HC Deb 18 February 1807 vol 8 cc847-9

Lord Temple moved the order of the day for the second reading of the South Sea Trade bill. On the motion that the bill be now read a second time,

Sir Charles Price

observed, that as he had but that day presented a petition from the governor and directors of the South Sea Company against the bill, the petitioners were not prepared with counsel. If, therefore, he should suffer that stage of the bill to pass, he hoped the house would allow them to be heard by counsel, touching their rights, which would be invaded by the bill, in the committee.

Mr. Rose

stated, that though the South Sea Company had not for forty years carried on any trade to the South Sea, it was yet not legal for any ships to trade in that sea, without a license from the company. It had been mentioned to him, that the ships which had sailed for Buenos Ayres on the first accounts of its capture, had sailed without such licenses, in which case the voyage was illegal from the outset; and in this view, the question was an important one, because this circumstance would have a very serious effect upon the policies of insurance on these vessels. Not having seen a line of the bill, he wished to be informed, whether it was proposed to give it a retrospective operation.

Lord Temple

said, he had intended to explain the object of the measure, if even he had not been called upon by the right hon. gentleman. By the charter of the South Sea Company, no vessels could legally be embarked in a trade to the South Sea without a licence from that Company. The vessels had sailed to Buenos Ayres without such licence, and, consequently, their voyages were illegal. They were consequently liable to seizure, not alone by the agents of the South Sea Company, but by any privateer or letters of marque, which might fall in with them. He had not been himself in town when this event took place, but as soon as the illegality of the transaction was adverted to, his majesty's ministers had determined, on the meeting of parliament, to propose a measure for legalizing these voyages. They had conferred with the directors of the South Sea Company, and discussed the question. On the 14th of January a draft of the bill then before the house was communicated to the directors, which was returned on the 15th, with such alterations as they thought necessary to be made in it. Government had acceded to and adopted these amendments with a single exception, and therefore, he did not think that any case had been made out for deferring any stage of the bill.

Mr. Jacob

contended that the South Sea Company had not carried on any commerce for sixty-five years past, since the commencement of the war that began in the year 1740. Antecedently to that period, they had carried on a little trade to South America, by which they lost more than they gained; the expences of their factories at Carthagena, Porto Bello, Panama, and Lima, having exceeded the profits of their commerce; so that there had remained to them but a small part of the assiento contract. The South Sea Company, therefore, could not benefit by this trade. It was besides impossible that they should, as they had no capital; and before they could again embark in that trade, it would be necessary for them to come to parliament to be enabled to raise a fresh capital. Though they could not benefit by the trade to South America, a trade which was extremely beneficial to the country had risen upon the ruins of this trade, namely, the Southern whale fishery trade, which afforded a considerable nursery for British seamen. The company came, therefore, with a very bad grace to parliament, to press a right which they could derive no benefit from, to the exclusion of a trade from which the public would derive advantage. But by the act of 1802, all persons had a right to trade to the Western coast of South America, without any license, either from the South Sea Company, or from the East India Company, both of whom claimed a monopoly in these seas. Though the country had been put to much expence by the Spanish armament in 1791, to establish the right to carry on the fur trade at Nootka Sound, that trade had since fallen into the hands of Americans. As to the question respecting the policies of insurance, he had the best legal authority for saying, that the defect in law existed, and therefore he thought that the matter demanded the pressing attention of the house.

Mr. Tierney

stated, on the part of the East India Company, that they had only been apprehensive that the trade, when permitted, might be extended to other parts; for instance, to China; these were in the contemplation of the government, and, when they had received satisfactory assurances that the trade should not be extended beyond its precise limits, they had ceased to have any objection to the bill.

Sir Charles Price

stated, that the object of the petitioners was to have their right ascertained, and for that purpose they had presented themselves to the house, without meaning any opposition to the whole principle of the bill.—The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be printed. On the motion that it be committed on Monday,

Mr. Rose ,

now that he understood that the bill was to have a retrospective operation, approved of it so far as related to the covering the vessels from capture; but with regard to its retrospective operation as to the policies of insurance, he had some doubts. The underwriters had a legal right to decline the obligation of the policies, and though it would not be very honourable in them to take advantage of that circumstance, he did not think it clear that parliament should take such right from them, if they should think proper to act upon it.—The bill was ordered to be committed on Monday.