion should have been made, 
but most easy to shew that it was 
made rashly and inconsiderately. 
Without recurring to the period of 
the American war, the instances of 
acts of parliament inconsistent with 
the provisions of the navigation act 
were numerous during the last and 
present 
4 
* Speech of the master of the yolls on the American intercourse bill, July 8th, 
£806—Cobbet’s parliamentary debates, vol. 7th, p, 987-1003. 
+-43 Geo. 8. cap. 153, 916. 
} Cobbet’s parliamentary debates, vol. 6. p, 1088. 
