The house has no book debts, with the exception of two sums amounting together to £25. Of the £65,734 against produce in the debtor account, it is probable that £47,116 will be provided by other parties. It is also probable that there will be a heavy deficit in the amount of consignments to France. The separate estates of the partners will be available, subject to the payment of private debts. The house holds a deed of assign. ment of the indigo properties of the Calcutta house, executed by one of the partners while in this country, and which properties are valued at not less than £90,000. This deed was given to the agent, who left with full powers for Calcutta by the mail of the 20th October. The house will receive, in the course of the season, the surplus over outlay of the indigo crop of the season, which at a very low estimate will be £25,000. Remittances are also expected from Calcutta to the amount of £55,000, and which would be forwarded before the stoppage was known: £10,000 of this has arrived, and £5,000 is expected by the present mail. The following resolution was, on the motion of Mr. J. A. Smith, M. P., unanimously adopted : "That it is expedient that the affairs should be liquidated under the direction of inspectors, and that the following gentlemen be requested to act as such inspectors:-Mr. Alexander Matheson, M.P., Mr. Thomas Dent, and Mr. C. Joyce; and that a dividend be paid as soon as funds can be realized, and that a proper deed be prepared, under the direction of the inspectors, containing such clauses and provisions as are usual, to be submitted to the creditors for approval. That Mr. Thurburn, sen., having come over from Egypt, and having hitherto taken no active part in the business, be allowed to return to Egypt, and that the liquidation be conducted by Mr. Thurburn, jun." MESSRS. BROWNRIGG, MILLER, AND CO. This house, a Liverpool East-India house, stopped payment on the 30th ult. Up During the last ten days rumours have been in circulation of an East-India firm being in difficulties. It is, however, at length in our power to state that the affair is definitively arranged. Application had been made to the Bank for an advance of £300,000; but it stipulated that this could be conceded only on the house providing guarantees for its repayment. to a late hour yesterday it was still doubtful if the necessary list would be filled, but it was fully completed this morning, and submitted to the Bank Court for their decision. That decision has been favourable.-City article, Thursday evening, Times, Dec. 3. [The house referred to is that of Fletcher, Alexander, and Co. and it is now stated that with the assistance afforded by the Bank, the firm Intend to bring their affairs to a close.] "An account of all sums advanced by the Government of India on the hypothecation of goods in each of the years from 1839 to 1846, both inclusive, with the rate or rates of exchange at which in each year such sums have been advanced; and the credit given for the repayment of such advances. Also an account of the amount of all bills drawn upon the several presidencies in India, respectively, by the Court of Directors of the East-India, in each of the years from 1839 to 1846, both inclusive, with the rate or rates at which such bills were drawn in each year, and the numbers of days after date or sight at which such bills were made payable; also a copy of the notification issued by the Government of India on the 5th August, 1843, with respect to the proposed discontinuance of advances on the hypothecation of goods, and of any official report which led to the issue of such notification, and of all correspondence between the Government of India and the Court of Directors relative to such proposed discontinuance of such advances; also copies of all memorials or representations addressed to the Commissiouers for the Affairs of India or the Court of Directors by merchants in England with respect to such advances, together with the replies from 1839 to 1846, both inclusive, and also copies of any agreement entered into by any company or companies for constructing railways in India with the Government of India or the Court of Directors of the East-India, whereby any amount of interest is guaranteed to such railway company." Agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Nov. 26.-The Case of the ex-Rajah of Satlara.-Mr. HUME rose for the purpose of putting the question, of which he had given notice, namely, whether, after the publicity of Major Carpenter's declaration of his belief of the ex-Rajah of Sattara's undoubted innocence of the charges brought against him, any measures had been adopted by the Board of Controul to allow the ex-Rajah to prove his innocence, which he was able and ready to do, if an opportunity were afforded him, as stated in the papers before Parliament? The hon. member said that it was due to the honour and character of the country that justice should be done to the unfortunate prince who was the subject of his question. A document had been written by an officer of the East-India Company, which went altogether to exculpate the Rajah from the charges which had been made against him, and under the colour of which charges he had been deprived of his throne, and yet that document was not alluded to by the hon. baronet opposite (Sir J. Hogg) when, in his official character, he had signed a paper agreeing in the treatment which the Rajah had received. The officer who wrote that document (Major Carpenter) was appointed by the Company to inquire into the subject, and yet the hon. baronet appeared to be ignorant of its existence. Sir J. W. HOGG said that Major Carpenter had been directed to inquire, but he had not been directed by the Government to deliver any opinion on the subject. Mr. HUME considered that no justification to the Government for not publishing a document which went altogether to exculpate the deposed prince who had been the subject of Major Carpenter's inquiry. Was that a justification of their having asked the Rajah to declare himself guilty? What was the answer made by the Rajah to that request? He said he would rather die than do so -that there were two things which nothing could induce him to do, namely, to abjure his religion or injure the East-India Company. When he (Mr. Hume) investigated the circumstances under which the Rajah had been deposed, he felt convinced that he had been deposed unjustly; and he now asked for the production of the documents referred to by Major Carpenter, in order fully to establish the innocence of the Rajah of the charges which had been made against him. He (Mr. Hume) had now for five or six years been endeavouring to obtain justice for the Rajah, and if his demand were refused, he would continue his exertions as long as he had a seat in that house. That prince had been at one time declared to be an example to Indian princes. He had received a sword from the Indian Government, and in six months after that occurrence he was deposed and sent into exile on an unproved chargeon a charge of which he was totally innocent. The important document to which he had alluded was the letter of Major Carpenter, in which that officer, who had been appointed to inquire, stated that the Rajah had pledged himself to prove his innocence if he were permitted to do so,-a pledge which Major Carpenter said he (Major Carpenter) was fully persuaded the Rajah would be able to maintain. (Hear, hear.) Was it not due, then, to the justice and honour of England to permit the unfortunate prince to prove his innocence, if he were capable of doing so, as he undoubtedly was? (Hear, hear.) He held in his hand a letter from the Rajah to the Governor-General of India, in which he stated that he had been sent into exile on charges which had never been stated to him. The Rajah had not up to the present time received an answer to that letter, although it was written in 1844. He hoped that, although the President of the Board of Controul was not in the house, the Government would now explain those circumstances, and at length do justice to the deposed prince. The hon. member then, in addition to the question with which he commenced his speech, moved "For copies of all documents referred to by Major Carpenter (in his letter of the 25th day of May, 1846, to the Secretary of the Governor-General, Parliamentary Paper, No. 711, of session 1847), by which disclosures respecting the proceedings at Sattara had been made, that confirmed beyond a doubt Major Carpenter's belief of the innocence of the ex-Rajah of Sattara, now an exile and a prisoner at Benares, and under the surveillance of Major Carpenter, by order of the East-India Company: and of a letter from his Highness the deposed Rajah of Sattara to the Right Hon. Sir Henry Hardinge, Governor-General of India, dated Benares, December 12, 1844, together with all minutes and correspondence connected therewith." Mr. EWART seconded the motion. Mr. G. C. LEWIS regretted the absence of the President of the Board of Controul, who was far more competent than he could pretend to be to reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Montrose. He had not the honour to be in the house in the last session, and his recent appointment to the India Board had prevented him from making himself acquainted with the details of the case. He admitted the credit attaching to the hon. member for Montrose for his energetic and persevering advocacy of this cause in the house, but he trusted that the house would excuse him if he strictly confined himself to the question of which notice had been given. And, in the first instance, he would enter his protest against the admission of the innocence of the Rajah, and against any important inferences being drawn from the paper to which reference had so often been made. Major Carpenter was the agent of the Governor-General of India, and the Rajah of Sattara was placed under his superintendence. Major Carpenter had had no access to any original documents bearing upon the case, and he (Mr. G. C. Lewis) could not see how the Majorwith the exception of having personal communication with the Rajah-could possess any exclusive means of knowledge on the subject. Sir John Hobhouse was perfectly aware of these facts when he expressed the opinion he did on the matter when it was last before the house. The despatch of Major Carpenter had been in Sir John Hobhouse's possession since Aug. 1846, but that did not alter his opinion. In answer to the actual question of the hon. member, he had only to say that no step had been taken by the Government in consequence of the publicity given to Major Carpenter's despatch. There was no objection to the production of the papers moved for, but he believed that they were mostly all contained in the returns already laid on the table. With respect to the letter from the Rajah to Sir Henry Hardinge, no copy of it had been officially transmitted to England; but instructions had been sent out by the last mail for it to be forthwith despatched home. (Hear, hear.) Before he sat down he wished to correct one mistake into which the hon. member had fallen. Sir John Hobhouse did not say that Major Carpenter's despatch contained nothing favourable to the Rajah, but that the Governor-General's despatch was unfavourable to him. Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON said, there was nothing which he more fully and firmly believed than the innocence of the Rajah. Not one tittle of direct evidence had ever been adduced against him. Major Carpenter had expressly stated that the Rajah was a man transparent and honest even to a fault. He (Mr. G. Thompson) would deem it his duty to aid the hon. member for Montrose in pressing the matter on the house, and whenever the house granted an inquiry he would undertake to demonstrate that the Rajah was an innocent man. He could prove that every document produced to condemn the Rajah was a forgery and a fabrication-that every witness against him was a perjured man; he could tell how much each got for what he said and did. It was a conspiracy to depose the Rajah. It was because he wished to send agents of his own to the Court of Directors, with reference to his claims, that the conspiracy was set on foot which ended in the dethronement of the Rajah of Sattara. (Hear.) Sir J. W. HOGG remarked, that as to the broad and sweeping charge of conspiracy made by the hon. member who had just spoken, implicating every authority in India-every individual, European or native, who, in the discharge of his duty, had found the Rajah guilty, he would only entreat the house to bear in mind that Sir Robert Grant was the Governor of Bombay, that he and all the members of his council unanimously, yet reluctantly, came to the conclusion that the Rajah was guilty; that two successive Governors of Bombay, and every successive member of council in that presidency, had come to the same conclusion; and that the then Governor-General of India, the Earl of Auckland, as distinguished a man as ever ruled over India, with the members of his council, had also concurred in the justice of the decision. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman had told them that he was well acquainted with all the despatches, and was convinced of the Rajah's innocence. He had no reason to doubt the hon. gentleman's sincerity of purpose, or the honesty of his conviction, but why should not those who had had better opportunities than the hon. gentleman of becoming acquainted with the case,-men of as high honour, and as intelligent, and acting under an imperious sense of public duty, have the credit of being equally honest in their conviction of the Rajah's guilt. (Hear, hear.) Setting authority against authority, surely the balance did not favourably incline to the side of the Rajah. All the Governors of Bombay, all the members of that council-as well as Lord Auckland and his council-had painfully and reluctantly agreed upon the case; the Court of Directors at home had coincided with them; so had three snccessive Presidents of the Board of.Controul; the matter had been thus decided over and over again—and that house had refused to alter the decision which they had on so many occasions come to. (Hear.) He had to complain of the colouring which the hon. member for Montrose had given to the papers before the house. The hon. member for Montrose had led the house to understand that the Governor-General of India had referred to a public officer to have his opinion upon the subject, and that he had rebuked that officer when he found the opinion so given adverse to that entertained by himself and the authorities at home. Then the hon. gentleman who spoke last, stated in the Court of Proprietors of the East-India Company, that Major Carpenter had gone to the Rajah and made proposals on the part of the Governor of India, urging him to admit his guilt by holding out the promise that, in that case, he would be reinstated. When he heard that extraordinary statement he felt the greatest surprise, which was shared by all the Directors. Neither he nor they had ever heard of any such communication, and they all agreed in saying it was impossible that it ever could have taken place. [Mr. G. THOMPSON.-I only stated that there were rumours of such proposals.] He did not mean to say that the hon. member spoke of his own personal knowledge; but having made the assertion, what was his inference? "Look," said he, "how conscience-stricken is the Government of India. They endeavour to extricate themselves from the scrape by declaring the Rajah guilty; they then authorize their own agent to make certain propositions to the prince, which they agree to carry into execu tion if he will only consent to put them right with the world by admitting the charge against him to be just." He (Sir J. Hogg) scouted the supposition that there could be any foundation for the story. (Hear, hear.) The Court of Directors took immediate steps to inquire into the matter. They at once sent out a despatch to Lord Hardinge to know if he had authorized Major Carpenter to make the offers asserted to have been made by him, to call on that gentleman for an explanation, and to demand if he had had the hardihood-should it appear that he had not been duly authorized-to enter upon such a communication on his own responsibility. As represented by the hon. member for Montrose, it would appear that Major Carpenter had been called on to offer his opinion about the case, but he (Sir J. Hogg) contradicted the statement that he had been called on to give any opinion at all as to the guilt or innocence of the ex-Rajah. The call made upon Major Carpenter was not for his opinion-it was to reply to the plain question, "Did you or did you not, in dereliction of your duty as a public servant, make such and such statement ?" (Hear, hear.) Great stress had been laid on the value of that gentleman's opinion by the hon member for Montrose, and by the hon. member who had spoken last; but so far from deserving so much consideration, he (Sir J. Hogg) believed that Major Carpenter was, from his position and the peculiar nature of his duties at Benares, the only man in the country whose opinion was altogether worthless. If the Governor-General of India, acting on his own delibe rate conviction, thought that the Rajah was guilty, and, borne out in that conviction by the unanimous judgment of the council, declared that he was to be confined at Benares, and that Major Carpenter was to be placed there in order to see that he was so confined, but that at the same time his confinement was to be made as little irksome as possible, was he who was placed there to act as a sort of gaoler to take upon himself to argue the question of the Rajah's guilt or nnocence? What would they have thought of Sir Hudson Lowe if he had ventured to read a lecture to the Government of the day on the imprisonment of Napoleon, and had sent them home a moral and political sermon? He should have liked to hear him saying to Government-" How atrocious it is to shut up this great man in captivity. I believe him to be innocent. Do pray consider your judgment, and allow him to be at large." Would any member have got up and said, "Oh, here is Sir Hudson Lowe, who knows all the facts of the case, declaring that Napoleon, is innocent. I hope the Government will liberate him." (Hear, hear.) When felons were committed to Newgate the gaoler was not justified in remonstrating with the judge, or, whatever might be his own conviction, in pointing out that the jury had made a mistake, and that the verdict ought to be quashed. (Hear, hear.) Major Carpenter had no new evidence which could have enabled him to come to any more sober conclusion than that already recorded against the Rajah. The fact was, that he could know nothing whatever of the case except what he learned from the contents of the blue book. All he had to do was to take care that the Rajah was kept in safe custody, but at the same time allowed any liberty consistent with such custody. He was not even made aware of the peculiar circumstances which led to the deposal of the Rajah. The Government never even deemed it necessary to make him acquainted with the private history of the affair, and but for certain documents laid before that house, he would have known only what was known to every official in India. The hon. member for Montrose had assumed conversations to have taken place between the Major and the Rajah, he had distinctly declared that the latter had received from that officer certain offers, the nature of which had been detailed to the honse, and the hon. member told his story while holding in his hand a denial in toto, by Major Carpenter, of the charges. When Major Carpenter was applied to, he wrote a despatch, in which he said that the account of conversations between him and the Rajah, read by Mr. G. Thompson at the meeting of the East-India Company, 18th March, 1846, were so very erroneous, and so much at variance with the purport of the numerous consultations he had held with that prince on his affairs, that he must at once pronounce the greater part of them to be purely imaginary; and he goes on to declare that the propositions alluded to by hon. gentlemen opposite were never at any time, directly or indirectly, made by him to the Rajah of Sattara on his own responsibility, or on that of the Governor-General. Now this was a pretty broad disclaimer, sufficiently emphatic to rebut all the charges created by the hon. members. (Hear, hear.) The English language did not admit of a more sweeping denial. (Hear, hear.) Major Carpenter, as a man of honour and integrity, was to be believed, and after his denial, nothing more could be said of his having made the offers of the description alluded to, of having held the asserted conversation. With respect to Major Carpenter's giving his opinion of the Rajah's innocence, that officer could only offer that opinion by violating his duty, and Lord Hardinge spoke unreservedly of the impropriety of his interference. The denial which he tendered to the Governor-General was duly acknowledged; and the remarks which accompanied the acknowledgment were important :— "3. You have (said the secretary), in his Lordship's opinion, very much mistaken your duty to the Government in the position which you occupy, by the course of conduct which you describe yourself to have pursued with regard to the ex-Rajah since he was placed under your charge at Benares. His Lordship is also of opinion that your assertion in the 4th para. of your letter, of your conviction of the ex-Rajah's innocence of the charges of which he was convicted, and of his ability to prove his innocence, is as unbecoming as it is uncalled for. "4. The Government of Bombay, the Government of India for the time being, and the Court of Directors, having convinced themselves of the ex-Rajah's guilt, directed his deposition from the government of the Sattara state, and his removal to Benares. At Benares, you, as the Governor-General's agent, were charged with his personal custody, and the general superintendence of his affairs at that station. With the charges that had been adduced against the ex-Rajah, and with his previous conduct, you had no concern; and, considering your official position, it was to be expected that, while treating the chief with all consideration and kindness, you would scrupulously avoid any discussion of the questions on which the final decision of your Government had been passed, and discourage all allusion to them and the ex-1 -Rajah in your presence." (Ironical cries of "hear, hear," from Mr. Hume.) Lord Hardinge was not a man of less humane disposition, nor was he less competent to judge of the facts than the hon. member for Montrose. The Governor-General said that it was expected Major Carpenter would discourage all allusions to his affairs in any conversation with the Rajah. (Renewed ironical cheers of "hear, hear.") Were those derisive cheers uttered by hon. members because the Governor-General of India told a public officer of the highest importance, whose duties were analogous to those of an ambassador here, that he was not to go to the person at whose court he was placed to endeavour to persuade him that the government he represented there had acted unjustly towards him? could not conceive any man more flagrantly violating his duties than Major Carpenter in this particular case, and the manner in which he had acted shewed of how little value was his opinion. When he was reproved by the Governor-General, he tried to excuse himself for his busy intermeddling with a long rigmarole story, which was told in a letter that commenced with an apology for his conduct, and a confession that "in ordinary circumstances" he would not have acted so. He endeavoured to He shew that this was a peculiar case. But where was the peculiarity? There might have been some justification for his proceedings if he had been in possession of particular information throwing new light on the case, and of which the tribunal that tried the Rajah was ignorant; but this was not the case, and Major Carpenter knew no more than any member of that House. Putting aside, however, all considerations of the Rajah's guilt, the House should consider the circumstances in which the Government was placed with regard to the Rajah. That prince had very little reason to complain of the conduct of Government. He had been taken from a dungeon and placed on the throne of Sattara. When the Government became apprehensive that his conduct would raise a revolt, he was deposed, and an income of £10,000 was allowed him. The income of his whole territory was not more than £100,000. In his present circumstances there was no penury or misery; he was not confined in a prison, but was living in ease at Benares; and whatever Major Carpenter might say, his opinion was that of an individual who had not so acted as to impress his superiors with a sense of the soundness of his judgment. (Loud cheers.) Mr. C. ANSTEY and Mr. WAKLEY supported the motion, which was agreed to. Nov. 30.-The ex-Rajah of Sattara.-Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON moved that the petition of Purtaub Shean, Rajah of Sattara, presented to the House of Commons on the 29th day of July, 1842, be reprinted.-Agreed to. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 22.—Regina v. Douglas.Judgment. (In Banco).-This was an indictment against the defendant, formerly the East-India Company's resident at Tanjore, for having unlawfully, and against the provisions of the Statute, 33 Geo. 3, c. 52, s. 62, accepted presents from certain native princes of India. The indictment consisted of sixty counts. The case was tried before Lord Denman in London, when the defendant was convicted on sixteen of the counts. A motion was afterwards made to arrest the judgment, on the grounds of certain alleged defects in the indictment, and a new trial was applied for on the ground that some evidence had been improperly admitted. These applications had not been successful, except to this extent, that a nolle prosequi was entered as to seven out of the sixteen counts, and the verdict was affirmed upon the remaining nine counts. The defendant was now brought up for judgment. The notes were read, and an affidavit of the defendant in mitigation of punishment was put in. Sir F. THESIGER and Messrs. WIGRAM and FORSYTH addressed the Court in aggravation of punishment: Sir F. KELLY and Mr. PEACOCK in mitigation of punishment. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE then delivered the judgment of the Court. The defendant had been found guilty of an offence which could not be committed without most dangerous consequences. The East-India Company exercised authority in places where it had to deal with states of which the rulers and people often displayed a want of that honour, justice, reverence for the laws, and observance of truth, so much professed among the states of Europe, and which it was absolutely necessary should be observed by the East-India Company. It was necessary, in order to enable the Indian Government successfully to carry on its relations with people often deficient in moral courage to resist temptation; readily, on the one hand, yielding to oppression, and on the other often prepared to effect any favourite object, even of a lawful nature, by indirect means. In consequence of this state of things, it had become necessary to appoint residents at the courts of all these different states. The holders of this high and important office were, of all men, most bound to behave with propriety and honesty in the discharge of their functions. The defendant held this office at the time he had committed the offence of which he had been found guilty. The duty of a resident had been well defined in the course of those proceedings. It was his duty to stand between the Company and the rajah on the one hand, and the rajah and his subjects on the other. The holder of such an office ought to be a person able and anxious to set an example of impartial justice and unspotted integrity; one who, on all occasions, should be determined to prove that the most perfect reliance might be placed on his truth and honesty, and that no indirect means could ever affect him in the discharge of his duty. The Legislature had striven to secure this result. Impelled not by reason only, but by sad experience, it had found it necessary to declare that the receiving by a servant of the Company of any present, under any pretext whatever, was a most serious offence. The Court had felt bound to apply that Act to the circumstances of the present case. The defendant had been found guilty of an offence under that Act, and had set up some excuses by way of inducing the Court to mitigate the punishment. One of these was, his ignorance of the law. The Court desired to believe that, in that allegation of ignorance, the defendant had spoken the truth; but there were circumstances in the case which did not permit the Court to admit it as a ground of mitigation of punishment. The defendant was in office for the second time as resident at the court of the Rajah of Tanjore when he committed the offence of which he was now convicted. On his first taking office, he had taken the prescribed oath, but on the second occasion he avoided it. At the time of his first holding that office, a subordinate had, in the defendant's name, received a present from one of the native princes, and the defendant was at that time so convinced that the act of his servant might lay him open to a grave suspicion of guilt, that he dismissed, in a marked and peremptory manner, that subordi nate from his service, and entered on the records of his office a minute of the dismissal, with the grounds for it. This act of the defendant had been much discussed at the bar; but there could be no doubt that it shewed the belief of the defendant's mind, at that time, as to the heinous nature of the offence of which he had afterwards permitted himself to be guilty. But, for the public purpose of preventing such an offence, it was immaterial whether the individual who committed it was conscious of the great moral guilt of it or not. The act itself was to be prevented. Another ground of mitigation put forward was, that the defendant had committed this offence under the temptation of embarrassed circumstances. This was no excuse. Integrity and honesty were cheap virtues, if they were only to be exhibited by the man whose circumstances placed him above temptation. In the man who exhibited them under the pressure of embarrassed circumstances they became exalted qualities; but, at all events, these embarrassments were no excuse for the violation of duty on the part of a man who, being in possession of a lucrative office, did nevertheless allow his embarrassments to induce him to forego an honest course. The incidental consequences of this prosecutionthe loss of rank, station, and fortune-the affliction of the defendant's family-the imprisonment he had undergone at the commencement of these proceedings, and the anxiety and expense to which he had been subjected by them, had all been feelingly referred to, both in the defendant's affidavit and in the speeches of his learned counsel. It could only be answered, that it was almost always the case, perhaps by the immutable law of justice, that the indirect consequences of an offence were more severe than those which directly flowed from it; but on this circumstance an argument had been addressed to the Court which required to be noticed. The Court had been asked whether, if the defendant had been sentenced immediately after the trial, that sentence would have been so severe as these extrinsic circumstances must now render it. Perhaps it would not; but the sufferings which were the natural result of an offence could not be taken into consideration by the Court in awarding a legal punishment for it. Here a system of criminality had been carried on for two years. The offence was in itself most serious. A large class of officers enjoyed the same opportunities, and was exposed to the same temptations, and the offence itself was difficult of proof. Considering all the circumstances, endeavouring to temper the rules of justice with the restraints of mercy, the Court, remembering the sufferings which the defendant had up to this time undergone, and giving him all the benefit he was entitled to for his good conduct for a long period of time previous to this offence, had determined to pass the following sentence: that he should pay to the Queen a fine of the sum of £1,000,-the same £1,000 referable to each or any of the nine counts; that he should forfeit the sum of £3,545. 16s. 8d., being the amount of the presents mentioned in the nine counts, among which that sum was to be proportionably divided by the officer of the Court; and that he should be imprisoned twelve calendar months in the Queen's prison, and be further imprisoned till these fines and forfeitures were paid. MISCELLANEOUS. Loss OF THE LADY KENNAWAY.-The fine new East Indiaman Lady Kennaway, belonging to the representative (an only daughter) of the late Thos. Ward, Esq., of London, was totally abandoned by her crew, in the Bay of Biscay, in a sinking condition. She left Bombay on the 21st of June, bound to London, laden with a cargo valued at £210,000, consisting of Indian silk, crapes, cashmere shawls, gums, spices, rice, &c. The Lady Kennaway spoke the East Indiaman Stebonheath off the Cape of Good Hope, in distress, having suffered in a gale. The Stebonheath belonged to the same owner. The Lady Kennaway had only made two voyages, and the Stebonheath six.-Cork Constitution.-[It having been reported that the captain left the Lady Kennaway with the first of the crew, Mr. Walshe, the second officer, has written to the papers, denying the assertion. Two Danish ships afterwards fell in with the Lady Kennaway. One of them has arrived at Falmouth, having left the other endeavouring to bring the deserted vessel into the same port.] THE GOVERNOR OF GUERNSEY.-General Napier has written to the Times denying that he has resigned his appointment as lieutenant-governor of Guernsey. The report first appeared in the Globe, and no doubt the "wish was father to the thought." MR. BROOKE.-The honorary degree of D. C. L. was conferred on this gentleman, by the University of Oxford, on the 25th ult. The attendance of both members of the University and strangers was so considerable that the convocation was adjourned to the theatre. Dr. Phillimore, in presenting Mr. Brooke, expatiated at length on his merits in a speech of elegant Latinity, which was much applauded. THE SUTLEJ MEDAL.-The Sutlej medals are now ready, and will be sent to India by the next mail, for all the regiments entitled to them and still remaining there. The medals for regi Rany PrimutyRany Khoond Suta.. Bengal.. April 13, 1847 Debiah Raja Burda Arabin.... Kawth Roy Ram Sunno Bose.......... Bengal.... July 9, 1847 Anstruther Ceylon.. Aug. 27, 1847 The first of the above cases was opened on Friday last. SHIPPING INSURANCE AT CALCUTTA.-A letter on this subject has been sent to the Times by a firm at Liverpool. The following are the particulars of the case referred to: "About this time last year there was shipped at Calcutta, for our own account, a parcel of produce, upon which insurance was effected by the shippers in a respectable and well-known office. The policy contained the usual clause, acknowledging receipt of premium, and binding the assurers, in case of loss, to pay the sum in London by their agents (who are named), at the expiration of six months after the first proper notice of loss had been given to the said agents, and the adjustment of average losses, &c. to be made by the agents of the office in London, according to the established practice there. This policy was endorsed by the shippers as usual, and the premium was included in their invoice, and paid by us to them. On arrival of the vessel, the cargo was partially damaged, and on the 6th of April last we put in a claim for loss of thirteen per cent., which was admitted by the agents in London to be perfectly correct, and a promise given to pay at the expiration of six months, viz. on the 6th October. When the time arrived, and application was made for payment, they refused it, unless we consented to deduct the premium. To save litigation, we at once agreed to this, and then they positively refused to settle upon any terms, and referred us back to the office in Calcutta, upon the ground that they held dishonoured bills of the shippers given for other premiums." This brought forth a reply from some agents for insurance offices in China and Calcutta, from which we extract the following: "The statement (in the Liverpool letter) only relates to one Calcutta insurance company, but there are many insurance offices whose agents here would not for a moment think of taking an objection of that nature to the payment of a claim, and as by inference the statement is calculated to prejudice some of the insurance offices in China who have agents here, we venture to trouble you with the usual mode in which claims are adjusted. "There is a clause in the policies requiring that six months' notice should be given of a claim for loss under the policy. This claim, however, is usually not acted upon, unless the claim amounts to twenty per cent. on the whole policy; but the claim is paid immediately after examination, if the premium bill has been paid; but if the bill has not reached maturity, then the claim is deferred till that period. It is true the custom is to set off the premium bill against a claim, but this is limited to the payment of the bill given as a consideration for the particular policy under which the claim is made." PETITION OF RIGHT.-A curious case of petition of right in regard to the property of Samuel Troutbeck, who died at Madras, in 1786, is now going on. From the crowded state of our columns we defer the report of the case until it is finished. SHIPPING. ARRIVALS. NOVEMBER 23. Mary Ann, Darke, Madras; Earl Durham, Clarkson, Bombay; Phoebe, Dale, South Australia.-24. Madagascar, Slight, Bombay; Java, Parker; Lady M'Donald, Bennett; Amelia, Teasdale; Nith, Smith; Laidmans, Walker; Panthea, Glen; John Dalton, Bateson; Duke of Wellington, Hargreaves, and Ferozepore, Masterman, Bengal; Chieftain, Edwards, China; State, Nicol, Penang; Arrow, Walker, Zanzibar; Emma Eugenia, Beech. New South Wales; Worcester, Ferris, Madras.-25. B. B. Greene, Jeffreys, Mauritius; Symmetry, Butler, and Grindlay, Perkins, Hong Kong; Sobraon, Nicol, Shanghae; Edward Bilton, Marjorum; Mary Graham, Robinson; Breadalbane, Hamilton, and John Grey, M'Donald, Bengal; Fifeshire, Punchard, New South Wales; Roseberry, Young, Madras; Marchioness of Douro, Woodmouth, Manila.-26. Gratitude, Brown, Van Diemen's Land; Aden, Waddell; Sarah, Watt; Elphinstone, Young, and Caroline, Bell, Singapore; Pythagoras, Carmie, Port Phillip; Aan Bates, Slaughter, New South Wales; Duke of York, Chandler, and Meg of Meldon, Rickerty, Bengal; Core, Spratt, and Deogaum, Evans, Bengal; W. and M. Brown, Banton, Ceylon; Devonshire, Godfrey, Java; Caroline Augusta, Creamer, Penang.-27. Daniel Wheeler, Peterkin, Ceylon; Zoe, Heeles, Bengal; Hindoo, Pounder, Ceylon; Robertson, M'Larty, Maulmain; Wallace, Young, Manilla; Pallas, Lickis, and Armide, Langley, Bombay.-29. Gipsey, Garwood, Van Diemen's Land; Sir Edward Paget, Barclay, Bengal; Lord Stanley, Peters, Bombay; Zarah, Fell, Bombay.-30. Sir Charles Napier, Tullock, Bombay; Adele Marquard, Brittan, Penang; Berhampore, Smith, Bengal. - DECEMBER 1. South Stockton, Rauds, Singapore. -4. John Laird, Case, China. DEPARTURES. From the Downs.-Nov. 26. John Wickliffe, Daly, New Zealand; Victor, Kirkus, Hobart Town; Jane, Reoch, Cape; British Queen, Hill (from Hartlepool), Ceylon; Enmore, Hall, Adelaide ; and all put back, the latter with damage, having been in contact, and returned to London for repairs.-29. John Panter, Humphreys (from Shields), Cape; Hindoo, Burgoyne, Adelaide, and put back; Brunette, Remington, Newport and Ceylon.-DEC. 1. Eagle, Sewell (from Hartlepool), Aden; Mary Louisa, Campbell, Singapore ; Salacia, Webster, Sydney; Charlotte, Drewery, Bombay; John Wickliffe, Victor, and Hindoo. From LIVERPOOL.-Nov. 20. Bengalee, Colebank, Calcutta ; John O'Gaunt, M'Donald, Hong Kong.-21. Lemplar, Brown, Calcutta.-26. Reginald Heber, M'Farlane, New South Wales; Mary Somerville, Johnson, Calcutta; Amathea, Robinson, Bombay; Samuel, Dixon, Cape.-27. Leo, Thompson, and Rajah, Boyd, Calcutta; Earl Dalhousie, Primrose, Hobart Town.-DEC. 2. Black Prince, M'Pherson, Madras. From TORBAY.-Nov. 26. Stephen Surman, Clarke, Canton. From PORTSMOUTH.-27. Tulloch Castle, Jamieson, Bombay. From HARTLEPOOL.-26. Eagle, Sewell, Aden. From BORDEAUX.-21, Adino, MacNeil, Cape and Mauritius. 27. Waterville, Andrew, Mauritius.-United, Taylor, Mauritius. From the CLYDE.-27. Phillip Laing, Ellis, New Zealand.-29. Argyle, M'Giloray, Batavia; Eliza Stewart, Henderson, Bombay. PASSENGERS DEPARTED. Per steamer Erin, from Southampton, Dec. 3, to proceed per steamer Ariel, from Malta. For Malta-Miss Ross, Major and Mrs. Pipon, 4 children, and 2 female servants; Miss Mansell, 'Mr. Leahy, Miss Brooks, Miss Bishop, Sir James Dunlop, Mr. T. C. Macphail, Mr. James Allan. For ALEXANDRIA-Mr. Robertson, Mr. Alexander, Mrs. Jacob, and Eur. female servant; Miss Green, Miss A. Green, Mr. Freke, Mr. M. Mull, Mr. Farquharson, Capt. Murray, Ens. Wauchope, Mr. Leishman, Mr. and Mrs. A. Lyon and native servant, Dr. Withecomb, Major Vassall. For CONSTANTINOPLE-Mr. P. Aikman, Mr. James Crawford, Mr. W. Thorman, Mr. J. Brown, Mr. Jambo. DOMESTIC. BIRTHS. Nov. 19. The wife of A. I. Impey, Esq. M.D. son, at Great Yarmouth. 20. Mrs. J. P. Thom, son, at Tottenham. 28. The lady of Capt. J. K. Phibbs, 41st Bengal nat. inf. son, at Hayes's-place, Lisson-grove. 30. The lady of Joseph Goodeve, Esq. son, at Kensington-square. MARRIAGES. Nov. 11. R. M. Martin, Esq., son of J. Martin, Esq. of Summer-hill, Dublin, to Eliza, daughter of Geo. Barron, Esq. late of her Majesty's Ordnance, at St. Martin's Church. 18. Rev. E. Mayne, of Lakeview, Ireland, to Anna, relict of the late H. O. Smith, Esq. 42nd Madras nat. inf. at Chelsea. Dec. 2. William Vansittart, Esq. Bengal Civil Service, to Harrietta, daughter of the late Ambrose Humphrys, Esq. at St. George's, Hanover-square. 2. James Loch, Esq. M.P. to Elizabeth Mary, widow of Major George Macartney Greville, at St. George's, Hanover-square. MILITARY. Bengal Estab.-Lieut. Archibald O. Wood, 14th N.I. Lieut. William R. Brown, 1st Europ. regt. Ens. William S. Mitchell, 22nd N.I. Lieut. Charles S. Sugden, 39th N.I. MILITARY. Bengal Estab.-Brev. maj. Robert H. Miles, 1st N.I. Lieut. Hans G. Leslie, 37th N. I., in Jan. Assist. surg. John R. Withecombe, м.D, over- Madras Estab.-Lieut. James Puckie, 3rd L.I., via Bombay. Lieut. Thomas W. Gibson, 2nd Europ. regt., overland, via Bombay. Lieut. William Youngson, 14th N.I. GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF LEAVE. Bengal Estab.-Maj. William Forbes, invalids, 6 months. Lieut. Thomas Newbery, 8th cav., 6 months. Bombay Estab.-Brev. capt. Francis Wemyss (1st), engineers, 6 months. Capt. Frederick F. Taylor, 3rd cav, 3 months. The destination of Mr. George G. Morris, a student at the East-India College, has been changed from the presidency of Madras to that of Bengal. ADDISCOMBE. Five of the Engineer Cadets, who passed their public examination on the 11th June, 1846, have been stationed as follows, viz. : To Bengal. Charles Thornton Stewart. Capel Fothergill Adey. Frederick Richard Maunsell. Arthur William Garnett. To Madras. Richard Armstrong Roberts. CHANGES AND PROMOTIONS IN H.M.'S REGIMENTS SERVING IN INDIA. WAR OFFICE, 26TH Nov. 1847. Bengal, 53rd Foot.-Lieut. George Herbert Cox, from 63rd Foot, to be lieut., v. Grey, who exchanges. Dated 26th Nov. 1847. Madras, 84th Foot.-Lieut. William McGeachy Keats, from 75th Foot, to be lieut., v. Muriel, who exchanges. Dated 26th Nov. 1847. Bombay, 28th Foot.-Ens. Mowbray Baumgartner to be lieut. by purch., v. Macdougall, who retires. Dated 26th Nov. 1847. William Gordon Shute, gent., to be ens. by purch., v. |