147 



The fiaal question was taW in the House of Lords on the. 21st of 

 March, when the bill passed by a decisive majority. The peers in 

 minority — twenty-one in, number only — entered a solemn protest, era- 

 bodying the objections they had uttered in the debates. This docu- 

 ment is one of the most earnest and eloquent state papers on record. A 

 single passage will indicate its general tone : " We dissent," said these 

 noblemen, "because the attempt to coerce, by famine, the whole body 

 of the inhabitants of gteat and populous provinces, is without example 

 in the history of this or, perhaps, of any civiHzed nation, and is one of 

 those unhappy inventions to which Parliament is driven by the diffi- 

 culties which daily multiply upon us fi-om an obstinate adherence to an 

 unwise plan of government. We do not ,know exactly the extent of 

 the combination against our commerce in New England and the other 

 colonies; but we do know the extent of the punishment we inflict upon 

 it, which is universal, and includes all the inhabitants: among these, 

 many are admitted to be innocent, and several are alleged by ministers 

 to be, in their sense, even meritorious. That government which at- 

 tempts to preserve its authority by destroying the trade of its subjects, 

 and by involving the innocent and guilty in a common ruin, if it acts 

 from a choice of such means, confesses itself unworthy ; if from inability 

 to find any other, admits itself wholly incompetent to the ends of its 

 institution."* 



Having destroyed the fisheries of New England, Lord North, on the 

 J 1th of April, moved that the House of Commons do resolve itself into 

 a committee of the whole house, on the 27th instant, to consider the 

 encouragement proper to be given to the fishfsries of Great Britain and 

 Ireland. He introduced his motion with disclaiming any motives of 

 resentment against America, by the present measure, or meaning it 

 either directly or indirectly to oppress that country. The fisheries, in 

 hiS' judgment, when well conducted and properly directed, were an in- 

 exhaustible fund of riches ; for, while they extended British commerce 

 and kept open a continual advantageous intercourse with foreign na- 

 tions, they increased the naval strength of the kingdom, and were, con- 

 sequently, the great source of that power which gave it the pre-emi- 

 nence over all other nations of Europe. Such was the tenor of his 

 Remarks. 



On the day proposed by his lordship, the House considered the sub- 

 ject, in the manner suggested. A biH was framed which granted boun- 



* Botta, in Hs History of the Revolution, thus speaks of this measure: " The ministry," he 

 remarks, "thus guided, as usual, by their spirit" of infatuation, confided their cause, not 

 to the certain operation of armies, but to the supposed inconstancy and partiality of the 

 American people. Upon such a, foundation Lord North proposed a new bill, the object of 

 which was to restrict the commerce of New England to Great Britain, Ireland, and the West 

 India islands; and prohibit, at the same time, the fishery of Newfoundland. The prejudice 

 that must haye resulted from this, act to the inhabitants of New England may be calculated 

 from the single fact, that they annually employed in this business about forty-six thousand tons, 

 and six thousand seamen ; and the produce realized from it, in foreign imarkets, amounted' to 

 three hundred and twenty thousand pounds sterling. This hill, however, did not pass without 

 opposition in the two houses ; pn the contrai-y, the debates and the agitation it excited were 

 vehement m both. Many of the members exerted all their efforts to defeat it ; and more fhan 

 any the Marquis of Eockingham, who presented to this end a petition of the London mer- 

 chants. The bill was, however, approved by a great majority. The opposition protested ; the 

 ministers scarcely deigned to perceive it," &c., &o. 



