168 NEWFOUNDLAND.

and strongly opposed by the merchants of London. The reasons alleged by ministers were, “ that as the colonies had entered into an agreement not to trade with Britain, we were entitled to prevent them tra- ding with any other country. Their charter re— stricted them to the Act of Navigation : the relaxa- tions from it were favours to which, by their disobe- dience, they had no farther interest.”

“ The Newfoundland fisheries were the ancient pro- perty of Great Britain, and disposable, therefore, at her will and discretion ; it was no more than just to deprive rebels of them.” To this it was contended, that it was beneath the character of a civilized people to molest poor fishermen, or to deprive the wretched inhabitants of a sea-coast of their food; and that the fisheries being also the medium through which they settled their accounts with Britain, the cutting them oil“ from this resource Would only tend to put a stop to their remittances to England.

The fishermen also would, by this measure, be driven into the immediate service of rebellion. They would man privateers, and would accelerate the levies of troops the colonies were making ; and, being hardy and robust men, would prove the best recruits that could be foundi‘e All this unfortunately happened.

From the evidence brought in support of their petition by the London merchants, it appears, that the four New England provinces employed, in the fisheries of Newfoundland and the banks alone, about

9" Andrews’s History of the American war, vol. i. p. 339.