Mr. Burke was warm against the Bill. It was not, he said, sanguinary, it did not mean to shed blood, but, to suit some gentleman's humanity, it only meant to starve five hundred thousand people, men, women, and children at the breast. Some gentlemen had even expressed their approbation of famine, in preference to fire and sword. This Bill not only had taken from these people the means of subsisting themselves by their own labor, but, rejecting the clause now proposed, took from them the means of being subsisted by the charity of their friends. You had reduced the poor people to beggary, and now you take the beggar's scrip from them. You even dash from the mouth of hunger the morsel which the hand of charity would stretch out to it. On the subject of famine lie was fine and pathetick.

Lord Clare said he would not enter the list with the honourable gentleman who spoke last; it would be the waging an unequal war; but he had in his hand a friend who was a match for him; my old friend, Sir Joshua Ghee, a great friend to America, though no patriot; a man who has written better on trade than any other man living, and who knew more of America. Now, sir, my friend, Joshua 'Ghee, with a kind of prophetick spirit, says, if ever the people of New England should aim to set up for themselves, what must we do? Do, sir, why the very things which are now doing. Joshua Ghee says you must restrain their trade, and prohibit them from the Fishery, and you will soon bring them to their senses. I hope Joshua Ghee will be a prophet there too. But here are his words. [He here read a long passage from the book, and then commented on it.] Now, sir, nobody that ever read this passage, thought this conduct, as here proposed, to be cruel, but necessary and wise, sir. But since we have got a language in this House that is fitter for the turbulent harangues of an American Congress, than for a British Parliament, every thing which would restrain American independency, is unjust and cruel. But if so, sir, how come gentlemen not to oppose the augmentation of the Army and Navy for these purposes. They retired from that question; some never looked to it; others retired sturdily like Ajax; they did not turn their backs, but, sir, they retired.

Mr. T. Townshend. If the augmentation of the Navy and Army had been proposed as a force with which to make war on America, I would, sir, have been as sturdy as Ajax, not retiring, but attacking; I would have set my face against it; I would have used every power I had to oppose it; I would have carried my opposition to turbulency, since the noble Lord will so describe it. The reason why I did not oppose it, I will avow; it is a fair one. I knew that it was determined that a great part of the force which we then had was to be sent to America. I trembled for the safety of this Realm, thus stripped of the strength intended originally for its defence; I was glad when I heard an additional defence was to be proposed for it. I would not oppose this necessary measure, though I would not in any thing mix myself with the measures of Ministry. He then went into the argument on the subject of famine and starving.

Mr. Charles Fox. I think, sir, you have now, by refusing this proposition, completed the system of your folly. You had some friends yet left in New England. You yourselves made a parade of the number you had there. But you have not treated them like friends! Rather than not make the ruin of that devoted country complete, your friends are to be involved in one common famine! How must they feel, what must they think, when the people against whom they have stood out in support of your measures, say to them, "You see now what friends in England you have depended upon; they separated you from your real friends there, while they hoped to ruin us by it; but since they cannot destroy us without mixing you in the common carnage, your merits to them will not now save you; you are to be butchered and starved indiscriminately with us. What have you to look to for support but resistance? You are treated in common with us as Rebels, whether you rebel or not. Your loyalty has ruined you. Rebellion alone—if resistance is rebellion, can save you from famine and ruin." When these things are said to them, what can they answer? What part have they to take? They must resist in common with those with whom you have united them in ruin. I thought your measures were intended to divide the people. But when you mean to destroy you unite all, because you wish to destroy all. Thus much I thought it right to say, that I might mark the spirit of your measures.

Governour Pownall having now, after two days debate, heard so much about the starving principles of this Bill, and of the famine which was to be the effect of it in New England, rose to say a few words, in order, by stating the fact, to wipe off from the Bill an imputation, which not only the oratory of those who opposed it, but the indiscretion of some who had defended it, brought upon it; the foul stain of hard heartedness and cruelty; as also to calm any apprehensions which gentlemen, by their oratory, working on a fact taken for granted, had endeavoured to raise in the breasts of the humane. As to the starving and famine, supposed as an effect which might follow from the operations of this Bill, it was a supposition too idle to combat. The Colonies of New England were provision Colonies; they were great grazing settlements; they had not, indeed, been equally attentive to tillage as the farmers of the middle Colonies had been, but they raised sufficient Corn, Rye, and Barley, for their subsistence; that although they imported some Flour and Biscuit from Philadelphia and New-York, yet the first was chiefly for the luxury of the rich, and the latter for fitting out their Shipping. If it became necessary to restrain their trade, the latter would not be wanted; and if people will go to war, they must expect to give up the former. If the Bill proceeded upon any such principles of hard-heartedness, or if he could see any such cruel effects in it as had been stated, he would have opposed it instead of acquiescing in it; instead of any such mischievous effect on the Colonies, we should have need to watch that it did not produce a contrary effect, namely, that of turning their thoughts more seriously to tillage; if it should, might it not have the effect fabled in the story of AntÆus, that the moment in which they touch the ground, from that moment they should derive strength. He concluded by saying that he considered this Bill simply as a commercial regulation; as a temporary withholding of those indulgences which particular laws and connivance had given, in relaxation of the general laws on which the Plantation trade had been originally established; as with-holding these indulgences so long as the Colonies should think fit to prohibit the trade of Great Britain; it was from seeing and considering it in this light alone, that he acquiesced in it.

Mr. Henry Dundas, (Solicitor General of Scotland.) In what I said in a late debate, I did not say that I approved of measures of starving a whole people; but that, if matters between us and the Americans were come to that issue, that we must at last use force, and perhaps the sword; surely those measure which would prevent them from being able to resist, might prevent us from coming to the harsher measures of the sword and bloodshed, I thought these measures would bring them to their senses, and would therefore, in the end, prove mercy to them. This I hoped would be the true operation and effect of this Bill; and, therefore, approving that operation, I must disapprove this motion.

On the question, that the said clause be read a second time? The House divided: Yeas, 58; Noes, 188.

So it passed in the Negative.

Resolved, That the Bill do Pass; and that the Title, be, An Act to restrain the Trade and Commerce of the Provinces of Massachusetts Bay and New-Hampshire, and the Colonies of Connecticut and Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantation, in North America, to Great Britain, 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 mentioned, under certain conditions and limitations.

Ordered, That Mr. Cooper do carry the Bill to the Lords, and desire their concurrence.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

MONDAY, February 27, 1775.

Upon reading the Petition of the Aldermen, Sheriff, principal Manufacturers, and Inhabitants of the Town and County of the Town of Nottingham, whose names are thereunto subscribed, setting forth—