The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-18 00:00:00

emulate the brilliant example than the certainty that
their dependent relations would, in the event
of any fatal accident, be protected by their
grateful country. The judicious and proper applica-
tion of the sacred fund, so that the greatest possible
benefit may be conferred on the parties for whom it
was realized, becomes an object of national import-
ance, and the parties entrusted with the duty should
not suffer any peculiar fancies of their own to inter-
fere with the proper solution of the problem.
Now it has, we believe, been suggested that cer-
tain debts, due and owing by the deceased at the
time of their deaths, should be liquidated in the first
instance out of the fund. Although we would gladly
see honest tradesmen, to some of whom these debts
may be matters of importance, satisfied the full
amount of their just demands, we cannot consi-
der that any portion of the subscriptions already
handed in should be devoted to such a purpose.
It was not with that intent that the money was col-
lected, and it would be a breach of faith if its desti-
nation were now altered in any degree. The sub
scription was for the benefit of the widows and
children and destitute parents of the drowned fisher-
men, and it cannot fairly be applied to any other
purpose, or given to creditors in their place. Even if
there were no special contract with the subscribers
by the terms of the appeal, we have a legislative pre-
cedent which must be decisive on the point. By the
9th and 10th Vic., c. 93, which gave an action for
damages against the person by whose wrongful act,
neglect, or default, the death of any party was occa
stoned, it was particularly provided that the creditors
of the deceased should have no claim upon the
amount of the verdict, but that it should be
for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, or child
of the person whose death had been so caused ; and
the juries were empowered to allocate the amount
between the several claimants. We cannot see any
grounds upon which such payments to creditors could
be justified in the present instance, unless made at
the special instance and request of the surviving re-
latives, and out of the shares to which they might
become entitled.

Again, it has been asserted that the fund being in
the nature of a national reward for a brave and gal-
lant action, the distribution should be made to
all alike, without any distinction as to age or circum-
stances. This proposition is fat more plausible,
and can be supported by stronger arguments
than that to which we have just alluded;
but, on full consideration, it does not ap•
pear to stand on a much more valid foundation.
The fund was collected chiefly, if not altogether,
fur the relief of the distress occasioned by the calamity.
There are eleven classes of claimants, the surviving
relatives of each of the men who lost their lives on
the occasion, and we submit that the comparative loss
sustained by the respective families should be ascer-
tained in as just proportions as practicable. One man
might be capable of earning far more than another, and
his dependents might be much more numerous. It
would ba by no means just to distribute the fund
in equal portions, without taking the various circum-
stances into consideration, and making each class pro-
portioned to the loss sustained by the parties belong-
ing thereto.

When the fund has been thus apportioned in classes
the relative claims of the parties belonging to each
class should then be adjudicated upon. There may be
widow, children, and parent, whose various positions
should be accurately ascertained. The committee
will have imposed on them a function similar to that
of a jury under the 9th and 10th Vic., c. 93 ; they will
have first to assess the damages, and then to appor-
tion the amount between the various claimants.
Where the parties who may be deemed to be en-
titled to any portion are of tender years, of course
their share should be secured for their benefit when
they attai❑ their majorities, a part being applied for
their present maintenance and advancement in life,
whenever a fitting occasion should arise,; but we
would suggest that those who have arrived at mature
ages should be banded over their portions at once, to
deal with as they think proper, and; that there
should be no attempt to dispose of it " for their" ad-
vantage, without their full consent. A sum, that
would provide but a few shillings a week, barely
sufficient to keep a party out of the workhouse,
might, if invested in business or available for any Of
the many favourable opportunities that are constantly
occurring to persons of humble stations, who have a
little ready money at command, render the recipients
comfortable and independent, and in comparatively
affluent circumstances. We trust that the committee
will not lose sight of these considerations, or suffer
the temptation to keep up a constant interference in
the affairs of the families to prevail. Why should '
they make any regulations to deprive a widow of her
share, if she should think proper to enter into a second
matrimonial connexion ? It seems to us that any
such rules as it is asserted are about to be adopted
should be carefully avoided.

We, perhaps, owe some apology to the committee
for supposing that any such suggestions should be
necessary. We are fully convinced that they are
collectively and individually animated by an anxious
desire to perform their pleasing duty fairly and im-
partially : it is only errors of judgment that are to
be guarded against, and feeling, as we have already,
stated, that the matter is one of almost national im-
portance, we think that it comes fairly within the
province of a public journalist to notice and comment
upon.

It is the same with nations as with individuals—
those to whom much has . been given from them is
much required. Where rank and station are con-
ferred it is naturally expected that the recipients shall
generously act up to the amenities of life. A stingy
Monarch would be an abomination in the eyes of
Englishman ; were such an epithet to be applied to
his reigning Sovereign it would be instinctively re-
garded and repudiated by Jours BULL as a national
libel. Proudly prejudiced in favour of a Monarchy,
which throughout its long historical roll is less tar-
nished than that of any other nation, and certainly
has culminated to a height of radiating power and
wisdom hitherto unattained by any of the great
families of the earth, ancient or modern, whatever is
adequate to the regal sustentation of his favourite
form of government, be has never grudged, but
al ways readily, and almost lavishly, provided. So much
does the Englishman abhor parsimony that his excess
of generosity might rather be viewed as a weakness,
and charged as prodigality. The inequalities of
wealth in this country are proverbial—so prepon -
derating, that common sense revolts from the
propriety of their recognition. Unequal distribution
of property of every description has always existed,
and will never cease, but the more civilization ad-
vances, the more natural and legitimate the expecta-
tion that excrescences should be pared down, and that
a fairer diffusion of the accumulation of capital should
be the necessary result. But though beneath oligar-,
chieal influences, and monopolising laws—their cer-
tain offspring—property has been suffered to shape it-
self into such inequitable masses, it would neverthe-
less be uncandid to deny, that the extent, munifi-
cence, and almost infinite variety of the charitable
institutions that have sprung up under the auspices
of the affluent orders, and which now cover the land,
fortunately conduced for the time to reconcile the
operative portions of the community to the severe
pressure of class-legislation. Before the science
of political economy was so well understood as it
now is, the higher orders might, perhaps, have been
excused for not foreseeing that the exclusive and pro-
tective system, which governed their legislatorial
policy, was so perniciously calculated to endanger the
very fabric of the State. It was their ignorance that
gave splendour to their donative spirit, and the virtue
of gratitude led the humbler divisions cf the commu-
nity to cherish and extol the spontaneous beneficence
of the aristocracy. Happily, enlightenment upon
every topic suggestive of the material progress of a
nation, has been rapidly
spreading itself from the
time of HUSILISSON to the present hour, and, whilst
the feeling of individual charity is not abated one jot
amongst us, we have, within tha last ten years, illu-
minated our statute-beck with laws that breathe
the spirit of rational charity in its most
comprehensive form. This benign Policy has
invigorated the empire throughout. We are
reanimated. Even a Whig Chancellor of the Exche-
quer may greet the ears of St. Stephen's with the cry
of "Eureka." For two successive years he can de-
clare a hendsomesurplui. But the benefit of this re-
generative policy is not to be confined to the United
Kingdom. It would not be wise to be selfish in our
prosperity. What we have realized for ourselves we