In this interval, the war had determined, and the independence of the United States of America had produced, a new position of affairs in that part of the world, by which Newfoundland was affected, as well as the other parts of his majesty’s territories in America. One of the first questions that was occasioned by this revolution was, the supply of provisions for Newfoundland and the fishery. These had before the war, come in a great measure from the Colonies that were now separated; and before the new situation of things was quite understood, this supply, it was thought, might still be occasionally permitted, and, in a case of distress, had actually been resorted to. The western merchants took alarm at the appearance of an intercourse being allowed between the United States and their fishery; they presented memorials to have a stop put to it; they alledged the place might be supplied from _Great Britain_ or _Canada_. The allegations on both sides, of those who argued for a supply, under certain limitations, from the United States, and of those who were wholly against this intercourse, led to long examination of witnesses, and various considerations of policy, before the lords of the committee[80]. This ended in the committee resolving, in January 1785, to recommend to his majesty, that a permission should be given to import bread, flour, and live stock, in British bottoms, which ships should clear out from the king’s dominions in Europe, with a licence from the commissioners of the customs, which should be in force for seven months. As this licence was to be for seven months, and the temporary act for regulating the intercourse with the United States would expire in less time, it was suggested by the attorney and solicitor general, whether it might not be better to pass a special act for this purpose[81]. The committee accordingly recommended to his majesty, that a bill to that effect should be proposed in parliament, but that it should be in force for that season only[82]. Such an act was accordingly passed; namely, stat. 26 Geo. 3. C.I. The same question was revived the following year; when it was considered whether the act should be renewed. Examinations in like manner were had; in which the merchants declared, they were of the same opinion as they had been last year; but that they had rather the bill of last year should be renewed, than the trade between Newfoundland and the United States should be laid intirely open[83]. The committee came to the resolution, that the act should be renewed[84]. [Sidenote: Representation on a Bill brought in by the Western Merchants.]