ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1745 



That is to say, there it is a crew not Scotch and not Irish. They 

 must be three-fourths English. The other fourth may be what you 

 like. Not necessarily foreigners. They might still be subjects of 

 His Majesty. They might be from Scotland, although we had no 

 union of Parliaments, yet we had a union of Crowns. It did not at 

 all follow that because three-fourths must be English that therefore 

 the other fourth should consist of persons not subjects of the King. 

 But, for my purpose, I do not mind if they did, and I am not laying 

 any stress on the fact that they might be Scotch, because they might 

 also undoubtedly be foreigners. In dealing with our universal trade 

 it would, as I have said, never do to say that you might not employ 

 some foreigners. 



Then it goes on in section 3 : 



"And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no 

 goods or commodities whatsoever, of the growth, production or manu- 

 facture of Africa, Asia or America, or of any part thereof, or which 

 are described or laid down in the usual maps or cards of those places, 

 be imported into England, Ireland, or Wales, Islands of Guernsey 

 and Jersey, or town of Berwick upon Tweed, in any other ship or 

 ships, vessel or vessels whatsoever, but in such as do truly and with- 

 out fraud belong only to the people of England or Ireland, dominion 

 of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed," 



For instance, we would not allow the importation in ships that 

 belong to Guernsey or Jersey. They spoke French there, and the 

 privilege was not extended to them. 



" and whereof the master, and three-fourths at least of the mariners 

 are English ;" 



So that you might have your other fourth made up of persons, 

 who, while subjects of the King, were not foreigners, or equally (I 

 am not trying to suggest that foreigners might not be employed) 

 you might employ foreigners. That is in the general trade of the 

 kingdom. Mr. Elder rather took it, or read it in connection with 

 Newfoundland, and rather left on one's mind the impression that he 

 was applying it to Newfoundland, but of course it was a statute of 

 much wider application; but no one has ever suggested, and I have 

 not, that you might not employ foreigners on British ships for the 



purpose of British trade. 



1056 Now, the next statute is one in 1699, at p. 525, British Case 

 Appendix. 



And here again, before reading this, it is necessary to draw atten- 

 tion to another condition of the times which is reflected in the 

 clauses of this Statute, namely, that we had very often persons who 

 were not subjects of the King, but were living in England, and 

 engaged in seamanship. Seamen are rather a cosmopolitan class, as 

 we have always in England a certain number of men of foreign 



