The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-07 00:00:00

dom; and whether it was his intention to remedy the pre-.
sent state of things ?
General PEEL said the officers in question were entitled
to the benefits specified.

CHURCH RATES.
In reply to Mr. HUTT,
Mr. ALPOLE said ho proposed to move the second
reading of this bill on Wednesday next.
EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Sir G. C. LE WIS said that, in dealing with India, they
should act in the same way as they did with their other
colonies, and preserve the separateness of the colonial
from the imperial treasury. The great difficulty in
which Indian finance found itself arose from the
great military expenditure. For the year before their
mutiny in India the expense of the military and navy
in this country and India, exclusive of police, was
£30,400,000 ; and for the year 1858 it was
increased by £21,850,000, making a total of £35,250,000.
while the expenditure of France-for her military and naval
departments amounted only to £19,781,000 in 1869,
As he understood from the gallant Secretary for War,
there was to be a reduction in the military force, and if
they could extend that reduction to India with safety they
would be promoting materially the interests of that portion
of the British empire. It had been used as an argument against
the reduction of the native army that the frontiers were open to invasion, and that they had to apprehend attacks from the small princes in the coun. He coidered,
however, that as the frontiers of the Briti trysh Empirens in India
extended from Cape Comoxin 'to the Himalayas, any fears
of such invasion were not well founded. Now, what he
wished to impress on the Government was that they were in
a position to effect a reduction of native troops, for the body of
the people in that country wore not armed; the insurgents
had been scattered, and the principal garrisons were in the
possession of European troops. Ho thought the best
course to be pursued was for this country to
raise a loan on the credit of India, and they
should bear in mind that the mutiny in. India was wanton
and unprovoked by any act of Government in that country.
Mr. BRIGHT said he thought the right honourable
gentleman had contradicted himself in some particulars
of his statement. With the exception of a slight colouring,
which he could scarcely avoid from his position, he ap-
proved of the speech of the noble lord the Secretary
for India. However, from the case put by the noble
lord, it appeared that it was almost impossible for
India to be in a worse position with reference to finance,
and they should remember that the question of finance was
one that involved the prosperity and social and political
condition of a country. (Hear, hear.) It appeared, from the
noble lord's statement that, with' the projected loan, the
debt of India would amount to £80,000,000, and they had
the admitted fact before them that the expenditure of India
was increasing and its revenue constantly diminishing.
(Hear, hear.) In this state of things it appeared they were
endeavouring to raise not only £7,000,000 for India and the
Government in that country were endeavouring to raise
there a loan at 51 for a certain period, at the expiration of
which it would be impossible to repay what was borrowed,
Gne of their sources of revenue, that of the opium trade,
would in all probability be dried uy, for if this
country had so weakened the moral feelings of
the Chinese that the admitted opium, they would
begin to cultivate it for themselves. There was
£4,000,000 derived from that traffic, and that deficit would
be an additional drawback on the financial prosperity of the
country. Although there had been a change in the govern-
ment of India, it was one only of form, and not of prin-
ciple. (Hear.) Having strongly denounced the policy inva-
riably pursued in India as unwise, cruel, and extortionate,
he drew atention to the fact that there was no control
or check over the most reckless expenditure, and money
was poured out like water in India.
[LEFT SPEAKING.]

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DA r. )

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)
JUDGMENT. JONES V. NEGITS.
This is an administration suit under the will of the late
Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes by his will devised his real and
personal estate to trustees, and directed them to pay two-
thirds of the yearly produce or income thereof to his wife
for her own use, and the remaining one-third to his two
daughters, Mary and Sarah Anne Hughes, before at-
taining the age of twenty-one, for any education or
maintenance that they might respectively require, and,
on attaining the age of twenty-one, then they were
to be paid equally one-third of the produce of his estate for
life, the survivor, or their children, succeeding the prede-
cessor ; and on their death without children, to his wife
absolutely. The question raised was whether the bequests
vested in the first tenants for life, whether they died 'with-
out issue or not ?

His Honour considered the question a question of nicety
not yet determined. He thought the authorities might be
classed' under two distinct heads—first, where there
were issue left of the children predeceasing, then
the gift over went to their children ; and second,
where the children died without leaving any issue,
then the natural meaning is that the children would take
equally on their survivorship. Then there might be an-
other class of cases—the gift being to the issue of the chil-
dren on attaining a specific age, or one or other of them,
with the gift over to a third person, in the event of one or
both of them dying before or after attaining the specified
ago of 21. Lord Eldon's opinion.-was in favour of the
construction of the survivorship of the children
first named, and not in favour of the issue of children
dying before or under that particular age. His Honour
referred to the decided cases of Harrison v. Graham, Wil-
mott v. I,Vilmott, and the case of Daniel v. Dove, before
Sir William Grant, as authorities mention.' in the course
of the arguments in this case, but none of these settled the
rule of construction that ought to be applied to this case.
His Honour was of opinion (not without some difficulty)
that the intention of the testator was, that the bequests to
his children and their issue was for life, and that the gift
over was not to take effect until the decease of the survivor
of them, the children succeeding their parents, and de-
clared accordingly.

Costs to be proportioned according to the bequests of the
respective ;parties—one-third to be paid by the children,
and two-thirds by the widow.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

:MPORTANT APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE FROM CUS-

TODY-IN RE COSTER AND DAVIS.

This was an application on behalf of the bankrupts, who
had carried on business in the Minories.

The application was opposed on the part of the assignee
and detaining creditor on the ground that this was the
third bankruptcy of Davis, who had not passed his exami-
nation under the second petition. It was also alleged that
Coster had passed under three different names, as Judah
Coster, Judah Mathew Coster, and Judah Coster Coster.
The assignee said it was believed the bankrupts had re-
ceived a sum not long before their bankruptcy, and the only
trace of which was a sum of money paid to the bankrupts to
enable them to file a petition. It was also stated that the
bankrupts had been arrested under the act for the proven-
don of debtors leaving the kingdom ; and on a motion made
to Mr. Baron Bramwell, that learned judge refused bo re-
lease them.

His Honour asked whether there was an affidavit in. sup-
port of the allegation ?

The solicitor to the assignee replied in the affirma-tive ;
they were read, and it was sworn that Davis distinctly told
a person that they intended to go abroad in a fortnight, and
it was further sworn that they had a large quantity of pro-
perty packed up ready for removal. Counter affidavits had
been filed.

His Honour held that the Act of Parliament under which
the bankrupts applied to this Court did net give power to
the Court when bankrupts were in custody on a warrant of
one of the learned judges, who, after hearing both aides,
had refused to discharge them. He thought that a case
of fraud had been made out by one creditor, and that grant-
ing a discharge under this act would be assisting a system
of swindling.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MANSION-HOUSE.

ROBBERY BY AN OLD SERVANT.--IV. Skeateg, an
elderly, respectable-looking man, was charged with stealing -
a number of articles of small value from the shop of Messrs
Cook and Son, of Cannon-street, in whose service h. had
been twenty-three years.

Mr. Buchanan appeared for the prisoner.
Russell, City detective, proved finding the property
on the prisoner, who admitted that it belonged to his
employers.

Mr. Buchanan urged upon the Lord Mayor not to send
the prisoner for trial, but, remembering his long and
faithful services, to deal summarily with the case.
The Lord Mayor said he usually sent these cases for
trial, but in the present instance he should remand the pri-
soner to petty sessions.
Remanded accordingly.