no more than waste paper; it may be there, or any where else, as to any substantial purpose. Look into the Clerk's minutes; suppose the Journals made up, and in either event you will find the Bill absolutely, to all intents and purposes, rejected; and as much out of this House, in point of order and Parliamentary proceedings, as if it had never been brought into it. His Grace's reason for objecting to the Bill, however new, for I am certain nothing like it was suggested in the debate, is equally curious. The noble Duke says, it was highly improper and unparliamentary to bring a Bill into this House, which, by repealing several Revenue Acts, was a direct infringement of the right of the Commons, who claim it as an inalienable privilege to originate all Bills for raising and repealing taxes. Is the noble Duke to be informed, that when the Bill got into the Committee was the time to state that objection, where he or any noble Lord would be at liberty to put a question separately upon every word, sentence, and clause, by which means not only three or four Revenue Acts might be left out, but three or four hundred, if the Bill contained so many? On the whole, my Lords, whatever his Grace's sentiments may be, it was to the principle, not the clauses of the Bill, the real objection lay, therefore those who were against the principle acted very properly not to trouble themselves with the clauses, but to reject the whole at once.

The Earl of Abingdon said, that reason, justice, conscience, principle, and instinct, all prompted him to pronounce the Bill a most diabolick measure. How the right reverend Bench reconciled it to their consciences, he was unable to conceive: for his part he put his trust in the Almighty; and though he knew all he could say would avail nothing against a Ministerial majority, yet he cautioned the Lords against injustice, as in the judicial visitation of Providence it generally fell heavy on the heads of those who planned iniquity.

The question was then put;—for committing the Bill, 104; against it, 29.

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House;

Ordered, That the House be put into a Committee upon the said Bill tomorrow.

FRIDAY, March 17, 1775.

The Order of the Day being read, for the House to be put in a Committee upon the Bill;

The House was adjourned during pleasure, and put into a Committee upon the said Bill.

After some time the House was resumed;

And the Lord Scarsdale reported from the Committee, "That they had gone through the Bill, and made several amendments thereto, which he was ready to report when the House will please to receive the same."

Ordered, That the said Report be received on Monday next.

MONDAY, March 20, 1775.

The Lord Scarsdale, according to order, reported the amendments made by the Committee of the House to the Bill.

[The following was one of the amendments: Insert clause A. "Provided also, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That nothing in this Act contained respecting the Fisheries carried on by his Majesty's subjects in North America, shall extend, or be construed to extend to any Ship or Vessel, being the property of any of the inhabitants of the Townships of Marshfield and Scituate, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, employ ed in or carrying on the Mackerel, Shad, and Alewife Fisheries only; if the master or other person having the charge of any such Ship or Vessel as aforesaid, shall produce a Certificate under the hand and seal of the Governour or Commander-in-Chief of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, setting forth, that such Ship or Vessel (expressing her name, and the name of her Master," and describing her built and burthen,) is the whole and entire property of his Majesty's subjects of the said Townships of Marshfield and Scituate, and was the property of one or more of them on or before the twenty-fifth day of March, in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, which Certificate or Certificates such Governour or Commander-in-Chief is hereby authorized and required to grant."]

And the said amendments being read a second time, were severally agreed to by the House.

Ordered, That the said Bill be read a third time tomorrow, and the Lords summoned.

TUESDAY, March 21, 1775.

The Order of the Day being read, for the third reading of the Bill;

The said Bill was accordingly read the third time; which done,

The Earl of Buckinghamshire offered an amendment. The clause, as it stood in the engrossed Bill, which his Lordship wished to alter, was part of the prohibitory clause relative to the Fishery, where it was enacted, "That if any Ship or Vessel, being the property of the subjects of Great Britain, not belonging to, and fitted out from, Great Britain, Ireland, or the Islands of Guernsey and Jersey, shall be found, after the 20th of July, 1775, carrying on any Fishery, of what nature or kind soever, upon the banks of Newfoundland, the Coast of Labrador, or within the River or Gulf of St. Lawrence, or upon the Coast of Cape Breton, or Nova Scotia, or any other part of the Coast of North America, or having on board materials for carrying on any such Fishery, every such Ship or Vessel, with her Guns, Ammunition, Tackle, Apparel, and Furniture, together with the Fish, if any shall be found, shall be forfeited, unless the Master, or person having the charge of such Ship or Vessel, do produce to the Commander of any of his Majesty's Ships-of-War, stationed for the protection and superintendence of the British Fisheries in America, a Certificate under the hand and seal of the Governour or Commander-in-Chief of any of the Colonies or Plantations of Quebec, Newfoundland, St. Johns, Nova Scotia, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, East or West Florida, setting forth, that such Ship or Vessel, expressing her name, burthen, &c., and describing her, hath been fitted out from some one of the said Colonies or Plantations;" his Lordship moved, that the words "New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina," be omitted.

The Duke of Manchester opposed the amendment. He said, that one half of the Continent of North America was at once punished by the proposed alteration, without any trial, proof, or inquiry whatever; that such a mode of proceeding was totally repugnant to the established rules of equity, which always supposed the party accused had been heard before judgment was pronounced.

The Lord Chancellor said, the House was in possession of evidence, fully sufficient to authorize their Lordships in agreeing to the proposed amendment; that at the time the Bill originated in the other House, the information alluded to was not known; that it appeared by the several accounts received from the Provinces of New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, &c., that they were equally culpable with those of New England; and that of course they ought to suffer under one common punishment.

The Duke of Manchester acceded to the general premises laid down by the learned Lord; but totally denied the propriety of the inferences and conclusions drawn from them. He observed, that although the letters stated what his Lordship was pleased to call the disobedient and undutiful disposition of the Southern Colonies, but what he should always esteem as a meritorious perseverance in the cause of freedom, and a constitutional assertion of their rights, those letters were no more in the contemplation of the House, in its legislative or deliberate capacity, than if they had never existed. Have they, said his Grace, been even so much as read? Have they been considered? Have the parties accused been heard in their own defence? Away, then, with such pretences! Has not the Minister in the other House, and the House itself, been in possession of the same information? Why then have not they proceeded in the same manner? No; however willing they might be to do it, they plainly saw the insurmountable difficulties which lay in their way, and wisely declined it. The Province of New-York was permitted to stand in the Bill with