HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN WHALE FISHERY. 59 



Massachusetts in a state of rebellion, and to pledge the Parliament and 

 the whole force of Great Britain to its reduction; the next, by prohib- 

 iting the American fisheries, to starve ISew England ; the next, to excite 

 a servile insurrection."* 



Accordingly on the 10th of February, 1775, the ministry introduced 

 into Parliament a bill restricting the trade and commerce of Massachu- 

 setts Bay, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island to Great 

 Britain, Ireland, and the British West Indies, and prohibiting the colo- 

 nies from carrying on any fishery on the Banks of Newfoundland or any 

 other part of the North American coast.t "The best shipbuilders in the 

 world were at Boston, and their yards had been closed ; Ihe New Eng- 

 land fishermen were now to be restrained from a toil in which they 

 excelled the world. Thus the joint right to the fisheries was made a 

 part of the great American struggle." J To this bill there was a small 

 but active and determined opposition, both in the House of Lords and 

 House of Commons. It was urged on the part of the ministry that the 

 fisheries were the property of England, and it was with the English gov- 

 ernment to do as tbey pleased with them. To this opinion the minority 

 strenuously demurred. "God and nature, " said Johnston," have given 

 that fishery to New England and not to 01d."§ It was also argued by 

 the friends of America that if the American fishery was destroyed the 

 occupation must inevitably fall into the hands of the natural rivals of 

 Great Britain. Despite the efforts of the little band the bill was received 

 by a vote of 261 to 85, and passed through its various stages. As each 

 phase was reached the act was fought determinedly but uselessly and 

 hopelessly. The merchants and traders of London petitioned against 

 it, and the American merchants secured the services of David Barclay 

 to conduct the examination of those who were called to testify by the 

 friends and opponents of the bill. || " It was said, that the cruelty of the 

 bill exceeded the examples of hostile rigour with avowed enemies ; that 



* Bancroft's United States, vii, p. 222, February, 1775. 



tEng. Annual Reg., 1775, p. 78. 



t Bancroft's United States, vii, p. 239. 



§ Ibid. 



|| Among the evidence given was rnnch tending to show the importance of the colonial 

 trade. It appeared that in 1764 New England employed in the fisheries 45,880 tons of 

 shipping and 6,002 men, the product amounting to £322,220 16s. 3d. sterling in foreign 

 markets ; that all the materials used in the building and equipping of vessels, excepting 

 salt and lumber, were drawn from England, and the net proceeds were also remitted to 

 that country ; that neither the whale nor cod fishery could be carried on so successfully 

 from Newfoundland or Great Britain as from North America, for the natural advan- 

 tages of America could neither be counteracted nor supplied ; that, if the fishery was 

 transferred to Nova Scotia or Quebec, government would have to furnish the capital, 

 for they had neither vessels nor men, and these must come from New England ; that it 

 must take time to make the change, and the trade would inevitably be lost ; and that 

 American fishermen had such an aversion to the military government of Halifax, and 

 " so iuvincible an aversion to the loose habits and manners of the people, that nothing 

 could induce them to remove thither, even supposing them reduced to the necessity of 

 emigration." — (Eng. Annual Reg.) 



