The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
(Continued from, our Third Edition of last evening.)
NEW MEMBER.
Mr. G. H. WHALLEY, the new member for Peter-
borough, took the oaths and his seat.
AMERICAN SCREW STEAM-SHIP COMPANY.
Mr. BROWN moved for copies of all applications
made by the London, Liverpool, and North American
Screw Steam-ship Company to the Board of Trade for a
charter ; and of all correspondence between the said
company and the Board of Trade on the subject thereof;
and of all letters, memorials, and other communications
received by the Board of Trade from other persons, com-
panies, and associations relative to such application. He
complained of the charter which the Board of Trade had
granted to this company, and declared that it was viewed
by alarm by that portion of the public who traded with
America. No company of this nature ought to be vested
with exclusive privileges of any sort ; unrestricted com-
petition should be the ruling principle in all these mat-
ters, and he hoped, in justice to the shipping interest
generally, the Government would be induced to annul
this objectionable charter.
Mr. CLAY seconded the motion.
Mr. HENLEY found fault with the manner in which
the motion had been brought forward. The question
was, in point of fact, sub judicie, and the fair mode of
dealing with the matter would have been, either to wait
until the question had been decided, or to move
at once that the charter should be rescinded,
when the whole merits of the case could be
fully considered. The house should understand
that this was a case of entirely an exceptional
nature, and the broad rule of general competition did not
apply to it, inasmuch as the company proposed to sup-
ply this country with steam communication to Canada.
He must therefore resist the motion.
Mr. J. CLAY regretted that the right hon. gentle-
man had not, acceded to the reves,t,fer_papers, for it
was very dratribte thaftriirliOue Ahoulaput in pos-
session of the whole case ; and obviously the right hon.
gentleman's advice, that the hon. member for South
Lancashire should wait, was not wise, seeing that if they
waited until the right hon. gentleman had come to a de-
cision, they would be too late to effect the object they
had in view, which was, that this charter should not be
conceded at all. The hon. gentleman (Mr. J. Clay)
then entered into the general familiar argument against
the proposed charter ; and concluded by saying that the
difficulty which had now arisen convinced him that the
power of granting these charters ought to revert to Par-
liament itself ; and that, if it became a custom to grant
such special privileges, then the whole commercial law
of the country ought to be changed, and we would have
to come altogether to the French loi en commandite.
Mr. R. LOWE pointed out the inconvenience of the
course which the House of Commons was being asked to
take in debating on its merits a question which, with all
similar questions, was referred by Act of Parliament to

the decision, which decision had in this case not yet been
given, of a specific and responsible department of the Go-
vernment. On the merits of the question he would not
say anything ; and he did not doubt that a proper conclu-
sion would be come to by the right hon. gentleman the
President of the Board, with whom the adjudication
rested. But he was indisposed to sit in silence while he
heard hon. gentlemen who were directly or indirectly in-
terested in existing steam-ship enterprises asking, in the
name of free trade, the house to take steps to eliminate
from the field of commerce a new and powerful compe-
titor. If there was any meaning in the petition which the
hon. member for South Lancashire urged on the house, it
was that a charter should not be granted to a company
which proposed to compete for portion of the North
American trade, and which, as the effect of the competi-
tion, would reduce freight and passage to the consumer.
(Hear, hear.) And it was rather too much, when hon.
gentlemen came down to anticipate the duties assigned
to a Government department, that they should seek to
cover their movement under the shield of " unrestricted
competition." But the object and the effect were exactly
the reverse. The law of unlimited liability was expressly
designed to restrain competition ; and but for such a law
there would be very much more competition of capital
than there was at present ; and, in consequence, the con-
sumer would be greatly benefitted, and our general so-
cial condition would be much improved. The law of
England at present was, that any person who entered
into the operations of any branch of trade, should so
enter under the heaviest penalty which he could incur—
namely, if he should not succeed, of losing his last
shilling and his last acre. Was this a law to encourage
the competition of capital ? In fact, it was a law which did
all it could, with the aid of a penalty of prceinunire,
to deter men from embarking their capital in trade.
The House of Commons had been entreated recently to
bring its financial into unison with its commercial policy :
and he thought that when they entered on that task they
should at the same time commence to put their commer-
cial in conformity with the principle of " unrestricted
competition." The conditional power given to the Board
of Trade to grant charters restricting liability, was in
reality a provision to remedy the injustice of the laws of
unlimited liability ; and there was no doubt that the re-
sults of the action of the Board of Trade in this respect
had been most beneficial. The monuments of the law of
unlimited liability were only to be found in the Bank-
ruptcy Court. (Hear.) The monuments of the charters
conceding limited liability were to be found in the rail-
ways which covered the land, and the steamers which
crowded every sea. The only argument which had been
urged by the hon. member for South Lancashire was that
if this new company was established under a Board of
Trade charter there would be insufficient security for cre-
ditors. But in an age of unrestricted competition was it
not possible that creditors, or the public, could be left to
protect themselves ? (Hear.) lion. gentlemen were
talking as if the limited liability had never been tried as
a principle of commerce. But they forgot the experi-
ences of France, and they forgot what were the results
of the experiment in Massachusetts and in other of the
advanced states of America. (Hear, hear.) For him-
self he (Mr. Lowe) hoped that the day was not far dis-
tant when the House of Commons would relieve the
Board of Trade from the invidious and annoying duty
imposed on it—not, however, to take back the power
once given to that department—but by so changing the
law as to leave it to every set of persons in this country
wishing to invest their capital for a common enterprise
to do so without having occasion to go to a Government
department at all, but simply by making known to the
public, as in the United States, by advertisement, what
their objects are, and what the capital is they propose to
put into the concern. (Hear.)
Mr. E. B. ROCHE hoped that in the decision on this
question the interests of Ireland would not be forgotten.
Mr. BROTHERTON supported the proposition of
his hon. friend the member for South Lancashire.
Lord GODERICH could not understand upon what
ground the hon. member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe;
had charged upon the movers in this matter a desire to
"eliminate from the field of commerce a new and power-
ful competitor in the name of free trade." He (Lord
Goderich) could not perceive any such object. (Hear,
hear.) He believed that the simple object was that free
trade should be observed between competitors, or, in
other words, Government should not give one party an
exclusive advantage over other parties in the same enter-
prise. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. MACGREGOR did not at all regret the course
ho had taken in bringing the memorial -of this new com-
pany before the Board of Trade. He understood that
there were no British ships at present employed in that
trades and he conceived that he had been promoting a
national object in aiding the efforts of a company which
would sail British ships, made of British iron, manned
by British seamen, between British colonies and British
ports. (Hear, hear.) He was altogether unconnected
with the company seeking a charter ; but he regarded it
as entitled to a charter ; and he hoped that the right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Henley) would give the matter the
fairest consideration.
Mr. HUME was exceedingly gratified with the able
manner in which the noble lord (Lord Goderich) had
treated this subject. The noble lord had, he thought,
put the case very properly and very logically • and he
entirely agreed with all his observations. But under
the circumstances, seeing that the discussion had ena-
bled hon. gentlemen to put the whole argument before
the right hon. gentleman, he (Mr. Hume) would advise
his hon. friend to withdraw the motion. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. BARING did not desire to offer any opinion
whatever on the merits of this case, and he only rose to
state that he did not see in the fact that the question
was still sub judice before the right hon. gentleman, any
reason why the papers should not be produced. It was
hardly the practice to refuse papers on that ground: and
he did not see that there could be any either
beforepublicthoer
official inconvenience in laying all the papers
house.
Mr. HENLEY explained that whatstihoen,mweaenret stn 1
that papers, on both sides of the q
coming in aily, and that in that stau.tnee otfbethciansgeswthheicrbe
would be an obvious incompleteness
the house would be put in possession of.(
Mr. C. TURNER was strongly opposedHtoearthehecaron.)-
cession of the charter sought for. He believed the law
of unlimited liability was the only safe law for a com-
mercial country
Mr. R. M. FOX remarked that the opposition to the
grantingw ioefgthe charter did not come from private par-
tiesto carry on private enterprise, but from
eom h
companies who had subsidies from Government ; one of
hi—
Collins' line--had 140,000/. a year for carrying
the mails ; and from Collins's company, which was also
strongly aided by the public money of another country.
If this charter were granted, there would be a direct
communication between Ireland and Canada, which
would be a great saving of expense to Irish emigrants,
as they would not then be under the necessity of going
to Liverpool to embark. He must say that the charac-
ter of the men who were associated for the purpose of
obtaining this charter, ought to have saved them from
the imputation of getting up a scheme for the purpose of
trafficing in the shares. It was a bond fide transac-
tion, and it was proposed to carry out the project with-
out a shilling of aid from this countrY .
Mr. V. SCULLY said it might be a reason for not
granting a charter in this case if there were no peculiar
acilities granted to other companies, but they knew very