verpool. 19. Ann, from Cape. - 21. Oglethorpe, from China.-28. Lady East, from Singapore. Freight to London (April 5)—£4. 15s. per ton. DEATHS. Dec. 7. At Bencoolen, James Grant, Esq., of that place. Jan. 12, 1834. At Batavia, of cholera, Alexander Hare, Esq., junior. March 9. At Tengaragong, in Java, David Alexander Fraser, Esq., aged 47. China. SHIPPING. Arrivals.-Feb. 2. Canada, from Manilla. — 3. Pleades, from Batavia. - 5. Orwell, from N. S. Wales.-7. Skimmer, from Singapore.-8. Austen and Carron, both from Batavia. 12. Governor Stirling, from Batavia. 13. Frances Charlotte, from Singapore.-18. Washington, from Batavia; Maria, from Manilla; and Georgiana, from Samarang.-20. Amanda, from London.-21. Alert, from London; Philip the First, from Liverpool; and Thetis, from Batavia.-25. Camden, from Batavia.-March 8. Pyramus, from Batavia. Departures.-March 16. Elizabeth, for Canada. -23. Moira and William Money, both for ditto. Freight to London direct (March 11)-Silk, £8. per ton of 60 cubic feet; other goods, £7. per do. New South Wales. BIRTHS. Aug. 27, 1833. At Brush Farm, the lady of Thos. Foster, Esq., of a son. Sept. 20. Mrs. George Morris, of a daughter. 28. At Sydney, the lady of James Norton, Esq, solicitor, of a son. Oct. 10. The lady of Edye Manning, Esq., of a daughter. At Sydney, the lady of Sydney Stephen, Esq., of a daughter (since dead). 12. The lady of Capt. Church, of a daughter. 19. At Auburn Cottage, Surrey Hills, the wife of the Rev. D. Cargill, of a daughter. 21. At Port Stephens, the lady of Sir Edward Parry, of a son. Nov. 6. At Armandale, the lady of Lieut. Johnston, R.N., of a son and heir. 9. At Belle-Ombre, Cook's River, Mrs. Prout, of a daughter, still-born. 22. At Sydney, Mrs. John Malcolm, of a son. 28. At Kirkham, the lady of W. H. Dutton, Esq., of a daughter. Dec. 4. Mrs. Bloomfield, of Dagworth, of a son. 15. The lady of John Lamb, Esq., of a son, 17. Mrs. Wm. E. Riley, of Raby, of a son. 19. Mrs. Wm. Wilson, of a daughter. 21. At Spring Hill, Illawarra, the lady of Charles Waldron, Esq., J. P., of a son, being her 15th child. 28. The lady of George Weller, Esq., of a son. Jan. 2, 1834. At Sydney, the lady of John Lord, Esq., of a daughter. 14. Mrs. John Buckland, of a son. 17. At Annandale Cottage, the lady of Thomas Collins, Esq., of a daughter. 18. The lady of Capt. Brown, of a daughter. 21. At Point Piper, the lady of Thos. Icely, Esq., of a son. 28. At Sydney, the wife of the Rev. George Erskine, of a son. The lady of Dr. C. Smith, of a son. 30. Mrs. Geo. Allen, of Toxteth Park, of a son. 31. At Sydney, the lady of James B. Bettington, Esq., of a daughter. Feb. 4. At Sydney, Mrs. Henderson, of a son. 6. At Sydney, the lady of J. E. Turner, Esq., of H.M. Customs, of a son. 9. The lady of Dr. Jeannerett, of a son. 15. At Sydney, the lady of Frederick Parbury, Esq., of a son. 18. At Oakhampton Park, the lady of Robert Lethbridge, Esq., of a daughter. 22. At the Glebe, the lady of Skeine Craig, Esq., of a son (since dead). MARRIAGES. Sept. 10, 1833. At Sydney, Mr. G. T. Graham, of Kinross, Hunter's River, to Miss Janet Thomson Carmichael, sister of the Rev. H. Carmichael, A.M., of the Australian College. 18. At Government House, Parramatta, Edward Deas Thomson, Esq., F.L S., clerk of the Executive and Legislative Councils, to Anna Maria, second daughter of His Exc. Maj. Gen. Bourke, C.B., Governor-in-chief of N. S. Wales, &c. &c. Oct. 1. At Windsor, Archibald Bell, Esq., of Corinda, Hunter's River, to Frances Ann, eldest daughter of Samuel North, Esq., J. P., policemagistrate, Windsor. 7. At Sydney, Richard Morgan, Esq., of Concord, to Miss Margaret Murphy. 29. At Sydney, Wm. Hebblewhite, Esq., to Miss Sarah Ann Wayling. 30. At Liverpool, Kinnear Robertson, Esq., to Catherine, youngest daughter of John Throsby, Esq., of Leicester. Nov. 25. At Sydney, Lieut. Arthur Corbett, R.N., to Anna Jane, widow of the late Mr. W. Rogers, under-sheriff of the colony. Dec. 4. At Sydney, the Rev. Henry Carmichael, professor, Australian College, to Mrs. McLymont, late of Hunter's River. 20. At Sydney, Edward Webster, Esq., surgeon, to Catherine, eldest daughter of Mr. G. McDonald, Parramatta. 21. At Richmond, Lieut. H. Reynolds, 2d or Queen's Royals, to Ann, eldest daughter of Wm. Cox, Esq., of Hobart Ville, Richmond. 24. At Sydney, William Henry, third son of Geo. Suttor, Esq., of Balkham Hills, to Charlotte Augusta, youngest daughter of Mr. H. Francis, of Sydney. 27. At Sydney, Wm. H. Clark, Esq., captain 4th or King's Own Regt., to Miss H. J. Manning, eldest daughter of J. E. Manning, Esq., of UItimo House. 28. At Sydney, Robert Towns, Esq., commander of the ship Brothers, to Sophia, second daughter of the late D'Arcy Wentworth, Esq., of Homebush Farm. Jan. 11, 1834. At Sydney, R. S. Webb, Esq., of H.M. Customs, to Ann, second daughter of Capt. Fisher, of Sydney. 27. At Sydney, Willoughby James Dowling, Esq., to Miss Dickson, of Sydney. 28. At Parramatta, Wm. Brooks, Esq.. of Dalziel, Hunter's River, to Miss Elizabeth Evans, of Castle Pill, near Milford, county of Pembroke. Feb. 17. At Sydney, Ambrose Wm. Wilson, Esq., to Miss Josephs, of Sydney. 18. At Windsor, Alfred Kennerley, Esq., to Jane, second daughter of Richard Rouse, Esq., of Rouse Hill. 27. At his seat, Waddon, near Parramatta, in his 74th year, John Palmer, Esq., assistant commissary-general. Oct. 16. At Denham Court, Richard Brooks, Nov. 22. At Sydney, Mr. Thomas Brett. 21. At Clairville, John Stephen, Esq., late puisne judge of the Supreme Court. 28. At Spring Hill, Illawarra, Charles Waldron, Esq., J. P. The death of this gentleman was accelerated by the violence used towards him by his servants. 29. At Parramatta, Mr. Wm. Batman, aged 69. Jan. 9, 1834. At Sydney, George Bunn, Esq., J. P., brother of the lessee of Drury Lane and Covent Garden Theatres. He was for many years one of the first merchants in Sydney. 10. At Sydney, aged 66, Mr. Thomas Callicott. Feb. 4. John Horsley, Esq., coroner for the district of Liverpool. 10. At Sydney, aged 66, Mrs. Eliz. Hassall. 25. At Sydney, Lieut. Hewson, of H.M. 4th regt. of Foot. Lately. At Sydney, Mrs. John Folkard. April 8. At Cape Town, J. H. Jackson, Esq., Bombay civil service, to Catherine Johanna, second daughter of John Rabe, Esq. 14. At Cape Town, Mr. Louis Petrus Cauvin to Charlotte Jane, daughter of the late R. Woodcock, Esq. 19. At Rondebosch, K. B. Hamilton, Esq., clerk of the Council, Cape of Good Hope, to Emma Matilda, only daughter of Charles Blair, Esq. At Cape Town, J. M. Ross, Esq., captain 5th regt. Madras N.I., to Miss Emma Amalia Siegruhn. 25. At Drooge Valley, Lieut. John Hill, Madras army, to Jane, second daughter of William Proctor, Esq. DEATHS. April 2. Richard Wrankmore, Esq., aged 68. 14. At the Cape, Ann, widow of the late Lieut. Col. Smith, St. Helena artillery, aged 65. 24. At Cape Town, Henry Sargent, Esq., of the Bengal Civil service, aged 45. Postscript to Asiatic Intelligence. A few Madras Gazettes have been received of a later date than those cited in the preceding pages: they contain little additional intelligence. A deficiency to the amount of 20,000 Rs, has been discovered in the cash chest of the Sudder Adawlut. Amongst the persons taken up was Woodiaghery Audeenarrain Braminy (who kept one of the keys), a native of high character for honour and integrity, filling a responsible office in the court. He was liberated on paying 7,000 rupees. The campaign against the Coorg Raja was expected to be a severe one, owing to the difficult nature of the country. The force is 6,000 men, under Col. Lindesay. The commander-in-chief has left the presidency to be present in the field, Advices from Aleppo state that Ibrahim Pasha has chastised the Koram and Zara Arabs of the desert, who plunder the caravans. Of the latter, 3,000 familles have been cut to pieces. Mehemet Ali, it is added, has abolished the internal monopoly established by him in Syria and Egypt. Since writing the above, files of Calcutta and Madras papers have reached us, on the eve of publication their contents will be given in a supplement. DEBATE AT THE EAST-INDIA HOUSE. East-India House, July 9. A Special General Court of Proprietors of East-India Stock was this day held, at the Company's House in Leadenhallstreet. ALLOWANCES TO MARITIME SERVANTS. The minutes of the last court having been read The Chairman (H. St. George Tucker, Esq.) said: "I have now. the honour to inform you, that this court is specially summoned, for the purpose of there being laid before the proprietors the case submitted to the Company's standing counsel, in pursuance of the General Court's resolution of the 18th ult., together with his opinion thereon, respecting the grant of compensations under the provisions of the Act 3d and 4th William IV., cap. 85, sec. 7. I now propose that the question and the answer be read." Mr. Lush suggested whether it would not be desirous that the whole case should be read, and not the opinion alone, which had been seen by many of the proprietors. Mr. Fielder said, the whole case consisted merely of references to certain Acts of Parliament, and to the By-laws. The Chairman said, the case which had been submitted to counsel should be read, but no other papers. The case was then read at length. It recited certain enactments, from the 10th of William III., passed in 1698, on which the Company's charter was founded-also from the 33d, 53d, and the 55th of Geo. III., from the By-laws of the Company, and from the 3d and 4th of William IV. On these extracts, which related to the powers of the Court of Directors and Proprietors, with reference to the right of granting salaries exceeding £200, and compensations exceeding £600, raised the following Question. was "Whether the present compensation under the Act of 3d and 4th of William IV., cap. 85, sec. 7, can be made by the Court of Directors, without being previously submitted to and sanctioned by the Court of Proprietors, if the sum exceeded £600 ?" Answer. I am of opinion that the grant of compensation, &c. under sec. 7 of the new Act, may be made by the Court of Directors, with the approbation and confirmation of the India Board, without such grants being previously submitted to and sanctioned by the General Court of Proprietors, though the same may exceed £600. "The Court of Directors are authorized in the most ample manner to act in all matters whatever for the Company, where their powers are not expressly restrained, and where specific functions are not to be exercised by the Court of Proprietors. The Court of Directors, with the sanction है of the Court of Proprietors, and the Court of Proprietors separately, are restrained in certain cases from making additions to salaries, and giving gratuities, without the approbation and confirmation of the India Board. The enactments of the Legislature on this subject ar followed up by bylaws to the same effect, applicable to the proceedings of the Court of Directors, on proposing such measures previously to their being laid before the India Board. "I am of opinion, however, that the compensations, superannuations, and allowances contemplated in sec. 7, are not gratuities,' or, as expressed in the by-laws, given by way of gratuities,' within the meaning of the Acts of Parliament, or of the By-laws. They are compensations founded on just moral considerations, though not amounting to legal claims, to be awarded to persons whose reasonable expectations of permanent employment and provision in life, are disappointed by the abolition of the Company's trade, and the altered footing on which its establishments are placed. The gratuities' to any officers, civil or military, or any other person,' meant by the Act, and intended to be restrained, were grants of money for some extraordinary service, the occasions for which might, from their indefinite character, have led to abuse. The grants under the 7th section appear to be wholly of a different nature, and being authorized by the Legislature under new circumstances, are not liable to the same suspicion. I believe this construction has been put upon the word gratuity,' in circumstances much more questionable than those arising under the new Act. As there is no provision in the Charters, Acts of Parliament, or By-laws, requir ing the previous sanction of the Court of Proprietors to what the Court of Directors do on the part of the Company under sect. 7, I am of opinion, as above stated, that the grants in question may be lawfully and effectually made by the Court of Directors without such previous sanction. "Perhaps I may be permitted to say further, although not strictly required by the terms of the question, that I am of opinion, notwithstanding the Court of Directors, or the legal organs of the Company, have the power to settle and adjust any scheme of compensation, under section 7, which, on receiving the approbation and confirmation of the India Board, will become fixed, the General Court of Proprietors still retain all the authorities which are compatible with the established system of control, in this as in many other cases. "The General Court of Proprietors are not excluded from bringing the subject before them in the regular and usual form for discussion, and adopting such resolutions as they may see fit, in the progress of the measures rendered necessary by sec. 7; but I do not think the previous sanction of the Court of Proprietors required to the validity of the compensations proposed by the Court of Directors, and approved by the India Board. In fact, the compensations to be made are to be taken out of the funds ceded to the Crown, in aid of the sources out of which the dividend is secured, and are incumbrances upon it. Indeed, the object and circumstances of these grants hardly fall under the scope of the restraining acts with respect to grants of money, which all profess to have in view, the protection of the Company's funds from undue charges or gratuities." Mr. Weeding then proceeded to address the court. He assured the court that he felt sincere regret at being obliged to bring before them a question deeply involving the privileges of the proprietors, at one of the first courts held under the new state of things. It had, however, appeared to him to be necessary to introduce the subject at the last general a course. court, and he repeated, that he greatly regretted being compelled to take such But the object was of great importance. It concerned others, many of their valued servants, whose interests were deeply at stake, and it more immediately concerned the vindication of the privileges of the General Court from an error in practice of the Court of Directors. When he said an error of practice, he could assure the Court of Directors that he had no wish to impute to them an error of intention; it was not, of course, his object to impute any improper motive to those gentlemen; he was certain that they were impressed with a strong desire to promote the interests of the East-India Company generally, and that they harboured no wish intentionally to do wrong. He believed that the mind of his hon. friend who now occupied the chair of that court, was too well inclined to the interests of the East-India Company to wish to destroy its priviliges; that he was too sensible of the good, which the General Court had accomplished in times past, to abate a jot of the power which might enable it to do good in time to come. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Chairman would concur with the gentlemen on that side of the bar, and that he would endeavour, with his colleagues, to correct the error that had been committed. It was an error of so grave a nature, it aimed so deathlike a blow at the power and privileges of the EastIndia Company, that all who wished well to the interests of the Company must de sire to see it rectified. (Hear, hear!) The hon. Chairman had proposed, at the last court, that the opinion of the Company's standing counsel should be taken on this subject. That opinion had now been read and he was sorry to say that it was not in the least degree satisfactory to him. It was, in fact, anything but convincing (Hear, hear!) He regretted, also, that the case out of which that opinion arose, was imperfect. He gave every credit to their ingenious solicitor for the manner in which it was drawn up. He had, however, omitted one thing which he certainly ought to have stated. What he alluded to was the practice of the court, with reference to reasons being submitted to it in the form of a report, when pensions or grants of money, beyond a certain amount, were proposed by the Court of Directors. Had their solicitor touched upon that point, the case would then have been complete, and he should have had no fault to find with it. That deficiency he, however, should endeavour to supply, and then the proprietors would have the whole of the facts fairly before them, and they would then be enabled to decide for themselves. With respect to the case itself and to the The learned "that com opinion of the learned counsel, he was sorry it had fallen to his lot, unprofessional as he was, to offer his judgment in opposition to it. But no personal feeling ought to prevent him, or any other proprietor, from doing his duty, however painful it might be to him. He trusted he should not be accused of presumption, if, looking at the opinion of the learned counsel, he felt himself called on to say, that it appeared to be at variance with the facts of the case which had been subImitted to him.. The learned counsel's reasoning was directly opposed to the judgment he had given, and his argument was inconclusive. Having said this, it would be necessary for him to show that such was the case, and he thought that he should be able to do so. counsel set out with stating, pensation, under sec. 7 of the Act of the 3d and 4th William IV. may be made by the Court of Directors, with the approbation and confirmation of the Board of Control, without previously being submitted to the Court of Proprietors, though the amount exceeded £600." Now they were directed in the case to look to the Company's charter, from which an extract was made. And what then did the charter say? It set forth, "that the Court of Directors should have the power to manage generally the affairs of the Company, except where they were restrained by the by-laws, orders, and resolutions of the General Court." Now, was such the fact in the present case? Certainly it was so; and if they looked to the by-law, sect. 19, cap. 6, they would find it contained a very decided restriction. That by-law ordained, "that every resolution of the Court of Directors for granting a new pension, or an increase of pension exceeding in the whole £200 per annum, should be laid before and approved of by two general courts, specially summoned for that purpose; and again it was ordained by sect. 20, cap. 6, of the bylaws," that every resolution of the Court of Directors for granting to any person, by way of gratuity, any sum of money exceeding in the whole £600, shall be laid before and approved by two general courts, specially summoned for that purpose. He would ask, were these by-laws intended for the regulation of the proceedings of the court in making grants of money, or were they not? Here they found the by-laws clearly restricting the power of the Court of Directors. Now if that were so, and he had proved that it was, he thought that they must come to the conclusion that the decision of the learned counsel was incorrect. With respect to the practice of the court, the opinion of the learned counsel, as well as the proceeding which gave rise to this discussion, was decidedly erroneous. He could point out several instances where grants in the then was that condition been nature of compensations were laid before agreed to after seven date, and the Court of Proprietors. Indeed, he could quote a multitude of cases of that kind, but as he did not wish to take up the time of the court unnecessarily, one or two would be sufficient. In 1820, a grant was made to Mr. Robert Markland Barnard, who was assistant warehouse keeper in the Coast and Surat depart ment. They gave him an annuity of £1,000, and before that grant was ratified the directors laid the case, in the form of a report, before the proprietors, in which they stated the ground on which they recommended this claim. And what was the ground? Why, it was the very same that the Company's commercial officers now put forward, namely, the want of any suitable employment for Mr. Barnard in the Company's service, and the severe disappointment to his hope of succeeding to a more lucrative post, which has been cut off by the arrangements recently adopted." These arrangements were the abolition of his office, in consequence of the trade in Surat and Coast piece-goods having fallen off; they had, therefore, no occasion for him in that department of the Company's service, and they recommended to the Court of Proprietors that a certain compensation should be made to him. The same course was taken in 1823, when an alteration was made in the pensions of the judges in India. On that occasion the directors came to the Court of Proprietors for their sanction. Also, for an allowance to the Bishop of Calcutta, for visitation and residence. This had been done from time immemorial where the pension exceeded £200, or the gratuity was above £600. He believed that scarcely a case could be pointed out in which that course had not been adopted. Here they had the statute-law, and the by-laws, and the ground of prescription, in favour of bringing these grants before the Court of Proprietors. doctrine was fully borne out by the quotations which he had made; and he saw no reason why, under these circumstances, they were to be bound by the opinion of the learned counsel. He now came to a most important resolution-the resolution agreed to on the 3d of May 1833-the sound of which was still in their ears.In calling the notice of the Court to that resolution, That which was finally carried by a ballot, when a majority of nine to one appeared in its favour? What was the condition, he asked, in consequence of which they gave up their commercial assets, in consequence of which they surrendered those means by which they were enabled to employ, and to reward, those meritorious servants who now complained that their claims were treated lightly? He should read that condition, and if its terms were not complied with, then he would ask, was not their bond unsealed, and was it not their duty to inquire why a part of the obligation only, and not the whole of it, had been fulfilled? Some gentlemen, especially those who did not like the arrangement at all, might be tempted to inquire whether they were not again at liberty to embark in trade; whether, the contract being in part vitiated, the rest of it should remain in force. The fourth proposition moved by the late Sir John Malcolm was, "that a sufficient power be retained over the commercial assets, to enable the Court of Directors to propose to the Company, (let gentlemen mark the words) to propose to the Company, (surely not to the Directors themselves) to propose to the Company, and ultimately to the Board, for their confirmation, a plan for making suitable provisions for outstanding obligations, and for such of the commercial officers and servants of the Company as may be affected by the proposed arrangements.' Now could it be pretended that the act of parliament did not embrace the whole of this condition? It could only be denied by those who felt it convenient to read acts of parliament in that way which best suited their own views; but this would not do for men of sense, who looked to the reason and propriety of things. The Company had given up every thing they possessed except this control over a part of their commercial assets. That was to be kept in petto-it was theirs-it was held by them to fulfil their engagements with such of their officers and servants might be affected by the new measure. The words expressly were, to enable the Court of Directors to propose to the Company," &c. Did that mean the Court of Directors? It could mean nothing if it meant not the general body of proprietors. He knew that it was for the Court of Directors, at any time, to originate such measures, either of a pecuniary or of any other nature, that they might think proper. To that no man would object, as it tended greatly to the convenience of business. But it would not be argued, that the approbation of the proprietors might be dispensed with. What said the seventh section of the new 66 as |