The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-29 00:00:00

Mrs Bright, M.P., at the Birmingham

Chamber of Commerce,

BIRMINGHAM, Thursday Evening.

The half-yearly meeting of the Chamber of Commerce
for Birmingham and the Midland District was held this
evening in the Grand Jury -roora of the Public-office, Moor-
street, Mr J. S. Bright, Vice-President of the Chamber,
occupied the chair.

Mr Seholefleld, M.P., Mr Bright, M.P., and Mr T. Lloyd,
M.P., the newly-elected member for Barnstaple, were pre-
sent.

The formal business of the meeting have been disposed
of,
The CHAIRMAN moved the adoption of the report of the
Chamber, which touched at some length upon variousques-
tions of interest to the mercantile world, among them being
the Bankruptcy Act of 1861, which was regarded as defec-
tive and requiring amendment, the present state of our in-
ternational maritime law, the changes which have been
effected in foreign Customs duties, and trade regulations,
the Partnership Law Amendment Bill, the patent law, the
prohibition of the export of arms from Singapore, the pre-
sent system of Government contracts, the Swedish tariff, and
the Merchandise Marks Act.

Mr. T. LLOYD, M.P., seconded the motion, which, after
a brief discussion, was agreed to.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, M.P., then addressed the meeting.
Adverting to the Partnership Law Amendment Bill, which
he had introduced into the House of Commons last year, he
remarked that a misconception appeared to prevail in some
quarters as to the nature of its provisions; he regarded it
simply as a bill for the extension of the freedom of trade. It
was the duty of Parliament not to interfere unnecessarily
with the trade of the country. The best function of Govern-
ment was to govern as little as possible, every limitation
which Parliament put upon the facilities with which a man
was enabled to carry on his trade being injurious ; the Coun-
cil of the Chamber stated in their report their opinion that
it was for the interest of this country to establish this pro-
position as a part or international maritime law. " That
private property of subjects of a belligerent on the high seas
should be exempt from seizure by the public armed vessels
of the other belligerents except it be contrabrand." He
thought it was the duty of Government to see that in mat-
ters connected with war, if ever we should be involved in
war, the lives of our soldiers and sailors were protec-
ted as well as the property of merchants. If the question
of our international maritime law should be again brought
before Parliament he should be glad to support the pro.
position laid down by the Birmingham Chamber, if he
could clearly see his way to such a course. He
was glad to learn from the report that the Board of
Trade was now acting in co-operation with the different
Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, and he
expressed a hope that steps would be taken to extend the
principle of free trade in regard to our dealings with Aus-
tria. He happened to know something of the condition of
Austria, and if they could induce her Majesty's Government
to co-operate with them in inducing the Austrian Govern-
ment to extend the freedom of trade he was satisfied that
there was now an excellent opening in that country. The
wealth of Austria was much greater than was generally
imagined, and that wealth was being rapidly developed by
the partial adaptation of the Government of that country to
more constitutional forms. With regard to Mexico perhaps
that was hardly a safe topic to touch upon; but assuming,
as ho supposed we might now assume, that Mexico would
soon be under a monarchical form of Government, and that
the monarch of that country would be an Archduke of
Austria-

Mr. BRIGHT--I don't think so. (Laughter.)
Mr. SCHOLEFZELD—You think he will not ?

Mr. BRlGHT—Certainly.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD continued—Refraining from express-
ing any more decided opinion upon that point, he thought
it would be conceded that there was now a prospect of a
better condition of things in Mexico than had been known
for some years, and he hoped that the Chambers of Com-
merce throughout this country would not be insensible to
the necessity of doing their best to see that the vast resources
of that rich country were properly developed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT, after a few preliminary remarks, said—
The impression left on my mind after perusing the report
is that this Chamb3r of Commerce has occupied itself with
many important matters during the present year; and
looking at the difficulties which interpose themselves to
anything being done in this country, I believe that the
Chamber has not been unsuccessful in its attempts to
take care of the interests of this district with which it is
more especially connected. (Hear, hear.) In looking over
the paragraphs in that report there is one that struck me as
rather curious. I am surprised that it has not been men-
tioned, and you will, perhaps, bo more surprised that I
mention it, as it is out of my line. The paragraph which
I refer to is that relating to the prohibition of the exporta-
tion of arms from Singapore. It appears that you are
allowed to export arms from Singapore to China, if they are
to be sold to the partisans or subjects of the ruling dynasty
of China; but if they are to be exported for the use of the
rebels, then the Government interposes and prevents that
exportation. I am not anxious to see the manufacture of arms
necessarily a great manufacture in the world, nor the ex •
portation of them commonly required front one country to
another; but the principle now acted upon is not the prin-
ciple which has been applied with regard to America and
other countries, and I do not see why, on any principle
adopted by the Government in other cases, it should inter-
fere to prevent the exportation of arms from Singapore.
(Cheers.) It is the business of the Chinese Government to
prevent that exportation, but it is not the business of our
Government to do so ; that is a matter which many gentle-
men will be able to comprehend without my entering upon it
further, and I have merely mentioned it as a curious matter
for observation than as being very material. The next sub-
ject mentioned in the report which strikes me as a matter of
some consequence is the question of patents. (Hear.) I un-
derstand that at Liverpool there are some infiaential persons
who think that patents ought to be altogether abolished, and
that inventors should be remunerated out of a fund to be
awarded to them in some way by the Government, and that
if possible it would be desirable to have an international
fund provided by the various countries of Europe and by
America, out of which they should receive a fitting compen-
sation. On the face of it this proposition looks extremely
reasonable, and I believe that its carrying out would be
impracticable, and that it would be impossible to make any
equal adjudication, because it is often many years before
anybody can tell whether a patent has really been valuable
and whether the public have gained much from it or not.
(Hear, hear.) I am not very much alarmed at the prospect
of the total abolition of patents, and I am not sure, after my
experience, which I am sorry to say, has been considerable,
that the public would lose anything by
„the abolition ;
and, looking at all that is won and lost by inventions among
inventors, I am not certain that the inventors would be the
losers if there were no patents at all. I believe that not 1 in
20 of them makes his expenses, and that a good many out
the 20 are nearly ruined. There is nothing to prevent the
production of useful inventions ; the fame attaching to them
would be quite a sufficient stimulus with many men to exert
their talents in that direction ; but, leaving that point, there
is the question of the existing law, and no man can have
paid attention to the present law, or rather no law, because
in point of fact, there is no law—no man can have examined
that law without feeling that there is ample room for exten-
sive alteration and amendment. In my opinion, patents are
granted in many cases for very insignificant things, and they
are nothing but a nuisance to the trade with which they are
connected. Frequently the improvements are so trifling, al-
most so childish, that it is quite absurd to give a man a mo-
nopoly which may be thp cause of harassing every exten-
sive manufacturing operation. (Hear.) To my mind it
would be a great improvement if there were some previous
examination of inventions, for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the invention is worth a patent, and if it is not the
patent ought to be refused. In addition to the drawings
that are necessary, an exact model of the invention ought
to be furnished, so that you 'eight ascertain the exact in-
vention for which the patent was granted. I believe that
the plan of models has been adopted in the United States.
I do not know much of their law generally, but I be-
lieve that to be the case. I think the present system of
drawing specifications to be a system of iraud to
a very large extent. A man attempts to conceal his in-
vention ra►ther than to explain it, and the wording is so
vague that when a conflict arises with some one who he
supposes has infringed his patent, he dares not tell you what
he claims, and his counsel will fight for days to avoid telling
you what the inventor claims and what he has invented, and
if it is said, "This is old," he says, " I do not claim that
that is not my specification ;" but if you have not proved
it to be old, ho will say, " That is exactly what I do claim,"
You are placed in a maze of difficulties, and may go on liti-
gating for years, and it is difficult to say whether you are

more near ruin when you have lost than when you have
gained your cause. (Hear, bear.) The present law is, in
my opinion, so scandalous that it e/ould be better to have
none at all. There are multitudes of causes which it is im-
possible to try in our ordinary courts of justice, and if men
could only put aside their wish to conquer, they would find
it much easier to toss up for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the patent is good, or whether the:alleged infringe-
ment is an infringement or not. (Hear.) In 99 cases out
of every 100 the decision would be es just as if a long liti.
gation had taken place, and more money would be saved by
avoiding the costs than the whole patent is worth. I
have been and am now the vietiml of this law. Oliver
Cromu ell, when describing the state of the law in his
time, said that it was a "torturous ungodly jungle ;"
and I may say with regard to our patent law that it is a
disgrace to any civilised country. (Hear.) I will not say
anything about our maritime law except this—that, differing
from my hon. colleague, I think the Chamber has taken a
wise view of that question, looking rather to the future than
to the past. We are apt to look to the past in considering
certain circumstances, but the future will not in all proba-
bility be as the past. No one can shut his eyes to the fact
that, notwithstanding the immense armaments of England,
there is a much greater indisposition to go to war than there
was 50 or 60 years ago, and that monarchs and Ministers
have less power to go to war without consulting the inter-
ests of the people than they possessed in the past genera-
tions. (Hear.) lam anxious to take a hopeful view of
things, and I think that in future; considering the growth
of commerce all over the world, considering the growth of
intelligence everywhere, and considering the growth of the
acceptance of Christian morals with regard to these great
subjects--I think I may say that nations are not so likely
in future to go to war on trivial questions, to carry on war
so long and so ferociously, and to refuse everything like
moderation in the settlement of their differences, as they
have done in times past. If this resolution were acted upon,
" That this Council is of opinion that it would be strongly
in the interest of this country to establish the following
proposition as a part of international maritime law—viz.,
that the private property of subjects of a belligerent on the
high seas should be exempt from seizure by the public armed
vessels of the other belligerents, except it be contraband"—
if this resolution were adopted ty the nations of the civilized
world, I think it would on all occasions help rather to a
peaceful settlement than to the arbitrament of the sword;
that when a difference broke out there would not be the in-
terest of the privateersman to take ships, there would be a
general feeling on the part of everybody with regard to the
question of war, we should become a little more sensible be-
tween nation and nation, and the resort to war would not
be so necessary as in past times. (Bear.) I think that re-
solution, if adopted by nations, would have a great effect in
strengthening the interests of commerce as against the inte-
rests and passions of war, and would help, among other
things, to keep us from war and afford a hope that in our
children's days war will be looked on as a barbarity in which
Christian nations should not indulge. My hon. colleague
has referred to the Board of Trade, and to the desirableness
of freeing that Board, in reference to foreign commerce,
from the complications of the Foreign-office. Now, that
is altogether a very puzzling affair, because the Foreign-
office appoints the officers of the country abroad, and there-
fore the Foreign Minister and the foreign department is
that to which these officers must render an account. It
would not do for them to serve two masters and have to re-
port on commercial matters to the Board of Trade, and on
matter partly political and partly commercial to the Foreign-
office. My remedy is rather different from the remedy
proposed by the Bradford Chamber of Commerce. I think
we ought rather to improve the character of the Foreign-
office—that is, if you have a Foreign-office and a Board of
Trade. Whenever the country comes to accept more fully
the doctrine of non-intervention, then our officers abroad,
whether they be Ministers and ambassadors, or consuls and
consular agents, should be regarded more in the light of
commercial agents than of political agents, and they will
begin to find out that the commercial interests of the coun •
try are of far more importance than many of the political
questions that arise. (Cheers.) If you could once have
that spirit established in the Foreign-office I think that
many of your difficulties would be disposed of. I trust
we are on the eve of a change that will improve that de-
partment, and that henceforth matters of business will re-
ceive greater attention than they have done. This subject
has frequently been mentioned to me by gentlemen connected
with Yorksh're, but I never saw any plan laid down by
which it could be fairly worked out. I believe there never
has been any gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade
who was more ready to further everywhere in his power the
commercial interests of the country, and to listen more at•
tentively to any representation that may be made to him,
than my right hon. friend Mr. M. Gibson. (Hear.) There
is only one other point of much moment, and that is with
regard to the new political characters of Chambers of Com-
merce. Two years ago I made some observations on that
subject. I entirely agree with those who say that Cham-
bers
of Commerce should not be political ; for instance, that
they should not get up a contest as to whether the present
Prime Minister should remain in office, or whether Lord
Derby should succeed him, or a contest with respect to the
respresentation of Birmingham. But all these matters you
are talking about are themselves clearly in the nature
of politics, and if you manage your business in
a very tender manner for fear of touching ques-
tions that are political, you will necessarily destroy
to a great extent not only the utility but the life of your
institution, and you will find that when you are dealing
with what only appears to be a very small question, the po-
pulation among whom you live are not likely to come in
greater numbers or with larger subscriptions, so as to make
your Chamber of importance, because they aro conscious
that many things the Chamber undertakes are not matters
of great moment compared with peaty others which might
be dealt with. The more you fear to touch a question be-
cause it affects a political party, or ate existing or an expec-
tant Minister, the more you enfeeble your own power as a
Chamber of Commerce, and the less you offer to those about
you
joeinabalnedto decide helpfor itself at once whether
that
in what you wish to
courseunder-
take.quOesftionis a
any Chamber,
one beto take up. I remember,
about the year 1837 or 1838, that the Manchester Chamber
r when a question is brought
before comeo
it and e
it, should
of Commerce undertook the question of the Corn Laws.
They debated it for three days. The debate being adjourned
from day to day they had an animated and, not to give it a
bad name, almost a furious debate. There were many who
were strongly opposed to the repeal of that law, and who
took extreme views on the subject, but after three days' de-
bate the Chamber came to a resolution which declared that
the law was bad and ought to be immediately and totally
repealed. (Hear.) Upon the principle of some persons, not
of those who are in favour of a corn law or opposed to it,
but of those in favour of the Chamber being tender on every
question it touches, it may be said that it would have been
better if the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had re-
frained from dealing with that questis_a ;
but it was of im-
mense importance that the Chamber, disregarding the idea
that they should not be political, did grapple with that
which was the greatest abomination of the day. The reso-
lution of the Chamber of Commerce, no doubt, had an in-
fluence on a future which ended in the abolition not only of
the Corn Laws, but of every other kind of protection which
it is impossible for me to describe in language, and which
cannot be put in figures. I do not wish this Chamber to take
up any political question; but this I maintain, that if they
have not the intelligence to take up thole questions and the
courage to grapple with them when they are convinced they
are questions fit to be dealt with, they Will not receive the
cordial support they desire from the people among whom
they live, and will not have the influence in the country
which they ought to have. (Hear.) The Government of
this country, and I am afraid the Government of every
country, only respects the influence it fears, and unless you
make yourselves felt as a power daring to do
those things
which you believe ought to be done, the departments of
Government will put you off with smooth words, excuses,
and delays, and at the end of the year you will have to pro-
duce reports that are not satisfactory to your constituents.
I have only further to say, as my hon. friend has already
said, that if there be anything which We can assist in carry-
ing out the views of the Chamber I am sure we should be
very glad to help each other—and, with regard to Mr.
Lloyd, I need scarcely say for him that he will be as good
for the present, though in another shape, as
a third mem-
ber for Birmingham. My hon. friend Mr. Scholefield has
said that some persons may blame him for having been
dilatory in pressing forward the Partnership Law Amend-
ment Bill, which he had charge of last session in the House
of Commons. Now, although you have read a great deal
of the labours of a mythical person of olden times who
was called Hercules, the labours of that individual
were as nothing compared with the labours of pass •
ing through Parliament a Bill, however useful, how-
ever undeniable its claims on the attention of the
house, if it does not happen that all the gentlemen on
the Treasury Bench are interested in getting it through.
(Hear, hear.) If the Government have a measure of their
own to pass then they are very energetic, and keep
everybody there till two o'clock in the morning, until
it passes. But without influence, it is to me a marvel posi-
tively inexplicable how any single Bill good for anything
whatever is ever got through that house by any member
who has not the whole power of the Government to back
him. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, Mr. Scholefield's labours in
reference to the measure he introduced cannot be over esti-
mated, and if the bill be brought forward again this year I
hope it will have that good fortune its merits demand. I
think it is clearly a bill extending—and wisely extending—
the principle of freedom of trade, and that it will in many
cases bring the surplus capital of a man of capital to unite
with the business habits, intelligence, and integrity of a
man who don't happen to possess capital, and together so
employed they will add to the resources of the country, giv-
ing greater employment and higher wages, and thus adding
to the comforts and happiness of the people, (Hear, hear.)