141 



Mr. Duiitiing opposed the bill. lie thougliL llint the Americans had 

 a right to fish on the Banks of Newfoundland ; that there was no re- 

 bellion in ^fassachusetts Bay, and nothing there that could be con- 

 strued into treason ; that, if even there was a rebellion in some parts, the 

 whole should not be punished ; and why, he asked, })unish Xew Hanij)- 

 shire, Khode Island, and Connecticut? " The minislers," he added, 

 " were the best authors of a receipt to malie rebellion." 



Mr. Attorney General Thurlow followed in reply. In his judgment 

 there iras a rebellion in Massachusetts. 



Ciovcn^nor Johnstone said that the measure Was absurd and erud; that 

 the God oC nature had given these fisheries to Acw and not to Old Eng- 

 land, and the ])rop()sition to starve a whole people, except such as the 

 governor should think proper to favor, was inhuman ; and that thia 

 partial permission would give rise to unjust preference, monopoly, and 

 all soils of jobs. He declared, further, that he had served in the navy 

 during the entire period of the last war, and that it was a constant rule 

 in the service for the British cruisers on the enemy's coast to spare the 

 fishing craft, thinking it savage and barbarous to deprive the poor 

 fishermen of their little means of livelihood, and the miserable inhabit- 

 ants of the seacoast of their daily food. 



Sir George Saville exposed the folly of depriving one province of its 

 subsistence because rebellion, we knew not where nor by whom, is 

 lurking in it ; and then punishing a second province because it is next 

 door to rebeUion ; a third, because ministers would accomplish nothing 

 if a third were allowed to escape ; and a fourth, because otherwise the 

 authors of the scheme could not square their plan. 



Sir W. Meredith supported the bill. He indulged in terms of severe 

 reprobation ol' the spirit which continued to prevail in the colonies; 

 and concluded with declaring, that whatever distress might be occa- 

 sioned l)y suspending the fisheries, the Americans would have no cause 

 to complain, since they had commenced the same course of conduct, 

 and liad resolved, as far as was in their power, to ruin British mer- 

 cliaiits and manufjcturers, and to starve all the West India islands. 



Lord Beauchamp and 8ir Richard Sutton defended the ministry on 

 similar grounds, and because the colonists had prohibited trade with 

 tlie mother country. 



Mr. Burke was extremely severe in the course of his attack upon the 

 bill, and remarked that the ministers had disposed of' flnu- ol" their \)xa- 

 vinces ; some f()r concealed rebellion, oili(>rs lor concealers ot* the 

 concealment; some for infection, and oiIkms for being next door to 

 infeelion. But, said lie, llier(> is a lilih pioviiiee which is as likely to 

 suffer as any of the four, and (IkiI province is j-higlaiid, which has seve- 

 ral hundreds of thousands of Ikt property in the four provinces otWew 

 Knglaiid ; and, as these can only [)ay their debts by means of the 

 fislier.es, and the trades that depend upon iIkuu, the effect of the pas- 

 sage of the bill will be to beggar the English merchants and manufac- 

 turers. 



Lord North's motion was, however, agreed to — two Imndied and 

 sixty one members voting in favor, and i)ut eighty-five against it. 



On the 2Sth of February the bill was taken up, and several persons 

 acquainted with the fisheries were examined as to their value, and the 

 probable results of suspending them. Mr. David Burclcy appeared to 



