hogsheads from New England every year; that he thinks if New England was deprived of their Fishery, they would not be able to import Goods from Great Britain; the Ships from Great Britain to Newfoundland, now employed, make but one trip in a year, but may make two in future; the British Fish sell for one Pound a ton, the American Fish from fourteen Shillings to twenty Shillings per ton."

He was directed to withdraw.

Then Mr. George Davis was called in, and, being sworn, acquainted the House "That he was a Newfoundland Merchant, and had been in that trade for twenty-four years; that if the New England Fishery was stopped, the foreign markets might partly be supplied this year from Great Britain; that the French cannot increase their Fishery on the Coast, and that their Fish are not approved of at market, not being so well cured as ours; that of late years the New England Fishery is much increased, and the British Fishery very much decreased; that the British Ships employed in the Newfoundland Fishery are generally about two hundred tons burthen, and their number of hands is one man to two tons; that the Ships employed in the New England Fishery carry but twelve hands each; that the New England Fish are as good as ours, but not fit for the Italian market; that the greatest part of the profits of the New England Fishery centres there, but a small part, is returned here for the Manufactures of this country; that the New England Fish sometimes bears a better price than ours; that the foreign markets might be supplied entirely from Great Britain, if the New England Fishery was stopped; that it is not more expensive to send Ships from Great Britain than New England; that the New England men have more wages than ours; that they begin to fish sooner than we, but it is very little advantage to them; that our men entering on board their Fishing Ships is a great hurt to the British Fishery; that the witness's trade is from London; that if this Act should pass, be will reap benefit from it; that he has already enlarged his capital, and shall enlarge it more if the Act passes; that the time of the New England Ships getting to market depends upon the seasons; that they get something sooner to the markets, except the Spanish markets, than the British Ships; that he knows no other reason for the Italians preferring the small Fish than their pride, which makes them prefer the having one whole Fish at table rather than a piece of a large Fish; that though all the men carried out in the British Ships are not employed in navigation, the greatest part of them going out to be employed in the Fishery—yet all that are carried out return Seamen; that a New England Ship of two hundred tons carries about fourteen or sixteen men, and has no Boats; that a British Ship has but one Boat, the men being distributed in the Shallops for fishing."

He was directed to withdraw.

Then Molyneux Shuldham, Esquire, was called in, and, being sworn, acquainted the House, "That he has been Governour of Newfoundland for three years; that the quantity of Cod caught last year amounted to seven hundred and fifty-nine thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven quintals, at nine Shillings a quintal; that the number of men employed in this Fishery amounts to twenty-three thousand six hundred and fifty-two men, all of whom became Sailors; that he has had great complaints of the out-rages committed by the New England Crews employed in the Fishery; that they cannot take any Seamen out of the New England Ships, but that a great many are got out pf the British Fishing Ships; that the New England Ships carry on an illicit trade with the French; that they load with Provisions and Lumber, and go to meet the French Ships at Sea; that they sell them Ship and Cargo, and take French Manufactures and India Goods in exchange; that the New England Ships carry Provisions to the French at Miquelon and St. Pierre, and he supposes they must have a superfluity of Provisions; that they supply the French Fishermen with Flour from Indian Corn; that numbers of our Seamen desert the New England Ships; that the New England Seamen: are not so good Seamen as ours; that in the last war very few of them were employed on board of our Men-of-War, perhaps there might be six or ten of them on board a Man-of-War of sixty guns; that if this temporary restraint on the New England Fishery was made perpetual, it would be a benefit to Great Britain."

He was directed to withdraw.

Then Sir Hugh Palliser, Baronet, was called in, and being sworn, acquainted the House "That in the year 1768 he was Governour of Newfoundland; that the number of Ships then employed in that Fishery was three hundred and eighty-nine—Shallops two thousand one hundred and nine, the tonnage of which amounted to * * * * * * * * * *, the number of men nineteen thousand one hundred and ninety-eight; that this Fishery is the best nursery; that the men are better for the Men-of-War than those taken out of the Colliers; that it would be impossible to man a Fleet, but in a great while, if it was not for the men they get from the Newfoundland Fishery; that few or no Sea-men are got from the New England Fishery; that if the New England Fishery was entirely stopped, the French would not be benefited, as the English are in possession of the markets; that he does not know any thing about the Island of Nantucket; that whether the restraining of the New England Fishery is temporary or perpetual, it will be an advantage to Great Britain; that the Fishery might be carried on from Great Britain, Ireland, Jersey, and Guernsey, which would greatly increase the nursery for Seamen; that the New England Ships carry Provisions to St. Pierre and Miquelon; that the New England Fishery would lie an advantage to Great Britain, if there was a power given to press their men."

He was directed to withdraw.

Ordered, That the further consideration of the said Bill be put off till to-morrow, and the Lords summoned.

THURSDAY, March 16, 1775.

The Order of the Day being read, for the further consideration of the Bill;

The Earl of Dartmouth observed, that as the witnesses deemed necessary on the occasion, had been thoroughly examined, their Lordships now possessed the fullest information; he therefore moved "To commit the Bill."

The Marquis of Rockingham opposed the motion. His Lordship asserted that the Bill was oppressive arid tyrannical throughout; that the principle which pervaded it, and the means of putting it in execution, had one merit—that of consistency; and that, from the same motive, be should heartily dissent from every syllable of its contents. He meant not to trouble their Lordships in any future stage of the Bill, or perhaps at all on the same subject, during the continuance of the session, for which reason he hoped for their indulgence on the present occasion. He desired to repeat, that the present Bill, and every other framed on the same principle and directed to the same object, to be attained only by the most flagrant acts of cruelty and oppression, must forever continue to meet with his, strongest disapprobation; that as he had uniformly dissented from every American measure lately adopted, he now felt the double impulse of principle and of humanity both strongly urging him to express the utmost abhorrence of the Bill before the House, The evidence in support of the Petitions had clearly demonstrated the several evils that would result from the Bill, should it pass into a law. Had the counter evidences invalidated these facts?. So far from it, that the whole of their testimony tended to prove a matter foreign to the point; for, when it was urged on the one hand, "that the Mercantile interest of this country would sustain a material injury, and that some thousands of innocent people would be reduced to famine, should the Bill pass into a law," evidences had been contrasted, not to disprove these allegations, but merely to evince "that the British Newfoundland Fishery was an excellent nursery for Seamen!" Was this an answer to the objections urged against the Bill? Did it obviate all, or any of the obnoxious clauses? Rather, by not so much as; touching the facts alleged by the evidences in support of the Petition, did it not shew that those facts were incontrovertible; and that all the miseries as set forth by the Petitioners to be expected from the Bill, were founded on just apprehensions? That the noble Lord who presided at the head of the Admiralty, should eagerly catch at any project which carried but the least appearance of increasing the maritime power of this country, was perfectly natural; it