The Press. — London, England, 1858-07-10 00:00:00

- -.- 660 THE WEEK. IT is now quite understood that her Majesty and the Prince Consort will visit the Emperor NAPOLEON at Cherbourg at the commencement of the next mouth, and will afterwards proceed up the Rhine to Coblentz, there to meet the Prince and Princess FREDERICK 'WILLIAM of PausslA. Re turning to Osborne, her Majesty, after a short stay, will take her journey northward, visiting Leeds at the end of August, and thence proceeding to Balmoral. _ We have just heard that a rumour was spread in Paris yesterday that another unsuccessful attempt on the Emperor's life had been made by an Italian at Plombieres. We cannot learn that this rumour has reached the best-informed quarters in this country, and we give it no credit. But we are bound to report thus much—that such a rumour was in circulation in Paris when our letters came away. The progress of public business is most satisfactory. The India Bill was read a third time in the House of Commons on Thursday night, amidst much cheering, Lords PALMERSTON and JOHN RUSSELL joining in the vote ; the former Noble Lord, as he said, " giving, not a grudging, but a cordial and hearty assent." It was introduced to the Peers last night, and the second reading was fixed for Thursday next, —the committee to follow on Friday. So that this great measure may be finally passed by Monday or Tuesday week. The Bill for the purification of the Thames was promised by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER "early next week." As this may be a brief and simple mea sure, it need not occupy the Houses more than a few days. The 26th is the day now spoken of for the Prorogation. We are happy to add, that the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER an nounced last night the purpose of the Government to bring in a Bill for the commutation of Church-rates early in the next session. Sir Joint TRELAWNY, having done the Church as much open mischief as he could, by pushing a Bill for the abolition of Church-rates, for the first time, through the House of Commons, now turns aside to do her a still worse turn in a quieter and more insidious way. He knows that it is a matter of non qtant lamentation, that too many of the working classes neglect public worship. lie knows, also, that those of them who do attend, find the afternoon and evening services the most suitable and convenient. He therefore proposes to open during that part of the day the public galleries and museums, to draw away the working men from the House of God. Reckoning on the known courtesy of the members of the present Government, and on their desire to oblige, Sir Jousr TRELAWNY introduced, a few days since, a deputation to the Marquis of SALISBURY, to request his Lordship to consent to the opening, on Sunday, of the Sheepshanks Gallery and other collections under his authority. The deputation dwelt, in the usual strain, on the benefits which might thereby be conferred on the working-classes. The Marquis reminded them that there was the obvious drawback, that the servants of those institutions would be deprived of their day of rest. To which they rejoined with the usual plea, that the interests of the few ought to give way to the interests of the many. This plea, however, is deceptive ; and those who use it know that it is so. They apply for the opening of a single institution, such as the British Museum, or the Sheepshanks Gallery; and they urge that the persons who will suffer privation by such an opening are but few. But they well know that if the principle be once conceded, the practice must grow and become general, till those who will have Sabbath-labour imposed on them will be reckoned by tens of thousands. Of course, to open one public gallery or museum is to admit that it would be right to open all. The pressure would be continued, till all such places under the authority of Government were so opened. Next, how could the prohibition of the Sunday opening of the Crystal Palace be continued, if the British Museum and the National Gallery had been opened? Clearly, the thing would be impossible. Could one private speculation like the Crystal Palace be allowed to open, and others, like the Great Globe, or the Polytechnic, be obliged to remain shut? This could never be thought of. All exhibitions must be free to open on Sundays, as on other days of the week. Would it be deemed right to exhibit paint ings, but not to perform music ? Such a distinction would be absurd, and could not for a moment be defended. But if musical performances were reckoned legal, the question would immediately arise, What musical per formances ? Could we have a censor of the orchestra, with authority to permit "God save the Queen," and "Rule Britannia," but not the "Bay of Biscay " ? No; musical performances of all kinds must be everywhere allowed. St. James's Hall and St. Martin's Hall would be rivals of St. James's and St. Martin's Churches. Nor would it long be possible to draw a distinction between performances in a hall and performances in a theatre. Sunday, then, made the universal holiday and day of exhibition and sight-seeing, implies at once the labour of thousands. But this is only the beginning of the evil. The sanctity of the day being abandoned— the commandment of Go') being thrown aside, what is to protect the work ing classes front the demands of their employers ? If it is lawful for me to amuse myself, and to compel other men to work that I may be amused, it must be lawful for me to work myself. Hence, if any employer demands my services, it becomes a mere question whether I am strong enough to THE PRESS, JULY 10, 1858. resist his demand, or whether I shall find it expedient to yield. In many cases, in the present excessive competition, the employers would be tempted to run their mills seven days in the week ; and they would soon find, and soon let it be known, that if one man would not serve them on these terms, another would. And then the slavery of the working men would be complete. To this statement of natural and inevitable results no answer can be found. The pretext, therefore, that in asking for the mere opening of the public galleries and museums, the deputation only ask that a few should labour for the benefit of the many, is as utter a delusion as ever was attempted. The House of Lords was occupied last Thursday week in hearing an appeal arising out of the trusts created by the will of the celebrated PETER TtiELLussoN. " The Thellusson case" is one of the causes celebres of the Court of Chancery. It is one of those portentous affairs which appear like comets in the legal firmament, which complete their orbit and return at intervals with a sort of periodic regularity, and which correspond to one of the supposed purposes of these bodies by conveying from time to time a good deal of pabulum to the legal luminaries who revolve therein. After imbibing the arguments of learned counsel on the last new phase of the matter for one day, their Lordships appeared to have had enough of it, and intimated that the appeal must stand over till next session. In the mean time, we may give a short outline of the plot of this long-winded legal comedy, the last act of which may, before many months, be expected to be —we dare not say more than—in a state of forward preparation. It is commonly said that the man whose offence causes a law to be made must be a very signal offender. Mr. PETER THELLUSSON attained this unenviable distinction. In 1795 he made his will, by which he dis posed of landed property of the value of 30,0001., and of personal property amounting to about 600,0001., and attempted to give effect to the desire he entertained of founding an opulent and powerful family. For such a purpose these large sums were not, in his opinion, sufficient. If he Could only live sixty years more they certainly might become so ; but as that was out of the question, he determined to use all the power which the law allowed him to cause his money to be employed in the manner most suit able for carrying out his desire. Then, as now, the law permitted a testator to limit or " tie up" his estate during any life, however protracted, which is in existence at the time of his decease and for twenty-one years in addi tion to such period—in fact, during the minority of the testator's imme diate successor, who in such a case is of course supposed to have the usu fruct of the property during his life. Mr. THELLUSBON employed this power of disposition in a way which the law hardly contemplated. He or dered that his property should not begin to be enjoyed till after the death of all of his descendants who should be living at the time of his decease ; but that, during the life of the longest liver among them, it should go on accumulating for the benefit of certain persons then unborn. In the event of no persons being properly entitled at the time of distribution, the whole was to pass to the Crown. Immediately after the testator's death, an at tempt was made by his sons to set aside the will, but on a final appeal to the House of Lords it was confirmed. It was stated during this trial that the value of the property which would have to be divided would in any case amount to nineteen millions, and in all probability would rise to up wards of thirty-two millions—a sum which, if centred in one individual, might, it was thought, enable him to " disturb the economy of the country." The unfortunate persons by the exclusion of whom this vast heap of money was to be collected were, at the death of the testator, nine in number ; and we shall probably make the above statement most intelligible, as well as throw the clearest light on the point respecting which the present appeal is made, if we arrange them in the form of a genealogical tree : Peter Thellnsson.• (1) Peter Isaac (afterwards Baron Rendleaham) (2) George Poodford (3) Charles (4) John (5) George (6) Henry (7) William(B) Frederick. Arthur (9) Chlles THOS. Rout TS FREDERICK WILLIAM ARTHUR CHARLES SABINE (present Baron R.) AUGUSTUS The accumulation having been directed to continue during the lives of the three sons and six grandsons of the testator, whose names we have numbered from (1) to (9), was, on the death of the survivor of them, to be divided into three lots, of which one was to be "conveyed to the use of the eldest male lineal descendant " of PETER IsAAc, one to the "eldest male lineal descendant" of GFonoß WOODFORD, and the third to the "eldest male lineal descendant" of CHARLES. GEORGE. WOODFORD, however, left no sons, and his descendants through the female line were excluded from inheriting by a decree of Lord Eux)x in 1821. JOHN, GEORGE, HENRY, and WILLIAM, also left no male issue. The last survivor of the nine lives died in 1856, and the present Baron RENDLESITAM then filed a bill, praying that he might be declared entitled to one-half of the estates, as " the eldest male lineal descendant" of the testator's eldest son. CHARLES SABINE AUGUSTUS THELLUSSON filed a similar bill, as the representative of the third son. It happened, however, that these two claimants, though of the elder branch in point of lineage, arc not the eldest in age of the testator's descendants; the sixth son of PETER ISAAC, being older than his nephew the Baron ; and THOMAS RoBARTs, the second son of CHARLES, being older than his nephew, CARLES SABLNE AUGUSTUS. Thus, in each branch of the family there are two claimants—one in each claiming in virtue of seniority in years; one in each claiming in virtue of priority of descent. The two uncles having also filed hills, praying to be entitled to the moieties of the estates instead of their nephews, were excluded by a decree of the Master of the Rolls ; and it is from this decree that they now • The italicised names are the excluded descendants ; those in large capitals the present respondents ; those in small capitals the present appellauts. t Arthur is since dead, but is represented in the suit by his son Arthur.