Sitting of 17 July 1806

AMERICAN INTERCOURSE BILL.
On the order of the day for the 3d reading of this bill,
Lord Hawkesburyrose. His lordship deprecated any departure from those principles on which our navigation laws were founded, and to which we were indebted for our maritime superiority, and our greatness as a nation. He did not mean to contend that there might not be cases in which, from necessity, the general principle of our navigation laws must be departed from; but the present was not such a case; and, if an investigation was allowed to take place, he pledged himself to bring forward merchants of the highest respectability, who would declare, that such a measure as the present was wholly unnecessary. He objected, that this bill was brought forward, and all investigation refused. He thought also, that the measure was rendered worse, by enacting it for an indefinite period; it would be, in his mind, much better, to limit the period of its duration to the 1st of July, 1807, as, in the mean time, an investigation of this important subject might take place, and parliament become acquainted with the real state of the question.
Lord Hollandcontended that nothing more was meant by this bill than to vest that power in the privy-council, which had heretofore been exercised, contrary to law, by the governors of our West-India islands. That the power of allowing our West-India islands to be supplied from America, should be lodged somewhere, was demonstrable from the fatal effects which a contrary policy, that of restricting our colonies to a supply from this country had produced in those islands, when resorted to soon after the termination of the American war. This power, he contended, could no where be better lodged than in the hands of his majesty's privy-council, who were responsible for the exercise of it, and who were more likely to be influenced here by British interests, than the governors in the West Indies, who, from their situation, were necessarily subject to be operated upon by local influence. He was astonished at the opposition this measure met with in all its stages, particularly from those who had
1190
sanctioned the governors in the West Indies, in continually violating the law from necessity, for the purpose of admitting a supply into the West Indies from America, and who thought this of so little consequence, that they neglected, for three or four years, to pass any bill of indemnity.
Lord Eldonmaintained, that there was a material difference between indemnifying the governors in the West Indies for those acts, and passing an act of parliament to legalize the principle. The great object of our navigation laws, was to preserve our maritime superiority, and they should not lightly be departed from, as it should be remembered that when our shipping and mariners were decreased, those of other nations would be increased; and that if, in the event of a peace, there was not employment in our mercantile shipping for the numerous seamen who would be discharged, many of them might enter into foreign service.
Earl Spencerdefended the bill, which, he contended,had nothing to do with the general principles urged on the other side, it being only to give a power to the privy-council, to allow the importation of certain articles from America to our West-India islands, in case of necessity; and, in order to prevent any ill effects arising from the precarious nature of a supply, restricted wholly to this country. It did not, however, prevent supplies from being sent from hence in British shipping.
Lord Hawkesburymoved an amendment to limit the duration of the bill to the 1st of July, 1807.
The Earl of Lauderdalethought the amendment extremely inconsistent with the arguments urged on the other side. After some further observations from lord Eldon and lord Holland, the amendment was negatived, and the bill read a 3d time, and passed.