The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-07-16 00:00:00

STEAM-BOAT OPPOSITION.

TO THE EDITOR OF SAUNDERS'S NEWS-LETTER.
SIR,—Concurring in the views of those who have
anonymously, through your columns, condemned the
waste of property which the present steam opposition
occasions, I feel called on, in my own name, to set the
public right on a point on which there seems to exist a
doubt ; and some well-directed remarks in the Evening
Packet, of the 6th instant, just come to hand, have
induced me not to delay this communication. The
Evening Packet observes that, " Without hazarding an
opinion as to which of the contending parties may be in
fault, the suggestions thrown out by a correspondent of
Saunders's News-Letter are based in equity and
justice."

Now, sir, as the question, " Which of the contending
parties may be in fault ?" is an all-important one, and
stands on the very threshold of the ii,quiry, and is one
which the shareholders and the public are justified in
asking, I venture here to assert, that in the present case,
it is easily solved.

I ask, how can the Dublin Steam-packet Company be
considered " in fault," seeing that they have done nothing
whatever to provoke or justify a quarrel? They have in
no way interfered, nor has it been imputed by any one
that they gave any cause for the outbreak of Mr.
Molcolmson, or that they ever violated the recognised
principle of non-interference among steam companies.
They were throughout the mere passive, unsuspecting
objects of Mr. Malcolmson's attack, until compelled, in
self-defence, to resist. Mr. Malcolmson himself has not
breathed the suspicion of any hostile or objectionable act
on their part. On what principle, then, can there be an
imputation of their being " in fault ?"
It is true Mr. Malcolmson did imply a charge or impu-
tation against the directors, while, through an unwilling-
ness of further complicating the quarrel between him and
the British and Irish Company, they continued to abstain
even from measures of resistance against his attack. At
that time, and to myself personally, Mr. Malcolmson, as
it were in the spirit of a man anxious for the excitement
of a contest, imputed that the directors " wanted pluck"
meaning, I presume, the absence of that chivalrous prin-
ciple that would at once, and regardless of cause or con-
sequence, have urged them to take up the gauntlet he had
thrown down, and, like a genuine Irishman, who fights
for fighting sake, have made themselves principals in a
contest in which they had no imaginable cause for inter-
fering, and when, in fact, they were at the time exerting
themselves as peacemakers. had the directors then
shown themselves eager for the fray, however such a pro-
ceeding might in private quarrels, and among youthful
unreflecting disputants, be characterised as a display of
vigour or spirit, I venture to think that the mercantile
portion of our fellow-citizens would have regarded the
exhibition of such a reckless fighting propensity rather as
a want of prudence, although Mr. Malcolmson, in the
ardour of his imagination, by, the Way so unusual in men
of his order, considered it a want of pluck."
Your correspondent Viator observes, that " it is a fair
deduction that one of the parties must be wrong." He

asks, " Is there to be no attention to the merits of the
case ?" and then suggests the sound and proctical mode
of proceeding, namely, " Let the relative merits of the
contending parties be examined." By all means, I reply.
Let the merits be examined by impartial disinterested
persons ; but I protest against the repetition of the charge
implied by a doubt as to " which of the parties are in
fault," unless, indeed, it he urged that, in compliance
with the views of the peace-preservation party, the direct-
ors should at once have submissively bowed their heads,
to allow Mr. Malcolmson at his pleasure to take their
business from them, and occupy their unquestionably legi-
timate line, merely to enable him to find employment for
all his vessels, new and old, and ultimately become. the
dictator of the channel intercourse.

Sir, the Dublin Steam Company was established by me
six-and-twenty years ago, (under the firm of C. W. Wil-
liams and C 0.,) the first steam company that undertook
to carry merchandise, and plying throughout the winter.
As sole manager, and during many years, the company
was conducted on the principle of reducing the rates of
freight to the lowest possible point, consistently with the
payment of a moderate dividend and a due regard to
efficiency. The interest of shippers and importers was
ever uppermost in the contemplation of the management,
and has never been changed. Can Mr. Malcolinson say
the same of the Cork or Waterford lines, in which he
exercised an arbitrary sway ? At least, can he promise
more ? In the Dublin Steam Company I vouch for the
fact that there were no private interests to be promoted—
no favouritism to warp the decision of its directors—no
patronage to lead them from the path of duty in selecting
the ablest commanders and officers. There was, in fact,
but one common feeling among the directors, namely,
that they were the trustees of a public trading company,
their main object being so to meet the wants and wishes
of the trading community that no other party could afford
to do their business on cheaper and better terms. This
is the principle which has stood the test of six-and-twenty
years. The enlargement of the company naturally caused
a change in its management, but no change in that liberal
commercial spirit which should ever be the guide of a
trading company, looking to the public for support, and
reciprocating benefits with them.
I venture to ask, is this a company to be neglected, or
crippled, or put down—were that possible—for the mere
purpose of enabling an ambitious or aggressive rival, who
has never complained or preferred a single charge against
its principles or practice, to put himself in their place
and compel them to lay up their ships, or any of them,
and work the remainder to disadvantage ?
The management of the comvany is now in the hands
of a body of directors who are well known and respected.
They are but trustees for the public, and have no personal
interest in the issue of the contest. With the exception
of their share in the common lot—the loss of dividend,
and the deep sympathy they must ever feel for those who
are the innocent sufferers—with these drawbacks, it is a
matter of indifference how long the opposition lasts.
Under such circumstances, then, it is important that no
doubt should exist as to " which of the parties are in
fault."

Fearlessly, I ask Mr. Malcolmson himself, in his cooler,
reflecting moments, to say what could the directors of this
company have done that they have left undone ? or what
have they left undone that they should have done, either
before or after they were so unprovokedly and unrelent-
ingly attacked by him ? It has been insinuated by others,
but I will not give way to the feeling, that Mr. Malcolm-
son will—despising the common principle of non-interfe-
rence, and before the commercial public—justify this quasi
quarrel, and real aggression on the wolf and lamb princi-
ple of—" True, you have done me no wrong, but others
have ; and as you drank at the same spring of public
favour, it is the same to me ; I will make my reprisals on
you, as the most accessible, and make you amenable for
the faults of those others." I believe Mr. Malcolmson,
precipitate as he has been, is nevertheless too just in his
dealings between man and man to adopt so unjustifiable a
precedent.
With reference to the conference which took place at
the Chamber of Commerce, but at which I was not pre-
sent, although in the public prints my name is given in
the list of those that were, I will, if no other correspond-
ent puts the matter right, at another opportunity endea-
vour to do so.

I am, sir, yours, &c.,
C. W. WILLIAMS.

Liverpool, July 8, 1850.

SUNDAY POST-OFFICE LABOUR.

A great number of the members admitted freely that
the experiment of a total cessation bad not had a suffi-
cient trial ; and that, having been commenced at all, it
ought to receive fair play. And thus, for the first time,
a probability appeared that Mr. Locke's motion would
be negatived. The Ministers, too, appeared not at all at
ease. The representations of the Scotch deputation had
clearly produced an effect ; petitions against Mr. Locke's
motion came pouring in iii great numbers : besides
which, they doubtless were apprised of the feeling of the
House, and perceived a danger of their being left in a
disreputable minority. The first cocsequence of this
state of things was, that the Ministry itself declared
against Mr. Locke's motion, which motion was accord-
ingly rejected by the large majority of 233 against 92. It
is remarkable that after our opponents had been scorn-
fully repeating, for a month past, that Lord Ashley's
motion was passed in "a thin house," and by only ninety-
three votes, they themselves, in a full house, could only
muster ninety-two votes in favour of rescinding it. This
was the first point of our victory. It shewed the " Anti-
Sabbatarians" to be really weak,—weaker, in fact, than
we had supposed them to be. But next came Lord John
Russell's own proposition, which was to be adopted in
lieu of Mr. Locice's. This offered the great advantage,
that it did not order the immediate revival of Sunday
labour, which Mr. Locke's motion had done. But still
it enjoined, and committed to Government, the task of
an inquiry, " whether Sunday labour might not be re-
duced, and time be given to the clerks for attendance at
Divine Service. &c., without entirely stopping the Sun-
& y deliveries." This was a middle course, exactly cal-
culated to catch all the wavering and doubtful. It was
framed for that purpose, and it succeeded. It gained the
support of such men as Sir T. D. Acland, Sir J. Tyrrell,
Mr. B. Cabbell, and several others, whose votes would
have been against Mr. Locke. But, as it went to unset-
tle, or rather to revoke, the former decision, which
wholly stopped Sunday deliveries, Lord Ashley and Lord
Robert Grosvenor thought it their duty to divide the
house upon it, and they obtained 112 votes against 195.
So that 112 members actually voted against the Govern-
ment, for an entire stoppage of all Sunday deliveries,
while Mr. Locke, for an immediate resumption of Sun-
day deliveries, could only get ninety-two votes.—Record.

The following disgraceful document was on Friday night
forwarded to all parts of the kingdom :—" To all Post-
masters. General Postoffice, July 5, 1850. To enable
the Postmaster-General to decide what reduction shall be
made in the wages of letter-carriers and rural post-mes-
sengers, in consequence of the diminution of their labour,
effected by the new regulations which came into operation
on Sunday, the 23d ultimo, I have to desire you will im-
mediately furnish the following information, viz. :—How
many deliveries were made by each letter-carrier attached
to your office, in a week, previously to the 23d ultimo;
and how many are made at present ? What are the wages
of each letter-carrier? What rural post-messengers have
been relieved from work on Sunday within the last twelve
months, without any reduction being made in their wages?
What are the wages of such messengers ? The question
of the relief which may have been afforded to clerks will
be the subject of a future communication. John Tilley,
Assistant Secretary." In every respect this is one of the
most discreditable documents that was ever issued from
St. Martin's-le-Grand, and is evidently intended to excite
the feelings of the letter-carriers and clerks throughout
the kingdom against the new arrangement, and for the
sake of regaining the pittance of which they may be
mulcted, to induce them to ask that they may once more
be employed for seven instead of six days in the week.
The attempt to cut down the hard-earned wages of district
letter-carriers and postoffice clerks, is in itself a shameful
and beggarly expedient, as all must certify, when they
learn that the average wages of the former are but from
Bs. to 9s. per week, and the salaries of the latter only
from £3O to £4O per annum. No wonder that we so often
hear of postoffice robberies. The only marvel is that they
are not more numerous ; and yet, for the sake of a hostile
movement to the security of the Sabbath rest, it is now
designed to bring these hard-worked individuals to the
level of paupers, and to make them toil for wages that
can scarcely keep themselves, much less their wives and
children, from starvation.