The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-23 00:00:00

u tTflt rnt

LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1846.

Lord Jour( RUSSELL having at length very ex-
plicitly pronounced sentence of death upon the dif-
ferential Sugar Duties, the redoubtable Protectionists
have bethought themselves of their old tactics for
obtaining some commutation of the sentence, or, at
the least, some reprieve in its execution. The ban-
quet of home monopoly having been duly discussed
and demolished, our free-trade legislators, like Sir
HUGH EVANS, are now concentrating their energies
upon the "pippins and cheese" of colonial monopoly.
Such a consummation, however, of the recent Par-
liamentary proceedings, though " devoutly to be
wished" by the multitude, is directly opposed to the
political and eommercial palate of the upholders of the
protective system. They perceive the last fragment
of their beloved Idol doomed to destruction by the
Genius of Free-Trade ; and resolved, if possible, to
avert that doom by every logical artifice or
sophistical machination, they have assembled toge-
ther for the purpose of arranging their mode of
operation. That momentous council has been
held ; those chieftains have deliberated ; their cham-
pion has already thrown down his gauntlet upon the
floor of Parliament.

1 Viewing the " Amendment" of Lord Geouoa BEE-
TINCY, however, seriously and soberly, it is pre-
cisely the description of document which might have
been anticipated. It betokens in the very feebleness
of its verbs and adjectives the smallness of the faction
from which it has proceeded. According to the
language of their resolution, they opine—" That in
the present state of the sugar cultivation in the Bri-
tish East and West Indian possessions, the proposed
reduction of duty upon foreign slave-grown sugar is
alike unjust and impolitic." In the present state, &c.!
Why what a shallow apology is this for the introduction
of such an amendment ! If after the period which has
already elapsed since the Emancipation Act those
colonial possessions have not recovered their indus-
trial vigour sufficiently to compete with other terri-
tories engaged in the cultivation of sugar—if, in
addition to this, they afford no definite prospect of ar-
riving at that condition of prosperity, while their
owners are, on the contrary, availing themselves of
every opportunity to asperse the Govern-
ment for affording them but an inefficient
compensation,—why not, in Heaven's name, erase
that preposterous and superfluous " in the present
state rt But let us inquire into the origin of the
opinion thus expressed by Lord G. BENTINCIE, in be-
half of himself and his coadjutors. They conceive that
the proposed reduction would prove "alike unjust and
impolitic," because forsooth of its " tending to
check the advance of production by British
labour, and to give a great additional
stimulus to the slave trade !" giving thereby
a most agricultural precedence to British labour, and
introducing the humanity argument as a kind of tag.
Of the validity of either of these very pompous and
high-sounding reasons we at once proclaim our
denial. If ever premises were fallacious, these are
so; if ever a question of political economy were dis-
torted by sophisms, it is that of the differential
sugar duties, and those sophisms are in
the amendment of Lord GEORGE BENTINCK. Con-
sidering, for example, the notion of these proposed
reductions tending to afford encouragement to the
atrocious and diabolical system of slave traffic—we
have already protested against the accuracy of this
supposition. We have commented upon the circum-
stance of these sticklers for the emancipation of their
fellow-creatures crying out against the patronage of
slave-owners only when that patronage interfered
with their own pockets—of their beholding with
silent indifference the commerce in cotton, and cop-
per, and tobacco,' and so forth, maintained between
this country and colonies cultivated by slaves—of
their standing forth as the champions of humanity
Solely' upon the proposed importation of
slave-labour sugar, their own article of
rnerchandize ! Besides this, we have declared
this dread of patronising slavery to be altogether an
illusion, because the planters of Cuba and Brazil are
already patronised by us in defiance of all our re.
strictions against their admission into British ports ;
and have shown likewise that this patronage is
most expensive to ourselves without preserv-
ing any exclusive benefit to our colonial
planters. So much for the vaunted humanity argu-
ment of the colonial protectionists.
Although the pretended patriotism of the other
reason against the proposed reduction of the differen-
tial duties is somewhat more speciously. worded in
the Amendment, it is, nevertheless, quite as chime-
rical as the one already answered. We allude
to the supposed tendency of such a reduction "to
check the advance of production by British labour."
we repeat it, is specious, it is adroitly
clo'hnicseiplo,esditn,
;iobut
we solemnly protest against it as a
most illusory, and a most flagitious argument.
To strip it of all its flimsy preten-
sionsi to patriotism, it amounts literally
to this :—" Never mind the thousands of artizans
who are turned away incessantly from your factory
doors through want of employment; never mind the
thousands of labourers who are rendered vagrants, or
are thrown upon your parishes periodically from
an incapacity to obtain 'work ; never mind these
people in England, let them shift for them-
selves. All we want is that you will cherish
some units of planters, and some tens of Hill
Coolies : let the thousands of industrious poor in the
mother country go to the devil. Shut your ports
against foreign.slave-labour sugar, that our planters
and Hill Coolies may obtain employment and flourish.
Shut your ports against foreign slave-labour
sugar, although by so doing you prevent those
foreign countries from becoming customers for
your manufactures, and by this means prevent your
own starving population from gaining the employ-
ment which would be necessary on such an accession
of customers. Enable us to monopolise the traffic in
sugar, and you will thereby enable yourself to
throw a large portion of your insular community out
of employment I" That in literal and honest truth
is the substance of the requisition of these colonial
protectionists ; that is the simple tendency of
Lord GEORGE BENTINOIeti amendment ; and
that, moreover, is the tendency—unconscious,
we believe—of the clever and gentlemanly remen-

strance of the Hon. GRANTLEY F. BERKELEY. In
protesting against the proposed reductions in the
differential duties as " unjust and impo-
litic," the colonialists altogether overlook
the broad groundwork of injustice and
itnpolicy upon which those differential duties were
originally modelled. They forget that by thus en-
deavouring to pamper a few cargoes of Hill Coolies,
they are doing everything that can well be done
to promote the starvation and destitution of
whole generations of their fellow-countrymen
in the three kingdoms. Charity is hinted at by these
lovers of protection and these worshippers of civil
liberty. Charity, so be it. But rather let it be
charity to the existent people of England, of Ire-
land, and of Scotland, than to these possible Hill
Coolies!

An interesting discussion took place last night in
the House of Commons, previous to the reading of the
order of the day for going into Committee on the
"Death by Accidents Compensation Bill." The
great necessity of an alteration in the law was ad-
mitted on all sides, and the only question ap-
peared to be in what manner that altera-
tion might be most advantageously effected.
From the ability and legal knowledge of
the several parties who took part in the debate,
and the anxiety they seemed to display for the re-
moval of the inconsistency of the law as it now
stands, we entertain a sanguine hope that the prin
ciple of the measure, considerably enlarged and ex-
tended, will soon receive the sanction of the Legis-
lature. We have already called the public attention
to the provisions of the present Bill, and the
state of the law which it is intended to remedy ; but
where such an important change in the law of the
land is contemplated, creating an extraordinary and
new responsibility, it cannot be uninteresting again
to explain things as they have been, and as it is pro-
posed they shall be.

At present, if any person should receive an injury
consequent upon the carelessness, negligence, or
wilful act of another, he may maintain an action
and recover damage for the injury so sustained
against the party by or through whose default it was
inflicted, but if he died in consequence, the civil
remedy became merged, and no compensation could
be recovered. Originally a personal action died with
the person, but now, and for some time past, the per-
sonal representatives of a party deceased might main-
tain actions for damages to his personal property,
or, in some instances, to his real estate. It is
difficult to assign any satisfactory reason for such a
distinction, and the object of the present Bill is to
extend the principle, and to enable the representa-
tives of a person who had sustained an injury which
ended in his death to recover damages in the same
way as he himself would have been entitled, had
he survived. We cannot understand, however,
r why it was proposed to exclude from the
operation of the Act cases of murder. Is it
because the criminality of the delinquent is greater
that the remedy should be taken away? It would ap-
pear as if it was intended to save duellists from the
operation of the law, a class of persons to whom its
provisions would be more applicable, and might more
advantageously be extended, than to any other what-
soever, against whom a similar law has been most
beneficially acted on in France, and which, if in
force in this country, might go far to dimi-
nish the pernicious practice. We are happy
to perceive that the late Attorney-General (Sir
F. MESMER) exposed this inconsistency in the Bill,
and suggested its amendment in that particular.
The Lord Advocate of Scotland explained the law
in that country, and mentioned a case wherein he
had, as counsel for a railway company, advised a
compromise of an action brought against them, by
which 1,0001. was giren to each of the children
of the deceased person, besides a large sum
paid to the widow. We do not quite approve of the
law as it is in Scotland, although we admit it to be
far preferable to that which has hitherto existed in
England: there the jury, by their verdict apportion
the damages, as they think proper, amongst the sur-
viving relatives. Suits of this kind, however, could not
be brought by or for the benefit of the creditors of the
deceased, nor could they receive any advantage from
the amount of the verdicts. Now we cannot see the jus-
tice of this limitation. Surely the parties who have
advanced their money to any man, with a moral cer-
tainty of being paid the amount from the exertions
of the debtor, have sustained a serious loss
by his death, for which they should be
entitled to obtain aj recompense from the per-
son by whom that death was occasioned, by
whose default they have been deprived of the
means of obtaining payment of their demands. We
think that in all cases the action should be brought
by the executors or administrators of the deceased
party, and by them only ; thus the evils consequent
upon a multiplicity of actions would be avoided, and
the amount recovered should be treated as assets of
the deceased, and distributed in a due course of
administration, precisely as if the party had re-
ceived the amount during. his lifetime, and died
immediately afterwards : this would be just to all par-
ties, the creditors would receive the amount of their
demands, and the surplus would be applied according
to the terms of his will, or if he died intestate, ac-
cording to the provisions of the statute of distribution.
The further consideration of the Bill, as well as that
of the Deodands Abolition Bill, with which
it is intimately connected, was postponed until
Monday next. It is probable that both Bills will then
he referred to a Select Committee, on which there will
be placed some of the gentlemen acquainted with the
practical working of the Scotch law, by whom the
details of the measure will be fully considered and
revised. The Hon. Member for Kilmarnock, by whom
the Bills were brought forward, has every reason
to be satisfied with the manner in which they were
received by the House. And, although some defects
may exist in their present frame, it could scarcely be
expected that matters of such consequence, effecting
so great changes in the English law, could be brought
forward in the first instance in a perfect state,
under the auspices of a private Member. He
has called the public attention to the evil, and
it will be to his exertions that the improvements
which may be effected a ill be in a great degree
owing.

Mr. WAKLEY mentioned a curious case respecting
deodands, in the course of his speech : it was that of
an accident on the London and Birmingham Railway,
where a deodand of 2,0001 was given against the
Company. He took the precaution of laying the inqui •
sition before an eminent barrister, whose very name
would satisfy the public that every precaution which
legal skill and ingenuity could suggest would be adopted
to insure success. It was, however, immediately
quashed, and set aside in the Court of Queen's
Bench. No stronger case could possibly be adduced
to prove the impossibility of carrying out the existing
law relating to deodands.

For some years past various plans have been pro-
posed fer turning the products of the metropolitan
sewagehatmo
eprofitable
eapcoc
loluunt
ito,
na nodf bt
the
sfiol
tdho ionfgLtoon
dsave
the
which (at least all of it that is soluble) is distributed
by the various water companies to the inhabit-
ants of the metropolis, as pure water fitted for
domestic purposes. Under the present system the
inhabitants of London are poisoned, and manure of
infinitely more value than all the guano that has ever
been imported is wasted. Thanks, however, to the
persevering efforts of the Metropolitan Sewage
Company, both these evils will be remedied. Theore:
port of the Select Committee of the House of cm
mons, to which the Bill of the Metropolitan Sewage
Manure Company was referred, is a most valuable
document. The Committee report that they have
considered the scheme proposed by the Metropolitan
Sewage Manure Company, for carrying away the re-
fuse of the Ranelagh and King's Scholars' Pond ,
Sewers, and rendering it available for agricultural
purposes, and that they recommend the House to con-
sent to the second reading of the proposed Bill. In
all the plans for collecting sewage manure which have
hitherto been propounded, it has been proposed to
erect tanks or reservoirs for the reception of the
sewage. The erection of these reservoirs has always
been strenuously opposed by the owners and occupiers
of neighbouring lands and houses. The Metropolitan
Sewage Company, however, although at first de-
sirous of having the power of erecting such reservoirs,
have now relinquished it altogether.

" No reservoir, tank, or catch-pond can be constructed by
the company under the proposed Act. The sewage will be
conveyed in a covered shaft from the main sewer into the