The Sun.
London, England, 1806-05-07 00:00:00

IMPERiAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF PEERS.
il.-rus4nAy, MAY G.
. .
ON the, Order of the Day for the second reading
of the American Intercourse Bill;
Lord SHEFFIELD rose to oppose. it. He stated,
that if time were afforded for hearing Petitioners
against this measure; and 'for examining Witnesses,
he could prove that British shipping was pertealy
adequate to carrying on the trade which it was pro-.
posed to abandon, to the United States. It had been
said that 1 5 JOO6 Negroes had died in consequence •
stria prohibition of the intercourse between our Cc.i
lonies and the United States ; but he believed the
deaths did not exceed fifteen hundred, and that tthee
were occasioned by an earthquake and a hurricane, _
The present Bill,. if passed, would prove extre•nely
injurious to the shipping interest of this Country;
and the British Settlements in America,'which were
now in a rapid state of decline, would he enti,,dy
ruined by it. It was, therefore, his intention'to pro-
pose to postpone the second reading of the Bill until
the 16th of this month, that the Petitions preparing
against it might be presented, and proof of its injuri-
ous tendency adduced. In the Mean time, he moved,.
that the order for the second reading of the Bill this
day be discharged. The qUestion for discharging this
order was put, and negatived.
On the Motion that the Bill be now.read a second
time, a long discussion aroSe, in which the argu-
ments for and againSt the measure, urged in former
Debates, were repeated. •
The Duke of - MONTROSE observed; that this
Bill had occasioned great alarm, because it indicated
au intention of relaxing- the Navigation' Laws. He
objeaed to it, therefore, not only on account of the
impropriety of the measure itself, but on account of
the system to which it led. ,
Lord LAUDERDALE observed, , that the argu-
ment maintained by the Noble Duke was one of the
most Singular nature he had ever heard. His Grace,
it appeared, had not much objection to offer to the
Bill itself, but he opposed it on account of some other
Bilk which he supposed to be in speculation.. The
ground on which the present Bill had been intro-
duced, his Lordship observed, was one of the
soundest principles on which any legislative measure
could be adopted, namely, the necessity 'of the
case. ' It would he recollected that Parliament
had been called upon to pass seven Aa'.l-s of 'ln-
detunity in consequence of breaches of the law
which that necessity had at different tines produced.
He would ask, whether h was not better t 4 allow
rt
to their existence, than to make them pay an enor-
mous price, is they must do if the same articles *ere
conveyed to them. in time of War in British Ships,
liable to all the charges of high freight and insu-
rance, and more 'especially as the Americans were
paid for the supplies furnished by English manufac-
tures.
Lord MULGRAVE considered the principle as-
sumed by the Noble Lord, that our Colonies should
be supplied from America, becanse they could get
what they wanted cheapest from that Country, as
most impolitic and dangerous.
The LORD CHANCELLOR reminded their
Lordships of the nature of the Bill, which, if he
rightly understood it, merely authorized the Privy
Council to dire& the Governors of- the Colonies . co
permit importations, in cases of necessity.
Lord CARNARVOA said, that the opposition to
the Bill was very remarkable. The Noble Lords
who complained sO much of what they called a breach
of the Navigation Laws, were the very personS who
had repeatedly, in War and in Peace, infringed that
lav7, themselves.
The Duke of CLARENCE, in an able speech,
referred to the origin 'of the Navigation Act, and
sheaved that the alterations which .hal taken place in
this Chuntry,and in the world, rendered that important
law not always applicable to' the intercourse between
the United States and the British Colonies. His
Royal Highness also 'remarked, that all the articles.
enumerated in the Bill as import Able to the Colonies,
were, with the exception of . beef and pork, exclu-
sively the production of Americk -
Lord CAMDEN opposed the Bill.
Lord HOLLA,N.D • pointed out the impolicy of
the argument which should say to America, espe,
chilly in time of War, " Our Colonies are in want
of articles which are uecessary•for their preservation; -
these are-articles of your produce ; but though we
cannot do without them, youshall not send them in
your own bottoms ; we insist upon bringing them
in ours." If it should be necessary to hold out en-
couragement to the shipping interest, the regula-
-tions for that purpose ought to be sought for in any
species of trade rather than in that of provisions.
Lord HAIKKESBURY stated the great principle
Of the Navigation Law to be, that if ever it should
happen that commerce and navigation interfered, the
interests of 'commerce ought to be sacrificed to the
interests of navigation. If ever there was a period
when this principle ought to be held sacred, it was
the present. In Adding to the claims of the United
States, his Lordship observed, that he knew it to be
the opinion of some of the most enlightened men in
America, that, notwithstanding the establishment of
their independence, a political union of the States
with Great Britain would be for the interest of both'
Countries.
Lord AUCKLAND said, that the whole question
at issue Was, Whether the West India Islands could
be supplied in time of War by British Shipping ?
Unless the Noble- Lords who opposed the Bill could
chew that this was practicable, all theirobjeaions
were nugatory.
Lord GRENVILLE said, that if any person had
heard this debate, who was ignorant of the important
business before the House, their Lordships would ap-
year to be at a loss to know what' to do with their