crew of seven men, on an average. One-half that number were needed on shore for curing the fish. Three hundred and fifty vessels were employed to carry the fish to market, of a tonnage ranging from 70 or 80 to 170 or 180 each, carrying eight hands. There were, then, between nine and ten thousand men in New England directly engaged either in the codfishery or in business depending immediately upon such fisheries.

The number of whale ships was 309, of which 122 were from Nantucket. There was an extensive shore fishery carried on at New England, the shad, herring and mackerel being important. Very little of the salt cod and salt mackerel was consumed by the people there; therefore they were not necessary to the support of the people as far as preventing starvation was concerned. About one-fourth the inhabitants of the seaport towns of Massachusetts lived on fresh fish. Shad and alewives were necessary in some parts. The New England fishermen received higher wages than those of Newfoundland; their fish were of a better quality, and usually sold better than the product of the British fishermen.

The effect of the bill, the testimony continues, would be to destroy the deep-sea fisheries of New England. The people of Nantucket would be ruined. The trade with the West Indies would be greatly interfered with, if not wholly stopped. The merchants of New England would be unable to pay the bills that they were owing in Great Britain. But the people would not migrate to Halifax or other parts of Canada for the purpose of carrying on their industry. Neither would the measure necessarily "starve them into submission," as there was agriculture to which many of the people could easily turn their hand for support.

On the other hand it was shown that Newfoundland could not carry on the fisheries as New England was doing. The Newfoundland fisheries were carried on cheapest from

New England. England would lose annually between £200,000 and £300,000 in returns from the codfishery, as all apparatus, fittings and ship chandlery used in New England came from the mother country, being paid for in cod and whale products. In addition, there would be the loss of £1,000,000 that was due the British merchants.1

When the bill was finally taken up for consideration on the 6th of March, the discussions were resumed with vigor. Among those to take an active part in the opposition were Fox, Burke, Townsend, Lord John Cavendish and Lord Camden. The last named spoke with great feeling, characterizing the measure as a "bill of pains, penalties, and coercion, not of commercial regulations." And further he stated, "The true character of the bill is violent and hostile. It is a bill of war; it draws the sword, and in its necessary consequences plunges the Empire into civil and unnatural war." Lord North, however, was not without a good following and the bill was passed by the House of Lords on the 21st of March by a considerable majority.

Twenty-one peers who were in the minority entered protest which embodied the principal arguments they had used during the course of the debates. The opening paragraph of their document is well worth repeating for its earnestness, its eloquence, and the spirit of humanity that it expresses. The passage is as follows: "We dissent because the attempt to coerce, by famine, the whole body of the inhabitants of great and populous provinces, is without example in the history of this or, perhaps, of any civilized nation, and is one of those unhappy inventions to which Parliament is driven by the difficulties which daily multiply upon us from an obstinate adherence to an unwise plan of government. We do not know exactly the extent of the combination against our commerce in New England and the other colonies; but we do know the extent of 1 American Archives, 4th series, I, pp. 1639-1675, passim.

the punishment we inflict upon it, which is universal, and includes all the inhabitants; among these, many are admitted to be innocent, and several are alleged by ministers to be, in their sense, even meritorious. That government which attempts to preserve its authority by destroying the trade of its subjects, and by involving the innocent and guilty in a common ruin, if it acts from a choice of such means, confesses itself unworthy; if from inability to find any other, admits itself wholly incompetent to the ends of its institution.'

Lord North was not content with the destruction of the American fisheries. His next move was the introduction of a bill for the encouragement of the fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland. The bill granted bounties to vessels engaged in the cod and whale fisheries, and in other ways favored the fishermen of Great Britain. There can be little doubt that the measure was intended to stimulate British merchants and fishermen to supply the domestic and foreign markets with the products of the sea. The colonists retaliated by agreeing to refuse to supply British ships in American waters with any outfits or provisions that would be of use in their fishing.

Within less than a month of the passage of the act to restrain the commerce of the New England colonies and to destroy their fisheries the conflict at Concord Bridge marked the beginning of active hostilities between the two people. Open war, and not the provisions of the bill, brought about the cessation of the fisheries, which remained inactive during the period of the Revolution. It is very clear that the ministry were resolved to "starve the people into submission" by destroying their fisheries, which were regarded in Great Britain as the basis of the industrial system of the New England colonies. Had there been a fair chance for the provisions of the bill to be enforced under conditions of peace, it is altogether probable

that the effect upon the industry would have been quite as disastrous as that produced by the ravages of war; but, on the other hand, the ulterior aim of the ministry would not have been secured. Not only did the colonists of New England manage to get a living after their industry of the sea was destroyed, but they were largely instrumental in bringing the war for independence to a successful close. Under peaceful conditions, their living could have been secured with greater ease than under the burden of war times.

CHAPTER VII

WAR AND ITS RESULTS

With the opening of the Revolutionary War the colonial era of the fisheries came to a close. For the first time since its beginning in the early part of the seventeenth century, this ancient industry of the sea was wholly suspended. For a decade the annals of the fisheries give place to records of war, to feats of daring on land and sea. What could be accomplished neither by raiding Indians, nor by hostile French rivals, nor by restrictions of Parliament, nor by two centuries of battling with the storms of the ocean, was accomplished in a single season by the war. The doughty schooners fled for refuge to their native harbors; lines, tubs and sounding-lead were laid away in storehouses; cargoes of fish and salt were unloaded upon the wharves; captain and crew threw off their oiled barvels, and the seas were undisturbed by the white sails of fishing craft that had dotted their surface for more than five generations.

But a wonderful transformation was at hand! Almost in a night the change took place, for, on another day, the largest vessels in the fleet were speeding out of harbor once more to scour the seas in search of a new prey. Lines and tubs had given place to cutlasses and swivels; out of sounding-leads bullets had been melted; the hold of the vessel, once filled with salt and fish, furnished commodious quarters for a score or two of fighting seamen; barvels had been exchanged for American uniforms for men who were as eager now to train their guns upon