TORTOLA FREE PORT BILL.

HL Deb 20 June 1806 vol 7 cc779-80

Earl Spencer

moved the second reading of the Tortola Free Port bill.

The Duke of Montrose

expressed his regret at the thin attendance of their lord-ships on a question which he conceived to be one of the greatest importance. He was at a loss to conceive the reasons upon which the measure was founded. The present board of trade had acted in this instance diametrically opposite to the decision of the board of trade of last year. He had hoped that upon this question the noble lord at the head of the treasury would have attended, but understanding that noble lord was prevented from attending by a slight indisposition, he must request his noble friend (earl Spencer) to act as umpire upon this question between the two boards of trade. The principle upon which the board of trade of last year had acted was clearly this, that in allowing the free importation from foreign islands into One of our own islands, of sugar and coffee, and those articles which our own islands produced, it was impossible afterwards to prevent the importation from thence into this country, of such foreign produce, upon the same terms as the produce of our islands, thereby materially injuring the interests of our own West India islands. This principle applied to the island of Tortola, from whence, if foreign sugar was to be allowed to be imported thither, all the ingenuity of man could not afterwards. prevent the ingenuity of man from finding means to import that sugar into this Country, under the pretence of its being sugar of the growth of our own islands. The establishment of a free port, according to the provisions of this bill, in the island of Tortola, was therefore, in his opinion, a measure highly impolitic, and a measure which he thought the noble lord at the head of the board of trade could only have been induced to bring forward by the representations of the very ingenious agent of that island. He thought, therefore, that the consideration of the bill had better be postponed for the present session.

Lord Auckland

defended the bill, which he considered a measure of sound policy. The object of it was to render Tortola a carrying island, and to take from St. Thomas's some part of the carrying trade in the possession of that island, in which a number of British shipping were employed. This was a measure which he conceived would therefore be beneficial to our commerce and our navigation, whilst, with respect to our West India trade, it would not be injured, nor did any of those persons concerned in that trade, or connected with West India interests, whom he was in the daily habit of seeing, make the least complaint, that any such injury was likely to result from it. As to the dangers Which the noble duke apprehended, there was an express provision in this bill for the purpose of preventing the importation into this country of foreign sugar, as there was a clause by which no more sugar was to be imported into this country from Tortola than the amount of the average annual produce of that island. This, therefore, negatived all those evil consequences apprehended by the noble duke. as it was not to be supposed that officers employed in the customs of Tortola would grant false documents, when, at the end of the year, on making up the accounts, the fraud must necessarily be discovered, and those guilty of it lose their offices.

Lord Hawkesbury

supported the arguments urged by the noble duke, and supposed that this measure must have come before the board of trade in the absence of the noble lord (Auckland) opposite, whose accurate knowledge upon the subject forbade the supposition that he had been present when the measure was discussed.

Earl Spencer

observed that, in his new office of umpire, conferred upon him by the noble duke, he had little difficulty in deciding, as he found that the present board of trade had, in this measure, only followed the example of the former board of trade, by whom an act similar to the present was brought forward, last session, for establishing a free port at Nassau, in the Bahamas. His lordship likewise supported the bill, on grounds similar to those urged by Lord Auckland.—The bill was then read a second time.