THE STRUGGLE FOB EXISTENCE 45 



way into Parliament, where many able statesmen took the 

 side of the colonists, the principal advocate being Sir 

 Edward Coke. The Commons were successful twice in 

 passing a bill for the revocation of the original charter 

 -that granted the monopoly in the fisheries; but the bills 

 failed of enactment. The efforts of the advocates of free 

 fishing, however, were not without valuable results. The 

 company found it impossible to withstand public sentiment 

 on one side of the sea and the stubborn resistance of fisher- 

 men on the other; their plans were changed, and they con- 

 tinued to exist thereafter largely in the capacity of mak- 

 ing grants of land in the New World. 1 



On the other hand the ill effects of the controversy 

 over free fishing were felt on both sides of the Atlantic. 

 Charles the First had scarcely ascended the throne before 

 the Commons passed a bill concerning the maintenance and 

 increase of shipping and navigation, and for the liberty of 

 fishing on the coasts of Newfoundland, Virginia and New 

 England. Although the bill was lost in the House of Lords, 

 the Commons prosecuted the matter still further by pre- 

 senting to the king a representation of grievances in which 

 they insisted that the restraint of the subject in the mat- 

 ter of fishing was of national concern and required re- 

 dress. The remonstrance was one of the causes that led 

 to the dissolution of Parliament and the beginning of that 

 personal rule of the Stuart monarch which led not only 

 to the exodus of thousands of his subjects to the New 

 World, but resulted ultimately in the untimely death of 

 the king. 



In America the ill effects of the dispute were seen in 

 the great depression of the fishing industry itself, since 

 "during the five years embraced in the struggle, the num- 

 ber of English fishing vessels on the whole extent of our 

 coast diminished much more than one-half, or from four 



iSabine, p. 45. 



