HC Deb 19 May 1806 vol 7 cc253-4

The report on the Tortola Free-Port bill was then taken into farther consideration.

Lord Temple

observed, that the difficulty attending this bill lay in ascertaining the precise quantity of sugar which should be allowed to be imported from Tortola into this country. He had considered the objections of the right hon. gent. opposite to him (Mr. Rose) on this head, and had endeavoured to retrieve them by several amendments, which he should propose. He then moved that the bill be now recommitted.—The house then resolved itself into a committee; when

Mr. Rose

repeated his former and added, he could see no reason for the bill; but the noble lord had made a blunder, and did not like to give up the bill; lest it should be discovered. If the noble lord would give a single good reason for the he would no more open his lips about it.

Lord Temple

said, the right hon. gent. was mistaken; he had made no blunder, and as to his motive, he could have but One, the currying into effect a. measure which justice and equity required. The ground on which he proposed the bill was to make British merchants vest their capital in Tortola, which they now do in the neutral island of St. Thomas.

Mr. Rose

said, this bill, or a similar one had been in force for 3 years, and the merchants knew it produced no effect at all. The noble lord had Certainly Mistaken the object of his own bill.

Lord Temple

said, the bill had been repealed early in the third year, and taking the time before it operated, it had been in operation no more than one year.

Mr. Rose

insisted it had been in force three complete seasons, and if now passed into a law, might have the effect of bringing into this country an incalculable quantity of foreign sugars.—After a few observations from Mr. Vansittart, and Mr. Perceval, the clause was agreed to, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow.