of their growth. Taking this in either light, as a mark of indulgence and favour intended to this paltry Colony, which has cost this country more than the fee simple of it is worth; or taking it as a foundation for a treaty with the other Colonies, I think such an invasion of the Navigation Act totally improper. But when we come to compute what the probable amount of such a revenue would come to, we must pause with astonishment to behold this country involving itself in such scenes of blood, expense, and ruin, in the pursuit and attainment of such an object. The imports into the Colonies are computed to be between three and four millions annually. Now, taking it on the largest scale, we may presume that the amount of the foreign commodities to be permitted to be imported would be about an eighth of the whole imports, which, by computation, is found to be the case in the Colony just mentioned. Take, then, the eight per cent. and you have the sum total of the revenue, which will be at or about forty-five thousand pounds per annum, a sum which will no more than pay the expense of collecting it; and, indeed, if not managed with greater economy than the last, will not be sufficient. If, then, our present warlike preparations, in which (to borrow a current Ministerial phrase) every nerve and sinew of war and national ability is to be exerted, be to obtain just nothing; I can only say, that it brings to my remembrance the conduct of a country gentleman, who made it a condition with his tenants to supply him with a certain number of carts and horses, and prided himself greatly in that mark of his authority, though he enjoyed it at the expense of a considerable decrease in his rents, as he let his lands considerably lower than the real value on that account. On the other hand, if the resolutions are meant to stop there, and are intended as a mark of particular favour, I think, at all events, it is very improperly exerted towards such a paltry Province, Halifax being called the gin-shop of America, which, according to a late publication, does not import above thirty thousand pounds per annum, and has already cost this nation between three and four hundred thousand pounds, while Pennsylvania, whose imports are three hundred thousand pounds per annum, never cost this country a single shilling. But, above all, I am warmly against any measure which may directly or indirectly be the means of defeating that valuable and truly beneficial law, the Act of Navigation.

The Earl of Sandwich. The noble Lord who spoke last, I believe, nay, I am sure, must be mistaken respecting the lowness of seamen’s wages, for, on applying lately to the master of a transport vessel, he advised a press, as he said it would be impossible to procure hands to man a ship, unless at a very advanced price, as he was obliged to promise them thirty-five shillings a month, and yet they still demanded an advance; and before they got out of the river, would probably refuse to proceed on their voyage, if their wages were not raised to fifty shillings per month.

The Earl of Shelburne. I have no manner of reason to doubt that the noble Earl has stated what the master told him very faithfully; but I should have hoped that his Lordship knew the world, at least the duties of his office, better than to rely solely on the information of a person whose interest immediately depended on misleading him. I am not surprised, therefore, though I do not believe the fact as coming from the master, that he said the seamen would insist on fifty shillings per month before they left the river; but I am much surprised that he did not state it much higher, and that the noble Earl should rest satisfied with the report of a man who was to profit from the imposition. I imagined that a noble Lord, high in office as he is, and at the head of a great department, might have drawn his information from a better and purer source than the master of a transport.

Viscount Weymouth. I do not think that the noble Lord who stated the resolutions agreed to in the other House, was justified in making them any part of the subject of this day’s debate, or going out of the question immediately before us. We are not bound to adopt the resolutions he mentions; and if they should be found to be subversive of the Act of Navigation, we shall, at a proper time, have an opportunity of considering them in the only Parliamentary manner in which they can be mentioned in this House; at present such a discussion is totally irregular and premature.

Lord Wycombe [Earl of Shelburne,] I cannot think myself the least disorderly. The subject of the debate relates to America. I think, therefore, I am fully justified in speaking to any material point which concerns it. The resolutions of the House of Commons of last year were made a ground of treaty with the Colonies— I think very improperly; for this House, in my opinion, should have been previously consulted.

Lord Viscount Weymouth. There is a material difference between the resolutions relative to Nova-Scotia and those of last year. On the latter, no measure was proposed or taken; on the former, a bill is ordered to be brought in; consequently the matter will come properly before your Lordships.

Duke of Richmond. Besides the clause I have before mentioned, as full of wanton iniquity, I should be glad to be. informed by some noble Lord on the other side, whether all ships, &c., found in port, belonging as well to the enemies as friends of Government, are liable to confiscation, when not found offending, that is, trading at sea; because, if the clause means that, I think it is still an aggravation of the monstrous and notorious injustice of this bill.

Lord Wycombe [Earl of Shelburne.] I had my doubts relative to this clause the noble Duke has mentioned; but on close examination, I think one part means to intend the contrary, though it is not clearly expressed. I should be glad, before we rise, however, to hear some of the noble supporters of this bill rise and explain it.

Duke of Richmond. I fear I am not perfectly understood. What I mean is, supposing a friend of Government, an innocent man, learning the contents of this bill, should endeavour to comply with it, and neither wishing to offend against the law, nor risk his property, should put his vessel into dock and unrig her, waiting for better and more peaceable times: whether, I say, in such a case, his vessel so laid up, would be liable to be seized and confiscated?

Lord Viscount Weymouth. It is impossible to decide, or give a direct answer to the noble Duke’s question; that must be left to the determination of the Courts of Admiralty.

Lord Mansfield. The noble Duke has put his question very fairly. In my opinion, the intention of the bill is, that the ships, &c., lying in dock, should be subject to confiscation. The principle of the bill is, to make a naval war upon America; and as, in such cases, it would be impossible to make distinctions in favour of the innocent, the bill has been framed according to the general ideas of carrying a war against a foreign enemy, where it is always taken for granted that every individual is concerned in and abetting every act of hostility; and I presume the great motive for passing this bill is, to vest the effects, &c., found in the possession of the Americans, to the captors; because no existing law has provided for the case of a sea war carried on against Rebels. In King William’s time, when Ireland was in rebellion, the defect was first discovered. A few of the Rebel ships were taken and condemned, but the legality of such an act was doubted. On the whole, I take it clearly, that the clause extends generally, without exception.

Duke of Richmond. I think it is an additional reason against sharing the whole of the confiscations among the captors, as it will not be in his Majesty’s power, by this bill, to make any distinction in favour of those who must, according to the noble and learned Lord’s explanation, suffer innocently; whereas if a part of the confiscation were reserved for that particular purpose, redress might, on a petition and a consequent inquiry, be obtained.

[A conversation now arose, relative to the powers vested in the Crown, between the Lord Chancellor, Duke of Richmond, Lord Shelburne, and Lord Weymouth;in which the power of pardoning in the first instance, and the reason for inserting the clause in the bill, seemed to be misunderstood, till Lord Mansfield observed, that such a power of delegation was inherent in the Crown without the aid of Parliament, which he instanced in the uniform exercise of it by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Commission issued in the reign of King William to treat with the Irish Rebels. But the reason why it was mentioned in the bill was, because the power given militated against two acts of Parliament, which of course called for equal power to set them aside.]

The question was then put, on committing the Bill.

It was resolved in the affirmative. Contents 48, Proxies 30; Non-Contents 12, Proxies 7.