frequently discussed. He said, with temper, that he gave way to that disposition of the House, and was content to give his approbation to the Bill.

The question then being put, the House divided: Yeas 215; Noes 61.

So it was resolved in the Affirmative.

Ordered, That the said Bill be read a third time upon Wednesday next, if the said Bill shall be then engrossed.

WEDNESDAY, March 8, 1775.

Ordered, That the Order of the Day, for the third reading of the Bill now engrossed, to restrain the Trade and Commerce of the Provinces of Massachusetts Bay and New-Hampshire, and Colonies of Connecticut and Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantation, in North America, to Great Britain and Ireland, and the British Islands in the West Indies, and to prohibit such Provinces and Colonies from carrying on any Fishery on the banks of Newfoundland, or other places therein to be mentioned, under certain conditions, and for a time to be limited, be now read;

And the said Order being read accordingly;

The said Bill was read the third time.

Mr. Hartley moved to add the following engrossed clause to the Bill, by way of ryder:

"Provided always, and be it further enacted, That nothing in this Act contained, shall extend, or be construed to extend, to prohibit the importation into any or either of the said Colonies or Provinces, of Fuel, Corn, Meal, Flour, or other Victual brought coastwise from any part of America."

This clause, said he, cannot be objected to, even by the most vindictive spirit, against the four Provinces of New England, who are the objects of this Bill, as it is extracted from the Boston Port Bill of last year; the lenity or humanity of which was never so much as pretended, even by its advocates. There cannot be a reason why you should throw away this year the little share of humanity which you had the last; more especially as we are come to discover, and even to acknowledge, by the votes of this House, that we have proceeded hitherto, in this business with America, with rashness, misjudgment, and precipitation. The vote I allude to is passed but a few days since; which says, or pretends to say, that it would have been 'proper' (that is the term) to have proceeded in a way of asking a supply of the Americans, by the constitutional way of requisitions, before proceeding to compulsory or forcible methods. Having confessed ourselves wrong in the foundation, it is but equal justice to our fellow-subjects of America's, to suppose that those riots and resistance would not have happened, if we had not begun with them confessedly in an unconstitutional way. Surely, then, it is not a time to add to the severity of our acts, in proportion as we find that we have been unjust in the outset, and that they have been less to blame. It is surely but a little matter to ask, that you would not be more cruel towards America, who have never been heard on their defence this year, than you were the last. Besides, what construction can the Town of Boston put upon your present measures, if you refuse the clause now offered? They will be besieged, as in actual war with any foreign enemy. General Gage has fortified the Neck which joins Boston to the Continent, by which he may intercept provisions; and by this Bill you proclaim the same intention by Sea. Do you expect that they will submit to be starved, in passive obedience? What resource have they left, but resistance; and, perhaps, to take advantage of the smallness of numbers of General Gage's Troops, before they are reinforced; for this Act puts it out of all doubt that you mean to proceed to all extremities. I have been informed by those who know best the temper of the Americans, and I hope and believe that they will hold out their patience to the utmost, and that they will not strike the first blow; but what is the difference to them, whether you strike the first blow by the musket or the sword, or to equal effect, by famine? The refusal of this clause will be a declaration on your part, that you mean to bring famine upon them to the utmost of your power, and therefore a warning to them of the mercy which they are to expect at your hands. As to the Bill in general, it has been so ably debated, that I shall only add two remarks. This Bill, by destroying the North American Fishery, not only destroys that nursery of Seamen, but will disable the Provinces under the prohibition, from the means of paying their debts to this country, who, therefore, will finally be the sufferers; and when the next year comes, and you find this consequence, you will then turn accusers of the North Americans for not paying their debts, and you will add, according to the usual falsehoods towards the Americans, that they never intended to pay their debts; and, by the distance of the place, and the falsehood of representations, you will impute those very effects which you have produced yourselves, as the justifying causes of resentment. This is the unjust way in which the Americans have been treated on all occasions. I myself asked the other day, why, on a particular occasion of a slight riot of not more than a few hours continuance, four Regiments and a train of Artillery were ordered to Boston? To justify this enormous intervention of the military, I was told in this House, that indeed the riots were trifling, but that the Americans had come to a resolution to arm the country. What, then, was the real fact, as testified by dates? The fact was, that the resolution to arm was not taken till the Troops were seen in the Offing. It was the sight of the Troops, upon so trivial an occasion, that gave them to understand what they were to expect; and by dates the fact is verified, that they did not take to arms till some months after the Troops were ordered; but it was upon their first notice of the Troops being to come, and the resolution to arm against the worst, was actually debated but a few hours before the Troops were landed. So it is that facts are misrepresented in America, and so let me put in my caution now, that the Americans do now actually pay their debts like honest men, to the utmost of their power, and let me be before-hand with this charge; if, when the natural consequences of these measures come next year, we should hear any false accusations of the Americans, as combining not to pay their debts. I shall make but one remark more, but which seems to me to be of the utmost importance to the whole commercial system of England, which is, that the Plantation-built bottoms are two-thirds, or three-quarters, or all the bottoms upon which the British Merchandise, to every quarter of the globe, is carried on. When we meditate, a blow at the American trade, we should recollect at least that there is this one manufacture (if I may so call it) of Ship-building, upon the encouragement of which our very existence as a trading people depends. However we May think it our interest to suppress the rivalship of the Colonies with ourselves in other Manufactures, yet in this trade of Ship-building, they are our most material and essential support. This revengeful blow at the American Ship-building, will fall most immediately and fatally upon the Manufacturers and Merchants of every commercial article in this Kingdom. For these reasons I am against the whole principle of the Bill, and if we cannot prevail to have it rejected, I humbly move, at least, the admission of the clause which I have just offered.

Lord North said, as the Bill not only meant to restrain the Colonies of New England from trade, so long as they would not trade with us, but also to let them feel the inconveniences which they must be exposed to while they deny the authority of Parliament, he could not, until their conduct gave Parliament some grounds for it, agree in opinion that Parliament should relax from the coercion which this Bill meant to execute. He thought it was right that they should feel some of those distresses which the power of this country could bring upon them, while they dared to set their power in opposition to it. But even in the exertion of force, nay of arms, if it should become necessary, he never should wish measures which were cruel. The case of the Boston Port Bill was quite different. The Town of Boston had obstructed our trade, and had committed an act of outrage against it; it was proper, therefore, to prevent that Town from being a place of trade, until they had made recompense; but as they had not then formally arrayed themselves against the power as well as authority of this country, further restraints, such as were in the present Bill, were not then necessary, and the permitting Provisions and Fuel to go up to the Town by water, was inserted in that Bill. The further restraints which a more violent conduct had now rendered necessary, were inserted in the Bill, and instead of relaxations from these, more severe ones must follow, if their conduct made such further necessary.