The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-25 00:00:00

DEBTS OF NATIONS.

STATISTICAL RETURN OF THE REVENUES AND NATIONAL
DEBTS OF THE DIFFERENT FOREIGN POWERS IN 1841.

The following interesting return of the Revenue and
National Debt of the different Nations of the globe, has
been presented by the Chevalier Caasar Moreau (formerly
French Consul-General in London, and so well known for
his elaborate statistical tables on the revenue, manufac-
tories, national productions, mortality, suicides, &c., of
this country ), to the Royal Statistical Society :
Revenue. Public Debt.
Austria 440,000,000frs 1,700,000,000 frs.
Bavaria 70,731,000
Denmark 35,300,000
Belgium
Holland
Norway.. ...... 8,300,000
Sweden
Switzerland... 10,450,00(3
Sazony 30,000,000
Wurterriburg.. 20,000,000
Prussia 220,000,000
Russia
France 1,184,525,365
Great Britain 1,218,060,000
Spain, Revenue uncertain, no correct official return.
Portugal, average 53,000,000
Roman States 45,000,000
Sardinia ..,.. 70,000,000
Sicily ....... 110,000,000 500,000.000
Greece.. ...... 6,000,000
* Turkey Revenue not known
Persia
Morcc co
United States 135,000,000
Brazils
Mexico 75,000,000
Paraguay
Peru 30,000,000
Llaiti 13,000,000
India Company 528,000,000
China
Japan
Siam 45,000,000
AVRRAGE VALUE OF GOLD AND SILvER IN CIRCULATION IN

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, ,Tex. 23.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on coming into Court this morn
ing, gave judgment in the following cases

THOMPSON v. GRIFFIN.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Master of the
Rolla, but the circumstances of the case are not material fort
newspaper, the question turning upon the construction oft
settlement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. IRONMONGERS' COMPANY.
This was also an appeal from the Rolls, and the question was
whether there were any objects now in existence which cou:e
be considered cy pres to the objectsintended to be benefited hs
the will of the testator, who bequeathed a moiety of
the income of his property to the Ironmongers' Corn
patsy, in trust for the redemption of British slaves
in Turkey and Barbary. The case has been for many years be-
fore the Court, and was heard in different stages, both by
Sir John Leach and Lord Brougham, and the facts were fulls
reported in " The Sun," when it *vas before the Master of ace
Rolls, from whose decision the appeal on which judgment was
now given, was made.
The Loan CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment, observes.
that the effect of the order of December, 1839, was the sub.
jest of consideration; that the moiety of the income
of the property by the will devoted to the redemption
of British slaves in Turkey and Barbary ought on
failure of such gift for want of objects being esta-
blished, to be applied to the two ether objects named in the
will. The first question was whether that application of the
property ought to be established. His Lordship then adverted
to the terms of the former orders, from which it appeared that
that mode of application had been disapproved of by all the
other Judges by whom the question had considered. The
order of 1430 directed the Master, if he found there were
objects of the first gift, to inquire how the moiety of the in-
come vested for it could be applied, regard being bad to the
will, and to approve of a scheme accordingly ; and
to inquire whether it could be carried into effect with-
out the aid of Parliament. The Master reported in
favour of a scheme proposed by the defendants, by which the
income of the moiety was to be equally divided
between the two other objects named in the will, viz., charity
schools in the city and suburbs of London, where the education
was according to the doctrines of the Cinireh of England, no
one of them to receive more than 201. a year; and necessitated
decayed freemen of the Co 'luny, their widows and children;
and he reported that such scheme could be carried into effect
without the aid of Parliament. When the case came before
his Lordship, while Master of the Rolls, he did not feel himself
competent to deal with the report, although he expressed
an opinion that there were decided objections to the
scheme which had been approved of. He had not
been able to satisfy himself that his former opinion
was incorrect. It was true that if severalcharities were named
in the will, and one failed for want of objects, one of the others
might be found cypres to that which had failed; and, if so, that
would be an additional recommendation for adopting it, but such
other charity ought not, as his Lordship concei ied, to be prefer-
red to seine other more nearly resembling that which had failed.
To assume, because the testator named two charities in his
will, he would have given the amount of both legacies to one if
he had foreseen the other could not have been carried
into effect ; and, therefore, to give the provision in-
tended for the objects that had failed to the other, was in
many cases totally inconsistent with the doctrine of cy pres.
The two objects might be totally unconnected, and there might
be other charities more nearly connected with that which the
testator intended to favour. In the absence of any object bear-
ing any resemblance to the gift which had failed, it was proper
to look at the second gift, but only as a guide; but with regard
to the third object, there was no ground whatever for consider-
ing it as indicative of the testator's general views, nor was there
any reason for supposing he would, under any circumstances,
have wished the provision to be increased. It could not, therefore,
be referred to for any purpose in settling a scheme for the appli-
cation cy pres, of the funds intended for the first object. The
most reasonable course to be adopted was to look at the second-
gift as an isd'cation of the kind of charity preferred by the
testator, but making it as general in its application as the
first was intended to be, that was, open to all
who might stand in need of its assistance, whieh
led to this :conclusion, that it must be al plied in support
of charity schools, without any restriction to place, where the
education was according to the Church of England; but the
sum given to any one was not to exceed 201. per annum. His
Lordship saw no ground for applying the fund to Green-
wich pensioners who were present at the battle of Algiers, or
the Seaman's Hospital, or to the Royal Marine Society, or to the
Royal Naval Sc' 001, or to the school attached to Greenwich
Hospital, unless indeed such schools fell under the description
to which he had before referred. Neither was the Alice
Charity one to which the funds coals be applied on the doctrine
of cy pres. The legacy in that case was to redeem poor slaves
in what manner the executors should deem most convenient.
In this case there was no restriction as to the description of
slaves or the country in which they were to be looked tor, aid
when, at the date of the report in 1835, as a reference to ap-
prove of a scheme, it appeared there were not within any part
of the British dominions any poor slaves to be redeemed, but
that there were in the colonies many thousands of human
beings from whom the appellation of "slaves" had been
removed, but whose real situation was very short of that of
freedom—from whose bodies the chains of slavery had been
struck, but whose minds and morals were still in that state of
degradation which was inseparable from the unfortunate situa-
tion from which they had been recently rescued. It had
been proposed to the Master to approve of a scheme for the
completion of that holy work by assisting in the education of
those poor beings. If before the slavery abolition those funds
could have been properly applied in the emancipation of slaves,
the proposed application to the extent of improving the condi-
tion of the negro apprentices, would have been strictly
cy pres to the intentions of the donor, but that was an
application to which, in the present ease, the funds
could not at any time have beets made. There
was necessarily great latitude in exercising jurisdiction
over charity funds where the direct object of the donor failed,
and there'ore very different opinions might be formed on the
subject. The providing for the education of the poor it might
be said bad no reference to the objeet of the charity which hs,d
failed, but no other had been 'suggested by which the funds might
be applied in a manner expressed by the testator to the
benefit of all who might stand in need of them. His Lordship
proposed, therefore, to reverse the decision of the Master of
the Rolls, except so much of it as declared that there were no
direct objects to which the gift respecting British captives could
be applied, and in lieu of that part of it to declare that it should
be applied to the support of charity schools in England and Wales
where the education was according to the doctrines of the
Church of England, but to an amount not exceeding 201. a
year to any one. The Master must approve of a scheme for
that purpOSO. The relators and the company must have their
costs out of the fend, but the other parties, who had appeared
for various charities, could not have any costs. Their inter-
ference, and taking part in the proceedings, was irregular, but
thaenye
ehsa had
underbeen
whichini invited
pro-
ceedingsin t
were taken, his Lordship would not order them to
tehoensAi diearsitnegesthoe mfficea,
pay costs. nannerrl tihne cwi rhci tin hm
st

MILIkIER V. SINGLETON.
The appeal in this case was dismissed, with costs.

ROLLS' COURT, JAN. 23.
His Lordship the MASTER of the ROLLS was occupied the
entire day with a part-heard case of Wiggins v. Lord.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, .Lix. 25.
IN RE SIR THOMAS SWYMMER MOSTYN CHAMPNEYS,

DART.

This case was before Mr. Commissioner Law the
whole day (Saturday), and s-me extraordinary dis-
closures have been made in the proef debts, for some
days past, of the manner in which money had been
raised on " bill transactions." There is a iarge sum—
upwards of 20,0001.—available for the creditors under
the iesolvency of the year 1833, when the deceased
Baronet was discharged at Winchester ; and the pre-
sent proceeding has been adopted preparatory to the
declaration of a dividend, which, in some measure, will
depend on the debts proved
or allowed. The question
of " usury" has been raised in a number of instances,
and strict proof is required of the alleged debts, many
of which were entered by the deceased Baronet as
" disputed,"and the consideration has been questioned,
on the part of the assignees, by their solicitors, Messrs.
Lawrence and Bienkarne, of Bucklersbury.
A curious instance occurred to-day before Mr•
Commissioner Law. A wine-merchant sought to prove
as a creditor for 5001. on a bill of exchange accepted
by Sir Thomas Chainpneys for that amount, for
which, it was alleged, wine had in pipes been sup-
plied to his agent, a gentleman who drew the bulb.lt appeared that the wino was sold by the wine
merchant to the egent at 451. 10s. a pipe, and Ors
.sent, requiring money for Sir Thomas, sold the vviriri
immediately afterwards to a highly-respectable house in
the trade for 301. a pipe, thereby sustaining a loss on
each pipe of 151. 10s.! !! The amount obtained for the
5001. bill was only about 3801. ; and it was stated that,
in innumerable instances, the system had been pursued
for the purpose of raising money. The wine-merchant
declared that lie was selling wine at the same price. A
warrant of attorney bad been taken for the money, and
thereon judgment was entered up before the bill, at three
months, became due. It was contended for the assigne
that the Court could not allow such a claim, as it was
clearly an usurious transaction.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said usury had been shown,
and on the present evidence lie should disallow the
claim. Here was an instance of wine being sold at 151.
a pipe under what it was charged. It was an usurious
transaction, and he should disallow the claim. The wine
merchant might produce any other evidence if he
thought proper, but, as the case now appeared, he
should disallow the claim.—The claim was rejected.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

THE SHIP DRYAD.—On Saturday Michael Shaw
Stewart Wallace, and Patrick Maxwell Stewart Wal-
lace, brothers, were brought up again for examination
before Sir Peter Laurie. The interest was greatly in-
creased, and the evidence, moat of which was entirely
new, put it beyond all doubt that the ship was lost for
the purpose of plundering the insurance companies. The
statements of Mr. Stott, who, it w,ll be recollected, was
charged with being an accomplice at the commencement
of the proceedings, and before the solicitors for the pro-
secution had had time to make the necessary inquiries,
will he read with deep interest.
Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Laurie attended
at counsel for the prosecutors, to which Mr. Phillips and
Mr. Farquhar acted as 'solicitors ; and Mr. C. Phillips
attended as counsel for the prisoners, to whom Mr.
Humphries was solicitor. Mr. Holder,
jun., attended
to ineke an implication on the part of Mr. Stott.
The examination lasted for five hours.
Captain Tait, of the Benceolen, stated that as be
was making for Cape Haytien, in St. Domingo, he ob-
served the Dryad steering on for the reef. He fired a
signal gun which was not returned, and he sent a pilot
on board who brought the vessel into port. The wit-
ness then pre the account alrealy published of the con-
duct of Captain Looze, of the Dryad, on shore, which
clearly proved that Captain Looze was sorry that the
ship got O. Witness shipped the mate, in consequence
of that person's statement that it was the intention of
the Captain to sink the ship ; indeed,
the day after
to witness,the observations
of Captain Looze weiu such, that no doubt was enter-
tained of his intention. The Captain of the port said
was sure she would not go far. Some days afterwards,
the Dryad left port, that he

a steam-vesscl came in an reported the loss of tho Dryad
on a reef of rocks off Cuba.

William Norman Frost said—l am a ship-chandler at
320, Wapping. I was acquainted with Captain Edmund
Looze, and knew him as master of the brig Dryad. I
had known him about eight or ten years. In the last
voyage of the Dryad I supplied the captain with sills,
by direction of Michael Wallace, given to me in Lon-
don. I did not see Captain Looze on the subject along
with Michael Wallace. I did not see the captain at all
in London immediately before his voyage. It is now
from 18 months to two years since I saw C
Looze. I have been paid for the sails which I supplied
by Michael Wallace. They were supplied for the last
voyage to Cuba, and I was paid about two or three
months afterwards at the furthest. Jr. July Captain
Cuddy, of the Premier, barque, called upon me. He
delivered to me some papers and property, as from
Captain Looze. The property consisted of clothes,
money to the amount of about 971., and a bill of ex-
change for 4001. The clothes I still have, and the
cash I handed to Captai i ',ooze's mother. The papers
I delivered to Patrick Wallace, to give to his brother
Michael. I was present when the bill for 4001. was
deposited in the hands of Howden and Anisley. AU-
chisel Wallace was likewise present. Not a word was.
said while he was present about what the bill had
been drawn for, or whether it referred to the Dryad,
or anything of the sort. It was only stated that it
was to be kept till the parties entitled to it were found,
The bill remained with me till it was deposited with
Howden and Anisley. I kept it in my possession till I
received a notice from Michael Wallace to deliver it to
himself and Mr. Howden. I accordingly delivered it
to Mr. Howden in his presence, and with his concur-
rence. The notice to deliver it was not in writing,
but Michael Wallace called upon me and gave it to me
verbally. He did not tell me what the bill referred to.
There wits no conversation between us upon the subject.
From papers which were amongst those I received
from Captain Cuddy, and which I afterwards handed
over to Patrick Wallace to give to Michael, I was in-
duced to believe that the bill referred to was drawn
for the salvage of the cargo of the Dryad. After Pa-
trick Wallace was taken, his sisters made a communica-
tion to. me, in consequence of which I went to the
Compter to see him. I think this was about a week
after be was taken. I saw Patrick Witi!ace on that
occasion, and he talked over the subject of this charge.
It was a friendly conversation, and I did not expect
that I should be obliged to disclose it here. I said I
was sorry to see burn in the situation he was in, and he
declared to me that he was an innocent man, and that
his brother was the man they ought to have taken ;
that his brother was a big scoundrel, and had led him
into the error ; and that he knew not but what the
goods were shipped on board of the Dryad that were
supposed to be shipped. I believe that that was about
all that took place on that subject. I also said to him
that there were papers, which i delivered here, that
would I thought help him out of the difficulty, as they
referred to some of the crew and the mate, who were
discharged at Falmouth in Jamaica. I asked him if he
knew anythusg, of the bill of exchange for 4001., and he
answered that he believed the bill had been divided,
but he did not know exactly. He mentioned the pri-
soner Michael Wallace as one.

James Stott was next ctlled : He said, I was clerk
to Mr. Nicol, ship-broker, at George-yard, Lombard.
street. Before that tune I bad been clerk in the office
of Seldon and Johnson. I was clerk to Mr. Nicol when
I was taken into custody. I first became acquainted
with Patrick Wallace about seven years ago. in 1889,
when I commenced business upon iny own account, he
called upon me and promised me a share of his business.
' He gave me several ordsrs in his way of business, as a
bottled ale merchant and importer of bristles. One
moreing he said that he would give me saint fling to do
' in effseting insuranees.tor his ship, the Dryad, whiith
was very anxious to be engaged in. ( Here the witness
mentioned the eommissioris given to tom by Patrick
Wallace to execute insurances for the Dryad at the
companies' offiees.) From that time until the news
arrived that the vessel was lost nothing transpired, and
I continued to do business for him in his general way.
Same days after the loss appeared, he said that his bill
• of fading was not stamped, and asked whether the
Company would make any objection to settling a loss.
To which I replied that I thought not, as I never
heard of such a thing. He said, "Oh., I know better,
and I shall get it stamped." He then begged that I
would accompany him to Somerset House to get the
hill of lading stamped. I did so, and it cost him 54
Two or three days afterwards he brou;,ht me the pro-
! test and policy, and requested me to go to the General
Maritime Company and obtain a settlement of the loss.
After seeing Mr. Gray at the Maritime Office, I in-
formed Patrick Wallace that the Company were not
sotisfied with the protest, and would like to see
Captain linCiZ'2.'S letter. He said he should do
no such thing. There was the protest and policy,
and what more did they want, and that he
should make them pay. After a great deal of trouble
he brought me the Captain's letter, at the same time
saying, " That letter has cost me two sovereigns, for I
did not like to let my brother know that I am settling
my insurance ; therefore, I have been obliged to get it
from the clerk of Howden and Ansley, for if I had
asked that house for it my brother would have heard of
it. I then produced the letter at the Maritime-office,
and they consented to settle 801. per cent , which I paid,
as soon as I got it, to Patrick Wallace. (Tne witness
then stated the fact of his having received from the Alli-
ance Company the sum of 7154 for Mr. Patrick Wal-
lace.) A month or six weeks afterwards I asked him if
he had heard again from the Captain. He said that
his brother had had a letter born the Captain, but he
did not intend to show the Maritime Company that or
anything else. When I inquired the reason he smiled,
and said, " Oh, it is all right ; if they expect any of the
grods will be saved, they are much mistaken." I said,
" Well, if you want your insurance settled, why don't
you give them proof. Will not the Captain's letter do
so ?" He said, " Oh, yes, there are a good many pans
saved, but no beef and pork," and again laughed. I
asked him what he laughed at, and he said, " Oh, it's a
clear thing ; Looze has done it well." I then left him.
Witness, after detailing several other conversations be-
tween him and Patrick Wallace, relative to the balance
at the Maritime-offiae, proceeded—" I said I heard of
ships being lost intentionally, and I hoped that
was not the case of the Dryad." He then changed his
temper, and threatened to kick me out of the place, and
that if I used such language to others I might he troubled
with an action for defamation of character. Next morn-
ing he called upon me, and said, " I was not to think
anything of what he had said the day before ; it was all
o joke, and he was sorry to sue that he could make me
beiieee anything." I did not apply again to Mr. Gray,
till after 1 addressed a I. tter to the Consul at Santa
Cruz. This is the portfolio of Patrick Wallace. This
letter was not written by site, but ss, as nearly as I can
tell, a copy of what I wrote, It is not nay wr4,ing.
Mr. Gray requested that I would write a letter to the
Consul to ascertain what woods were saved, and state
when the thing could be settled. I toad Mr. Wallace
so, and he said it. was a great nuisance, and would taise
three or four months to get an answer. He ,inin said,
"'Take a sheet of paper and write," and I wrote at Isis
dietitian to the Consul. He took it away. I wish to
explain why It ut the postscupt. He said, This
commurecation is anon} mous between ourselves." He
directed Inc to add the postscript. I asked why, as it
look d queer. [The postscript stated, "Of course this
communication Is in confilence between us.") I was
rentetant to writs: it, and asked hint the meaning of
it. He said that there was a part sal the cargo not
file!: up, and he and his brother had determined to fib
rise vessel on their own account, and he did not wish
the charterers to know it.

Sir PETER LAURIE—If you had given me this an-
seeer when you were in Custody, I would have discharged
you without any imputation on your character.
Witness—Because my solicitor directed me.
Mr. Clarkson said it was impossible that any other
advice could have been given under the circumstances
with judgment.
Mr. Hobjer, jun., said that he had advised Mr. Stott
to be silent under the circumstances, and he referred to
the bar whether he could have acted otherwise.
All the barristers and solicitors on both sides said the
answer was perfectly judicious, and was in every respect
creditable to the gentleman who advised it.
Witness proceeded—l wished to write a letter in my
own style, and Patrick Wallace said " do as I direct
you, or let it alone." I showed the letter I received to
Patrick Wallace, and I also, at his desire, showed it to
Mr. Gray, who said that I must wait till the Captain
should arrive with the papers. Patrick Wallace sold it
he expected Captain Looze, or the papers, he was
much mistaken, for neither would arrive. 1 said you
must have some good grounds for saying so. He said
Captain Looze was a big :rogue ; no doubt he picked
ail he could out of the wreck, and then he had gone to
the States. This was said in a laughing way. Patrick
is a very jocular, lively tempered man. Patrick said
afterwards to me he was going to St. Pctersburgh to
make some large purchases in isinglass, and to recover
a sum of money belonging to his brother, •alio died of
the cholera. He stated that by making the purchases
he sh(aild save the commission. He said he expected
upon his return that I should have got the insurance of
the Dryad. I said " How is it possible I can do so a,,
you have got the papers." He then premised to give
me the papers on the Monday morning, as he was going
away on the Wednesday. Patrick Wallace told me at one
time that Capt. Looze was dead, at another that he was
not dead. It was alwaysin a jocular way. He also said the
Captain was in Landon for three weeks. I asked him why
Captain Looze did not go to the Maritime Insurance.
Patrick Wallace said that Looze was a clever fellow,
and had done the Dryad's job well, and he would give
him a vessel again. I said " Indeed, then he must have
been well paid," and joked him how much. Ho said
1,000/. or 2,0001. When I was taken into custody I
saw Patrick Wallace in the room below. I asked him
what this business was about. I did not understand it.
I expressed my surprise. He said " It is a dieudful
job. You are all right. You are only agent in the
affair, and need not mind anything about it." I said,
" No more have you ; you are not- master of the ship."
He said the papers found on board the Palmyra, belong-

ing to the master, were in his (Patrick's purse, and they
would prove his guilt, and he was quite sure he should
be transported. I said he must hope better for him3.,..1f.
He also said, going in the coach, that his brother wcu
the biggest rogue. All he had done was for his brother,
who, no doubt, would fly. At the Compter our rooms
were separated, he being above and I below. I could
see the window of his room, and had several conversa
tions with him. He asked me if I remembered ping to
the Dank with him in the summer to get gold to pur-
chase sugars at the Mauritius, to the amount of 1,7001.,
and he said, when I replied yes, " Oh, well that money
never went to the Mauritius. I have got that safe
enough. They have traced the money to the changing
for gold at the Bank, and that beat them." He said it
he was transported he had that safe enough. The ex-
amination of Mr. Stott ended here.

Mr. Nobler, jun., applied for the rele:ae of Mr.
Stott's securities.

Mr. Phillips—Most certainly. Mr. Stott is certainly
entitled to have his securities released.

Sir P. LA URlE—Certainly—l regret very much that
he has been inconvenienced, or that any imputation has
been cast upon him.
The further examination was adjourned.