Lords Sitting of 15 July 1806

SLAVE SHIP RESTRICTION BILL.
On the order of the day being read, for the house resolving itself into a committee on the Slave Ship Restriction Bill,
The Earl of Westmorelandwent over several of the arguments before urged against the bill, which, he contended, would be highly unjust in its operation; and that, by enacting that the ships now employed in the slave trade should be traded by the same owners, great loss of property would frequently ensue to the remaining owners of a vessel, where a part owner died, or became bankrupt, as, in that case, from the change of the property, the ship could not be continued in the trade.
Lord Grenvillecontended that, it having been determined by both houses, that the slave trade ought to be abolished as soon as possible, it was a necessary consequence of that measure to bring in the present bill, in order to prevent that superabundant supply of slaves which would, otherwise, be attempted, in the interval, to be poured into the West-India islands; whilst it was, at the same time, an act of justice to the subjects of the country, to prevent them from engaging in a trade to their certain loss. He did not conceive, that any injustice to individuals would result from the present bill; although, in all great measures of policy, it was impossible to prevent some individual hardships arising from their operation.
Lord Eldonargued that, in the present case, individuals might be exempted from loss of property, without endangering the principle of the bill. He was of opinion that, from the words of the bill, if any part owner of a ship employed in the slave trade died, or became bankrupt, the property being changed, the remaining owners could not continue to trade with the vessel; the property in which would, therefore, become of little or no value, the remaining owners sustain a heavy loss, and the estate of the testator, or the bankrupt, be seriously injured, and thus creditors be unable to obtain their demands.
The Earl of Lauderdaledefended the bill, and maintained, that the persons engaged in the trade had had amply sufficient notice of the intention of the legislature to abolish it, and, therefore, ought not now to complain of injustice. He thought, that the words of the bill which had been objected to ought to remain, as to allow other owners to trade with the present vessels, would only tend to increase the number of claimants for compensation when the legislature, finally, abolished the trade.
Lord Sidmouthdeclared himself friendly to the abolition of the trade, provided it

1145
was done cautiously, with full information upon the subject, and with as little injury and oppression as possible to individuals.
Lord Redesdalealso, expressed himself friendly to the abolition; but thought it had been retarded by the harshness used towards those who carried on the trade. In order to prevent this bill from being a harsh measure upon individuals, he suggested, that those words should be left out, which restricted the employment of the vessels now in the trade to the present owners.
Lord Ellenboroughwas of opinion, that the words objected to did not legally bear the interpretation which had been put upon them. He contended that, notwithstanding the death, or bankruptcy, of any of the part owners, the vessels might still be navigated under the old register.—The house then resolved itself into a committee; where some conversation arose upon the different clauses; in the course of which, lord Ellenborough warmly replied to an expression used by the earl of Westmoreland. The latter noble lord moved, to leave out the words "any owner or owners," with a view to prevent the trade from being restricted to the present owners of the vessels employed in it. This was opposed by lord Ellenborough and lord Grenville, on the grounds before stated and supported by lord Eldon. The proposition was negatived. Lord Eldon moved to extend the time limited for taking out licences, for navigating vessels in the trade, from the 1st of August to the 1st of September. This amendment was, also, negatived, as was, likewise, an amendment proposed by the earl of Westmoreland, to limit the duration of the bill to the end of the next session of parliament, instead of 2 years. The bill then passed through the committee, and was reported without amendment.