The Press. — London, England, 1854-02-11 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 11, 1854. young, the unhealthy, the rich, and, as we mu st also do, the wholly idle and improvident, it follows that the death-lists actually contain a much larger number of names than that of the whole available population—in other words, that very many names, especially of children, are entered over and over again, as a profitable speculation; and this not in a few isolated instances, but habitually and as a general rule. The inference is inevitable. To take the mildest and most favourable view of the matter, these investments are made. not in order that a child chancing to die may be respectably interred, but that the father may receive something like a set off or com pensation for his bereavement. We subjoin additional testimony of the state of things described above Lest it should be imagined that such excessive addiction to burial clubs is only to be found in one place, I can refer to a "report" for 1846 of a single club which then boasted 34,10 members—the entire population of the town to which it belongs having been, iu 1841, little more than 36,000 ; and though it must be admitted, by way of mitigation, that the increase of population in this town between 1841 and 1846 has been very great, and that the club admits members who live beyond the limits of the town, the fact of the 34,010 members betokens a most ex traordinary fondness for adventure in death-list transac tions. In a recent case, tried in the Blackburn County Court, a mother enrolled her own name, her husband's, and those of four children in the lists of a club which she after wards attempted to defraud, and which con tained 80,000 members. Of the total number of these clubs we know nothing. They thrive in every great town, in every large village, nay, almost in every hamlet. They have multi plied alike in urban and in rural districts ; and, like betting-houses, the failure of one by fraud or proved mismanagement, or actual embezzlement of funds, does nothing to pre vent the setting up of another in its place immediately afterwards, just as if all had flourished, and no loss been incurred. That they are an abuse we know—that they are a growing abuse we need but open our eyes to see. Remains the question, what shall Parlia menu—what shall the community do? There are those who in this as in all reforms would desire to make but short work of the matter. They would say, " Prohibit burial " clubs as you prohibited betting-houses, and " they will be put down with equal safety and " speed." We do not dispute the right, the abstract right, of the Legislature to deal thus with a notorious evil. The very precedent cited is sufficient. If the choice lay between the utter suppression of these societies and the keeping them up on their present footing, we should not hesitate in pronouncing for the former alternative. But a course so decided appears impolitic and needless—impolitic, we may say, because needless ; for in human affairs coercion, or governmental control, ought always to be reduced to the lowest possible point. It is not the existence of burial clubs that creates the evil. It is but reasonable that the labourer should be allowed, if he will, to ensure beforehand the means for giving a deceased child, or relative, a decent funeral. The practice itself is good rather than bad ; the abuse consists in substituting for a mere discharge of funeral expenses as actually incurred the payment of an undefined sum applicable to any other purpose, and quite unlimited in amount. Abolish, then, the money payments, and leave the clubs alone. This is the view taken by the Liverpool Grand Jury, of which Mr. W. BROWN, M.P., was foreman, at the last RSSiZCS. This is the view taken also by Lord SHAFTESBURY, whose good sense, when unbiassed by sectarianism, is not exceeded by his philanthropy ; and to this proviso we think all legal interference ought for the present to be limited. If these milder measures be found unavailing, Parliament will still have it in their power to enforce a more stringent law. Something may also be done by local authorities—magistrates and others — exerting themselves more vigorously to put in action the existing machinery against unen rolled illegal societies. They have hitherto been more remiss in the matter than becomes their office or their usual energy. To the suppression of money payments, as here recommended, we know only one valid objection that can be raised. It may be THE PRESS. argued, " Why apply to these clubs a different " rule from that which holds good in the case "of insurance offices? Theoretically, the " situation of both is the same. You may in " sure a child's life and receive money on its " death ; why forbid this practice in one shape " and allow it in another?" We answer simply—(l ) Because claims upon insurance offices are investigated so carefully and with so many precautions as to render fraud, at least by such means as those here referred to, well-nigh impossible. (2.) Because insurance offices deal with a different class of applicants, in regard of whom the same temptations do not exist. The resemblance between the two in theory we do not deny ; but we assert that the practical working and results are wholly different, and this difference existing in fact may fairly be recognised by law. THE COALITION SCANDALS. THE Coalition scandals, it appears, can be suppressed no longer. Some friends of the Duke of NEWCASTLE must have been unpleasantly surprised when they found the Aberdeen organ of last Monday taking up the discussion of the grave charges to which the PRESS last week directed particular attention. Twelve months since there was a vast outcry in the " Coali tion " journals about certain alleged irregularities, and it was sought to vilify the Conservative party by a systematic exaggeration of supposed peccadilloes. On the other hand, the name and conduct of Mr. JOHN SADI.EIR were as systematically avoided, though we again and again pointed to the disclosures in the case of " Dowling against Sadleir." The subsequent charges against other Irish supporters of the Govern ment, to which we alluded last week, have at length provoked discussion, and, in consequence of the motion of Mr. BUTT, will now be investigated before a parliamentary committee. We will not, however, prejudge the case of the accused by a premature discussion of those charges. Our notions of honour and political equity are different from those exhibited by certain malignant defamers, who have sought, per faa aut nefas, to destroy the characters of some of their Conservative opponents. In this case we neither wish for, nor anticipate, assistance from Sir BENJAMIN HALL. But we trust that, because this scandal is really grave, and not a mere pretext of party animosity, it will be silted effectually, if not to gratify the vanity of a Welsh baronet, at least for the credit of the Parliament of England. MANNING THE NAVY. IF war and commerce cannot flourish together, the Czar might well have thought that the spirit of the " haughty islanders " of the old days was extinct, even from the accounts of the preparations for hos tilities. The naval news from Plymouth this week justified the saying of the first NAPOLEON, that " the English were a nation of shopkeepers," for the terms of trade pervade even our arsenals. We read with pleasure that volunteers were crowding to the depots to enter the service; but the words were indicative rather of casks than of cannons, of broad cloths than of " blue-jackets." " Four vanloads of volunteers," thus ran the announcement, "were delivered yester day at the dockyard." Concurrently with the mani festation of this excellent disposition, two small pub lications of importance have opportunely appeared. One is " A Few Words of Advice to the Mariners of England by a Seaman's Friend," published by Messrs. BRADBURY and EVANS, in which the relative advantages of the royal and the mercantile marine are compared, and the palm of superiority awarded to the former. At a juncture like the pres nt this pamphlet deserves, and we believe enjoys, a wide circulation. The first pamphlet is of tempo! ary, the second is of permanent, importance. It is a preface to a series of suggestions which Admiral BOWLES has, " during the last thirty years," made for the improve ment of our naval administration. After alluding to the alacrity displayed by the country in filling up the ranks of the militia, the gallant admiral proposes that there should be a maritime militia, exempt from service in the land force. This naval militia he suggests should be drawn from the population resi dent within a certain distance of the coast,—that it should he divided into two or, if necessary, three classes, according to age, each having suitable duties assigned to it. It the proposal were adopted, the author, a most competent authority, is of opinion that naval efts• ciency would be maintained without unduly pressing upon the mercantile marine. In the last number , of the PRESS it was suggested that seamen employed 123 in yacht clubs would be a powerful reinforcement to the fleet, if their masters would permit them to enter the navy. We cannot close these remarks without mentioning with pride that the first in the realm who has been found to set this example of patriotism has been the highest personage in it—the Queen. WHICH IS WORST-WAR OR CHOLERA? WHEN a prudent householder finds his bills or his taxes pressing too heavily in one quarter, he looks over his expenditure to try and make a counter vailing reduction in some other department. Eng • land must not be less prudent.. "We are on the "verge of a war," says everybody: and for once everybody is right. But conclusions follow from this premise, various as the minds that deduce them. "We are going to war," say some, " there " fore don't pull to pieces your electoral system, " even in the hope of substituting a better." "Wo " are going to war," say others, " therefore don't " talk of taking off taxes, disagreeable as they may " be, at a moment when you may have to impose " new ones." With neither of these indisputable inferences shall we deal at present. Our business is to draw a third—equally reasonable, but not perhaps equally popular, because it appeals to no party, but touches only the welfare of' the State. War involves many sacrifices—loss of trade, aug mented burdens, probably augmented debt loss also of many lives. Can the last sacrifice be averted? It seems impossible; yet let the trial be made. What was the military and naval expenditure of British life between 1793 and 1815—in twenty-two years of war? The official returns are before us. Taking army and navy together, we have Killed, 19,790. Wounded, 79,709. In all, nearly 120,000 ; though to these must be added a considerable number of deaths from disease, exposure, and the hardships of a campaign. Now let us set against this list the returns of mortality in England and Wales, arising out of cholers and the accompanying epidemic in 1848-49 a period of two years. They amount to 72,180 in the official lists; and it is well known that these lists fall very far short of the reality, from the con• cealment and falsification practised in many places. But this is a small fraction only of the whole amount of mischief that is working among us. The average annual deaths, year after year, from typhus and other preventible diseases—that is, diseases which may be utterly removed out of the land by proper sanitary precautions—amount to 115,000. In other words, our yearly loss from dirt, foul air, and neglect of drainage, very nearly equals that which it cost us to purchase all the triumphs of the Napoleonic war, from the Nile and Trafalgar to Vittoria and Waterloo. Non noster hic wino. Dr. SOUTHWOOD SMITH, who supplies these statistics, works them out with a ful ness of illustration and detail for which space fails here. But, in order to prove that for which he con tends, one instance will almost suffice. In the immediate vicinity of Baltimore, a city of 150,0(0 inhabitants, was constructed an almshouse, with farm and gardens surrounding, and capable of containing 0(K) or 700 inmates. This place, like all others, had been carefully cleansed end drained ; but adjoining it was a ravine, uncultivated and over grown with weeds, which formed a sort of depository for all the refuse of the establishment. From the direction of this poison bed the wind set in, and continued to blow for some days ; the cholera poison was thus diffused—the disease began to spread—and within one month 99 lives had been sacrificed. It was remarked that those whose windows looked to that side of the building whence the effluvia was conveyed were first and most severely attacked ; those in more distant parts of the building escaping in comparison. After some delay the cause of sickness was discovered, and a vigorous purification commenced. While this work was going on the virulence of the disease abated ; and a fortnight afterwards it ceased alto gether. Similar instances in our own country have oc curred, and these, selected from many, show that what are called zymotic diseases—those induced by the presence of poisonous and putrefying matter—are artificial, not natural, evils, caused by disregard of sanitary laws, and removable by attention to these laws. The subject is a wide one, and we shall pursue it farther. RAILWAY FACTS. WE have before us a return of railway accidents for the half year ending June, 1853, printed, as usual, by order of the House of Commons, a summary of which document may interest our readers. The total of injuries inflicted during the above named period is thus given : Killed, 148. Injured, 191. Of those killed 24 were passengers, 83 servants of