The following Protest against this Bill was entered upon the journals:
"Dissentient; 1st, Because the Bill appears to us to have been passed in manifest violation of the letter and spirit of the Standing Order of the house, No. 25. A. D. 1702, the maintenance of which Order is essential not only to the privileges of this house, but also to the fundamental principles of the government. 2dly, Because, the unprecedented manner in which Commercial Regulations of the highest importance are in this bill coupled with matter of Aid and Supply, and the precipitation with which the Bill has been hurried through the house, when evidence is about to be heard as to the effect of the late Orders in Council, in furtherance of which the bill is passed, give to this measure in our judgments a character which we are always unwilling to attach to any act of parliament. 3dly, Because, various Amendments proposed to be made to this Bill have been rejected, although the same were obviously necessary to give effect to those very provisions which the bill was intended to establish, and to remove doubts admitted to exist as to the legal construction of some of its most important provisions. 4thly, Because, the object is to give effect to the late Orders in Council, which it declares to have been expedient and necessary. Whereas, we conceive them to have been wholly unjust and unnecessary, and in the highest degree injurious to the most important interests of the country. (Signed) Grenville, Ponsonby, (earl of Besborough), Nugent, (Buckingham) St. John, Spencer, Rawdon, (earl of Moira,) Erskine, Essex, Grey, Lauderdale, Ponsonby, (of Immohilly) Vassall Holland, Jersey, Clifton, (earl of Darnley,) Auckland."