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

~G%Y~,fi£ccri

Pr
t
;
, •
4".
• ' 1.!
?•
)
;44t4,,
, •
, • - •
••
• '
VQI •
DIE
? • lot ~.!•%, 1.4; ;gift* „
'3)41k..941# As. . • i,.. . •
It 4r,

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 29, 1864.

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 would 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 as 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 victim of this law. Oliver
Crowe 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—l 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 by 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. (Hear.) 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 Yorkshire, 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 mere 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 mad 3 some observations on that
subject. I entirely agree with those who say that Cham-
bers of Commerce should not b) 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, ore 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 are conscious
that many things the Chamber undertakes are not matters
of great moment compared with many others which might
be dealt with. The more you fear to touch a question be-
cause
Minister, the more you enfeeble your own power as a
m b
party, or an existing or an expec-
tantthe less you offer to those about
chai t e
r affectsof
Commerce,
and
beforeytaol eue .t awhat you wish to under-
question is brought
it, comeocourse
shouldan d jbaoeni ny
ableac nhdtaomh
deb help in
when
iatself at once whether
that question is a suitable one to take up. I remember,
about the year 1837 or 1838, that the Manchester Chamber
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 tho 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 question • 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 it 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 these 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
i
country, only respects the nfluence 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 es tending—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 t 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 an higher wages, and thus adding
t to the comforts and happiness of the people, (Hear, hear.)