The Marquis of Lansdownemoved, that the report of the Foreign Slave Trade Bill be brought up.
The Earl of Westmorelandopposed the motion, on the ground that the crime against which it professed to provide was not even shown to exist. The Bill would implicate persons who might be innocent of any criminal intention, and the offence was to be tried before the Admiralty tribunals abroad, which were often very im- 1063 proper courts to be intrusted with the trial of such causes. The crime of lending money to support the Slave Trade was already sufficiently provided against by the forfeiture of all the money embarked in it, and by the knowledge that the trader, if discovered, would become a felon, and thus be rendered unable to pay any debt. His lordship then moved that the report of the Bill be received this day three months.
The Marquis of Lansdowneobserved, that from the prospect of a speedy peace, it would be proper to provide against the application of British capital to a traffic in which the profits were well known to be immense; and this could not be done by pecuniary forfeitures, but only by fixing the stamp of infamy on persons engaged in it. The offenders were ordered to be tried in the settlements where the crime was committed, because in those places there would be the best means of proving either the guilt or the innocence of the person accused.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the House should be very cautious in passing the Bill which was before them, as the extent to which it went, would perhaps surprise persons who had not attentively examined it. Under the Bill any person who possessed a mortgage on lands in a foreign settlement, would be acting criminally if he advanced an additional sum on the same security; although that sum might be absolutely necessary to the preservation of the value of the property and consequently of his own mortgage. A man could not even lend without security to a possessor of foreign colonial possessions, because, according to the law of those colonies, all estates were assets for the payment of the debts of the proprietor. He was surprised such a Bill should have passed the Commons, where there were persons acquainted with the West-India Jaws and West-Indian transactions; and he should feel it his duty to oppose it, as it had not been shown how far the present law was insufficient to prevent the evil complained of.
§ The Earl of Harrowbysupported the Bill, and said it would be still in the power of holders of foreign colonial possessions to borrow money on the produce. If-the Bill, however, had the effect of stopping altogether the application of British capital to the cultivation of foreign colonies, it would be an object highly desirable.
The Earl of Mortonopposed the Bill, as laying down bad principles, which it did not venture to carry into practice.
§ Lord Ellenboroughremarked on the savage character of the Bill. A man who had negroes in Jamaica and St. Thomas's, and who transferred one of them from one island to another would be liable to be transported. The Bill was an emanation of that fanatical irregularity of mind, which would render that excellent measure, the Abolition of the Slave Trade, odious in the West India Islands. When such a sweeping measure of legislation was proposed against any Act which might keep alive the Slave Trade, it might not be improper to provide against abuses of the Charter of the Sierra Leone Company, which had been rumoured to exist. His lordship alluded to certain reports which were in circulation respecting a member or members of the Sierra Leone Company, and expressed his hope that it was not correct that any of the members of that Company had attempted to counteract the purposes of the abolition, contrary to the professed objects of the institution.
The Earl of Rosslynsupported the Bill, and said, that if the noble and learned lord had read the answers to the reports to which he had alluded, he would have been fully convinced that the charges were unfounded.
§ Lord Ellenborough, in explanation, said, that he had not asserted that the rumours were true, but only that they were in circulation.
The Earl of Liverpooladmitted that the Bill was drawn up in a slovenly manner; but he thought the object of it was good, especially as far as it prevented the application of British capital to the cultivation of foreign colonies. It would be an injustice to our colonies, where the Slave Trade was abolished, to allow British capital to be applied to the cultivation of colonies where the Slave Trade existed. Persons who had vested property in foreign colonies, had done it at their peril; and in the case of the French colonies which were in our hands, warning had been given, that it was not the intention of this country to retain them, by the prohibition on the importation of their produce.
§ The House then divided:
| For the Report | 9; | Proxies 10 | 19 |
| Against it | 12; | Proxies 12 | 24 |
| Majority—5 |
§ The Bill was consequently lost.