The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-26 00:00:00

Great Uritain....... ........ ..... ..... ,
France
United States (N. A.)
Zoilverein
Austria

Netherlands

Russia
Beloritun
Sardinia

The comparative productiveness and wealth of these
states is by no means in the same ratio as their com-
parative extent and populousness. The figure which
represents the annual aggregate traffic of Great
Britain is rather more than that which represents the
annual trade of France ; and the figure representing
the annual trade of France nearly doubles that of
Austria. Yet the superficial extent of Great Britain
is only about 116,000 square miles, and its population
27,019,558 ; while France extends to 202,123 square
miles, with 34,194,875 inhabitants; and Austria
to 255,226 square miles with 36,519,600 inhabitants.
The superior productiveness of Great Britain is, no
doubt, in a great degree owing to the comparatively
limited extent within which its population is packed.
This condition of its existence is favourable to com-
bined effort. There are croakers wha infer from this
that Great Britain is not likely to to retain the
start it has gotten of other countries ; that, as its com-
petitors fill up, their greater mass will tell against us,
and that we cannot go much farther. It may be
so; but, as yet, we see no signs of this. There are
no symptoms of the most densely peopled trading

-1---- .
natieseA keg standing, flagging in the race., as com-
pared silk the most energetic of their juvenile rivals-.
iiirts T for example, the United States of America
and um. The annual aggregate value of exports
and , in the former, from 1838 to 1841. was as
follows :
18811. .... -.................... ........ 235,579,720 &Um
1837 212,983,790 „
1 1838 104,520,437 „
1839 224,562,307 „
1840 . 143,981,580 „
1841 228,234,525
We are not in possession at Belgian returts for so
long a period, but those for the years 1841, 1842,
and 1843, will serve our present purpose, Thich is
merely illustrative:
1841...
1842 490,358,231 ~1843 516,738,461 ,
The oscillating amounts in the young state of the
Union indicate a stationary trade ; the augmenting
totals of the returns from the oldest trading state of
northern Europe show a steadily increasing trade. In
1845 the commercial movement of Belgium exceeded
670 millions of francs. There mar be limits beyond
which the productiveness of territories and nitions
cannot be increased, but it is obvious that
the countries of Europe, the most densely peo-
pled and in which industrial pursuits have
been longest cultivated, have not yet touched -.hose
limits. The economical laws which determine whe-
ther the productiveness of nations is to be progressive,
stationary, or retrograde, are still essentially the same
in the thinly peopled states of the American Uaioe,
and in the crowded plains of Belgium.
The development of British and French industry of
late years, has been nearly in the same ratio. The
ratio of British increase from 1830 to 1843 is alicat as
2.5 to 4.5 1 the ratio of French increase as 1.2 ts 2.4.
We still keep the lead, and are likely to keep it; but
our ingenious and indefatigable neighbours will put us
to it to maintain our present position,
The aggregate annual value of French imports and
exports in 1830 was 1,200 millions of francs; in 1845
it was 2,415. In the imports the most marked
increase has been in cotton. From 1827 to 1836 the
average value of the year's importation of cotton was
71 millions of francs, to the amount of 39 millions
being reserved for consumption by manufacturers;
from 1839 to 1843 it was 128 millions, to
the value of 94 millions being reserved for
consumption by manufacturers ; in 1844 the value
was 111 millions, of which 105 millions represented
the amount reserved worked up in the country. The
imports next in importance, in respect of their aggre-
gate amount and value, are (in the order in which
they are named) silk, sugar, wool, cereals, &c. The
most important exports are the manufactures of
silk, cotton, and wool. From ISt7 to 1836 there
were annually exported silks to the average value of
143 millions of francs; from 1839 to 1843, to the
average value of 185 millions ; in 1844 the value was
198 millions. Of woollens there were annually ex•
ported, from 1827 to 1836, to the value of 41 millions ;
from 1836 to 1843, to the value of 82 millions; in
1814, the value was 128 millions. The annual values
of cottons exported during the same periods were
respectively 66, 129, and 156 millions of francs.
Even in the export of wines, notwithstanding the impo-
litic hindrances thrown in the way of the development
of that branch of industry there has been a steady
though slight increase. The averse annual value
of wines exported from 1827 to 18367 was -17 millions
of francs; from 1836 to 1843, it was 49 millions ; in
1844, the value was 52 millions. . .

It is with sincere pleasure that we contemplate the
rapid and steady augmentation of the productive
industry of France, convinced that the growing
importance and power of the class to whose efforts it
is owing, is the best and only guarantee for the per-
petuation of peace.

THE broad and sound legal principles enounced
by the Lord Chief Baron yesterday in the cases
REYNELL r. LEwts, and WILD r. liontms, will be
received with general acquiescence on account of their
substantial justice. They are equally fitted to stand
the test of strict law and abstract equity.
The cases named, and all others relating to the
liabilities of provisional committeemen, involve no
question of partnership. The law of partnership has
no bearing upon them. The agreement to become a
provisional committeeman is simply an agreement to
set on foot a certain scheme under certain circum-
stances. Provisional committees imply no agreement
to share in the profit or loss of the coneey.s they are
intended to promote, and it is such an agreement that
constitutes or is the real essence of partLership. Pro-
visional committeemen not being partners in the eye

of the law, the acts of one oi7niore of them do not
necessarily bind the rest.
Any liability which provisional committeemen
may have incurred under contracts entered into by
third parties must be derived from the established
doctrines of the law of England relative to agency.
A provisional committeeman may be bound by the
acts of his fellows in the provisional committee, or
the solicitor, or the secretary of the scheme, provided
it can be established that they have acted as his
agents. For example, it may be, in some instances,
susceptible of proof that an " acting committee" was
appointed by the provisional committee, or some of
the members, to act as theil agent. In others, deeds
and words of provisional committeemen, sanctioning
the proceedings of those who acted in the name a
the company, may be proved. In these or similar
cases provisional committeemen may be held to
have incurred liabilities, not, however, in their
capacity of provisional committeemen—not er ne-
cessitate, because they are held to be of a eo-partnery
—but because, having appointed agents to act foe
them, these agents can contract liabilities in their
name.

On these distinct and obvious grounds the Court of
Exchequer has remitted the cases of REYNELL v.
LEWIS, and Wrui r. Horses, to undergo the ordeal
of a new trial before a jury. The law is, that provi-
sional committeemen do not, by assuming that cha-
racter, render themselves liable for any responsibilities
but such as they incur by their own acts, or the acts
of their agents. The creditors of the innumerable
defunct, shattered, or insolvent railway schemes, can
only establish claims against a provisional committee-
man by proving that their work was done, or their
goods delivered, in consequence of orders given by the
defendant, or parties appointed or recognised by him
as his agents. The proof of the order given, or the
agency constituted, must be special in each case.
These views, legally considered, seem unassailable.
And what is more, they appear to comply with all
the demands of abstract e9uity or natural justice.
The courts in which the actions of railway creditors
against provisional committeemen have been brought
are not eourts of penal but distributive justice. The
object of the snits is not to have crimes punish-
ed, but to have questions of disputed property
settled—to ascertain to which of two parties
certain sums of money lawfully belong. When
the cases which have now been remitted to a
new trial, and some others of the same class, were
tried last year, there was a great deal of excitement
in the public mind, on account of the mad and mis-
chievous extent to which railway speculation had
been carried, aggravated by the exaggerated appeals
of impassioned writers in the daily press, against all
who had taken an active and ostensible part in
the operations under that mania. Juries certainly
(and we are not certain that the bench entirely
escaped the mistake) looked upon themselves for the
time less as arbitrators in disputed questions of melon
and boon than as vindicators of morality. And in
their anxiety to punish knaves, they were apt to
forget that there is sometimes more of guilt on the
part of the seeming seduced than of the seeming
seducer. Far be it from us to deny that there was a
good deal of rascality at work in the railway mania of
last autumn, but there was mach more folly.
And the culpable folly was pretty equally
distributed among all classes who caught the
contagion. If there were knavish projectors who put
forth impracticable projects to catch the deposits of
gulls, there were also gambling applicants for shares,
who sought them even from good companies only in
hopes of fingering the premium, without ever lay-
ing out a penny. If honest tradesmen have
lost by orders from fraudulent concerns, there were
many who recklessly and culpably took orders right
and left from obviously bubble schemes, in order to
catch a share of the deposit moneys. It would be an
eudless task to try to decide in every individual case
whether a party was biter or bitee. Nor is it now of
mach consequence. It is a law of nature that men
are to suffer in this world for their folly as well as
for their gailt, and all parties to exploded bubble
schemes have already been sufficiently punished for
their participation in them. What remains for the
courts of justice—judges and juries—to do is, to assign I
to each individual among them the small portion of