The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-23 00:00:00

EAST IM)IA HOUSE.

A General Court of the Proprietors of East India
Stock was held at their house in Leadenhall-street, yes-
terday morning.
G. Lyme, Esq., M.P., and most of the Directors
entered the Court at twelve o'clock, when the minutes of
the last Court were read end confirmed.
The documents relating to the Portuguese Catholic
priests at Goa, which were laid before the House of
Lords, were laid on the table of the Court.
Mr. MONTGOMERY MARTIN said he had been entrusted
with a memorial to present to the Court, signed by every
mercantile firm_ in the metropolis trading to the East
Indies, representing several millions of property, and
the statements it contained were so forcible and so true,
that he trusted they would induce the Legislature to
give them that attention which their importance
deserved, and that, not in justice to India alone, but
in justice also to England, The memorialists expressed
their gratification at the prospect that justice will be done
to India; they pray that means may be taken to obtain a
reduction upon the piece-goods of India, particularly
those of cotton manufacture and on shawls. They showed
that the importation of silk handkerchiefs had very
greatly increased, hut not for use in this country,
they being prohibited nearly by the high duty of
twenty per cent.; they were imported for the pur-
pose of being printed and afterwards exported. The
details of the memorial were well worthy of the consi-
deration of the Court of Proprietors, and he trusted they
would make it a question for the consideration of Par-
liament at a very early date in the ensuing session o.f
Parliament. Two years ago they had presented a peti-
tion to both Houses of Parliament, nearly in the same
terms as the memorial ; but it bad lain almost as dead
during that period, and unless the Executive of the
Council persevered in demanding that justice to
which the people of India were entitled, pro-
bably other two years might be as unprofitably spent.
The memorial indicated one most important thing—it
showed Omit the Merchant Princes of England consi-
dered that Company as responsible for the good
government of India. That was indeed not only
a most important, but a most gratifying thing.
The trade and manufactures of India had been
utterly ruined by the competition of this country,
and it had been proved before the Committee of the
House of Lords that a piece of bandannas cost at
Madras 205., while a piece of the same cost only Bs. at
Glasgow. Now, how could India stand against such
competition ?—why, therefore, tie her further down by
high protecting duties. A witness who appeared
before the Committee stated that the manufac-
turers in India paid nothing for their labour,
and that all they eat and drank was untaxed.
Now, considering that they had several friends in the
Committee, it was astonishing that a fallacy so gross
should have been allowed to go before the manufacturers
and labourers of this country, because it was one which
would most naturally alarm them, and prejudice them
against the claims of the people of India. It
was well known to every gentleman present, that
the very reverse was the case—that India was the
highest taxed eatery in the world considering her means,
and that through the medium of the land lax, the salt
mono and others, the price of food, &c., was raised
- ,
e'eorrnously upon the people, and it was right and just
That the people of this country should be aware of the
fact. The cotton manufacture had been almost utterly
destroyed by oar competition and high duties. Sir G.
Larpent, in his evidence, gave its history as follows. lie
quoted a paper given to him by a gentleman who had
resided thirty-five years in India in the civil service,
who states that, at one time, 200,000 persons *ere em-
ployed in the manufacture of the fine cotton fabrics of
Dacca; in that city and its environs. "It is supposed
that a much less number than 10,000 in the district now
practise the art. They have all disappeared. The
city is reduced from 300,000 inhabitants, to
about 30,000.'--Q. 2,776.) The statistical re-
turns fully bear out this testimony. Those
documents show that the quantity of cotton piece-goods
imported into Great Britain from the East Indies had
fallen off from—in 1814, 1,266,608 pieces, to, in 1837,
414,450 pieces. The average value of all piece-goods
annually imported into this country from India, during
the five years ending with 1814, was 1,400,0001, the
value of cotton goods brought to England, and entered
for borne consumption during the five last years, has
averaged only 2,5261, and of silk goods 92,2851 per
annum.—(Qs. 554 and 610) In 1815 the cotton goods
exported from India were 13,000,000 rupees (1,300,0000 ;
in 1332 they were less than 1,000,000 (100,0001.)
,In the
year 1800, Calcutta exported piece-goods alone to the
amount of 3,908,810 in number, and in value 1,795,887/ ;
while in 1835 the total number of cotton, silk, and em-
broidered piece goods received in Calcutta from the inte-
rior, was only 348,727 pieces, value 150,0001. The cotton
piece-goods received at Calcutta from the. interior in
1812, were 4,000,000 of pieces ; in 1835-36 they were
only 250,000."—(Q. 3,877.) We now imported only
2,000 pieces per annum, and that not for our own con •
sumption, but for the purpose of sending out to Maga-
dore. Indeed, the people of this country would not use
Indian cotton now.
.A gentleman told him a few days
ago that he had sold a piece for 10s., which, only a few
years ago, should have brought 50s. It was doubted by
many whether a reduction of duty would at all revive
that branch of the manufacture of India, but he was
of opinion that it would ; but, at all events,
in justice to India it ought to be done. Our export to
India of cotton increased most wonderfully; even within-
the last four years it had more than doubled. From
1814, when we exported to India 818,208 yards, it had
risen gradually, till, in 1837, it was 64,213,633 yards,
about a yard for every man, woman, and child in British
India. Even this, however, is not all. We are not sa-
tisfied with displacing the complete native manufactures
to this enormous extent. In
.1825, we began to return
to India her own cotton in a state ready for weaving.
In that year, the value of twist and yarn sent to India
was 16,0001. In 1836, it had increased to 602,0001
In the Report of the Lords' Committee—a Report which
he had good reason to believe was drawn up by .the
Noble Lord, whom be was happy to say was now
Governor-General of India—it was a document which
did him much credit as a statesman, and the position
which he now filled he viewed as an augury of good to
India, fur there was a prospect of the views he
expressed being carried into effect. That document says.—
"It appears to the Committee that the general prin-
ciple upon which commercial regulations affecting the in-
tercourse between the United Kingdom and the Colonial
dependencies, and the mutual intercourse of those depen-
dencies with each other should rest, should be that of
perfect equality, subject to exception only when the per-
menant interests of the whole empire, or the
temporary circumstances of any part of our fo-
reign possessions, may seem to render such exception
necessary or expedient ; that no partial favour should
grant to one colony any advantage over another, either
in the colonial ports, or in those of the United Kingdom;
still less that Parliament should partially secure fur the
produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom any
advantage in any colonial port over the competing pro-
duce and manufactures of its own dependencies; for it is
the firm conviction of the Committee that Colonial pos-
sessions scattered over the four quarters of the globe,
and legislatively dependant on the acts of a distant
Government, can only be maintained. in peaceful
and willing obedieisce, by making strict justice and
impartiality the sole guides of every: legislative
proceeding by which they may be effected."
These were noble sentiments, and were worthy of being
printed in letters of gold. It was much to be regrotted
that the Committee of the Commons had not followed so
worthy an example. Some'good had already been done;
the duties upon rum and upon sugar, had been assimi-
lated with those paid upon those articles the produce of
the West Indies. So far, well; but they had even got
more. Formerly the produce of the East Indies, on being
imported into Australia, and our other possessions in that
quarter, were subject_ to the same duties as if they had
come from a, foreign and independent nation. By
an Ord ier n Council of May last, that unjust system was
abrogated, and now the produce of India was admitted
OD the same terms as goods from the mother country, and
that was onlyjustice;, but much remained yet to be done.
For instance,
inhabitants,
could not grow enough of rice to
supply the without taking up the whole of
the soil, yet. we imposed a duty 0120 per cent. upon all
rice imported there, and thereby prevented a very con-
siderable traffic,
which tinder. a small duty would in-
stantly arise
between that and its neighbours and
the continent of India. Then, again, let them leek at
the absurdity of our regulation resper "HZ the trade in
tobacco. Mr. Melville, then Secretary, had laid it so well
before the Committee that he could not improve ,
upon his statement ; he would therefore read it
e Tobacco, the produce of, and imported
from, any
British possession in the West Indies, America, or tie
being the same
Mauritius, pays a duty of 2s. 9d. per lb.; if he produce
of British India, it pays a duty of 3e,
that is levied upon all foreign tobacco, principally the
produce of slave labour. With this aggravation,
to thpresent,at at
of that as,
the tobacco of India is very inferior
of the United States and Manilla, the duty bears,
of course, a much higher relation to its value
than it does to the produce of those
is, that
other
of
foreign countries. The general result
22,000,0001h5. cleared for home consumpteee, but
45,0001b5. are imported from British India. Mr. Melville,
quotes the opinion of parties conversant with the trade,'
that that if the duty were reduced to 2s. 9d., a very
considerable consumption of East Indian tobacco would
ensue. Although,' says his informants, the ship-
ments of East Indian tobacco have hitherto been
very limited to this country, we have obtained sufficient
knowledge of the quality that might be produced ;
and we have no hesitation in stating, that if more
care were taken in the cultivation, and the sorts of to-
bacco cultivated, a very superior description might be
grown, and to an extent quite sufficient, even in the
finer descriptions calculated for cigars, to supersede the
use of Colombian tobacco and second-rate qualities of
Havannahs ; of which sorts the number of pounds clear-
ed for home consumption generally averages 36,0001b5.
per month, with a gradual increase' (425); and there is
little doubt that, as in the case of coffee,
the reduction of duty would result in such an
increase of consumption as would effectually pro-
tect the revenue from loss, it not improve it."—
:Why should we receive our tobacco from the slave-hold-
ing States of Virginia or Maryland, yet impose such a
heavy duty upon it when it came from our own country,
where it was- the produce of free labour? Surely that
statement was so explicit as to convince every one of the
absurdity of the course we had pursued, and must force
attention to its injustice. But it was not alone in the to-
bacco trade that the same course was pursued. The spices
drugs, and other articles,
varied from 69i per cent. up
to 4.0.00 per cent., as shown by the evidence of Mr.
Melvand these duties, enormous as they were, were
not only injurious, but they impoverished the articles by
preventing their improvement. They had an example
of the working of the system in the article of indigo. No
sooner was the duty upon it reduced, than we were
supplied with a much better article than any we
had before. It was painful to compare the state of
India with that of any other country. The small

Island of Java was far outstripping India. In sugar,
' from 1830 to 1839, the increase in exports from Java
was 110,000,0001b5., while the increase from British
India during the same period was 45,000,000. Indigo
exported by Java had increased 1,000,000 lbs., while
from British India the export had decreased one million
and a half ; and in coffee the difference was still more
enormous. Java had in that period increased her export
by 63,000,0001b5., while British India and Ceylon had
increased only 2,000,000. Were not such statements very
alarming, and did it not lead one to inquire how it was
that India did not increase in a ratio with a small petty
island like this? In the petition the Directors had pre-
sented to the Legislature, they had very justly said that
they were responsible for the good government of India.
Now, surely, it was not the policy of England to terri-
tories comprising 450,000 square miles, with 47 millions
inhabitants, and a revenue of upwards of 12,500,0001.—the
Governors of which countries were in fact our subjects,
and tributary to us—surely it was not our policy
to take the whole of their sea coast, and
then treat them as foreign and independent states ?
The whole area of the subsidiary, dependent, and tri-
butary States of British India (exclusive of Scinde, Be-
loochistan, Affghanistan, or any of the territories west-
ward of the river Indus) is estimated by Colonel Suther-
land at 450,000 square miles, which, at the rate of 100
mouths to the square mile, would give 45,000,000 inhabit-
ants. The revenue of these States is estimated by Capt.
Sutherland at 12,500,0001. sterling per annum ; and the force
which they could bring into the field, at 120,000 cavalry,
and 48,000 infantry. Some of these States pay large
subsidies annually for the maintenance of the British
supremacy in India, others have commuted these annual
payments by cessions of extensive and fertile tracts of
country, which yield considerable profits to our Govern-
ment, and others 'are under strict engagement to furnish
heavy quotas of troops, both cavalry and infantry, when-
ever required by the British rulers. They are all pro-
hibtted from entering into foreign alliances—from form-
ing commercial treaties with other nations, and from
entertaining foreign Europeans at their Courts. Their
territories are surrounded by the Bri9sh dominions,—
we have taken possession of their sea-ports, and isolated
them from each other, with a view to their political sub-
jugation. Mysore pays an annual subsidy of 280,0001.,
and maintains a contingent force, of which
4,000 is cavalry. The revenues and government
of this State are now actually administered by Bri-
tish officers, under the superintendence of the
Madras Government; and yet the coffee, and other
products of Mysore are treated, on their attempted im-
portation into England, as if they were the products of
a foreign and independent country. Oude, in the year
1801 commuted its subsidy to the British Govern-
ment of 760,0001. per annum, by ceding the districts of
Allahabad, Goruckpoor, &c., which yielded a yearly re-
venue of 1,352,3471. Troops paid for by the King of
Oude are placed in his capital, and his Ma-
jesty has advanced several millions sterling to
the English Government. Hyderabad, in 1800, agreed
to cede territories yielding 803,641/. per annum
to the British Government, in order to pro-
vide payment for 8,000 infantry, two regiments of
cavalry, with a requisite portion of artillery, European
gunners, stores, &c. The Nizam (which is the title of
the ruler of Hyderabad), agreed further to grant a subsidy
of 300,000 L per annum, to provide payment for a con-
tingent of 9,000 cavalry, and • 6,000 infantry ; and fur-
ther, he is bound, on the demand of the British Govern-
ment, to bring into the field the whole of the forces
which he may be able to supply from his
dominions, with a view to the speedy, and effectual
termination of any war in which the East India Com-
pany may be engaged. From this state (Hyderabad), we
have taken its sea-ports and coast line, and for several
years we took upon ourselves the Civil Government of
the country. Berar—the Maha Rajah of this State
(from whom we have taken its coast line of Cuttack Sea)
is bound to pay 80,0001 a-year to the East India Com-
pany, to furnish a contingent of 3,000 cavalry and 2,000
infantry, with the necessary equipment of guns and
warlike stores, ht all times fit for active service;
the Rajah is also bound to keep as large an army as the
East India Company may deem necessary, and to be
ready at all times to assist the East India Company with
the whole of his Highness's forces, and with all the re-
source of his State whenever required. These examples
will fully show the position of subsidiary and dependent
States of British India ; they are all entirely at our
mercy, devoid of political power or commercial freedom;
their whole resources, military and financial, at our
control ; no alliance permitted between them and foreign
Powers, or even between each other; and the British
Resident at each native Court is virtually the Sovereign
of the country. Yet the raw produce and manufactures
of all these States are denied admission into the United

Kingdom and its dependencies, except as foreign products.
That was unjust not only to India but also to England,
and demanded immediate alteration. Why should we
take our cotke from the slaves of Brazil while we treated

these, our own people, with such injustice ? It would
surely be for our benefit to show such a vast population
that our relations with them were not wholly political,
and for our own advantage, but also commercial and for
their improvement. It was quite impossible that the
present system could go on, they were wholly impove-
rishing the country. By returns which had been fur-
nished to the Proprietors, it was proved that the exports
of India exceeded her imports by upwards of 27,000,000
of rupees; they were, in fact, destroying the very life
blood of her existence. During the last 20 years the
whole flow had been from the East, and it was only par-
tially supplied by the importation of some silver from
China. Surely it was not for the interest of this country
that such a ruinous system should continue. In Mount-
stewart Elphinstone's valuable work on India what a
picture was drawn of the former state of India. He says—
" The condition of the people in ordinary times does not
' appear to have borne the marks of oppression. The his-
' torian of Firuz Shah (1351 to 1394) expatiates on the
happy state of the Ryots (peasantry), the goodness of
their houses and furniture, and the general use of gold
and silver ornaments by their women. Nicoli di Conti,
who travelled about A.D. 142 Q, speaks highly of what
he saw of Guzerat, and found the banks of the Ganges
(or, perhaps, the Megna) covered with towns amidst
beautiful gardens and orchards, and passed four famous
cities before he reached Mazeria, which he describes as
a powerful city, filled with gold, silver, and precious
stones. Barbosa and Bartema, who travelled in the first
years of the 16th century, corroborate these accounts. The
former in particular describes Cambay as a remarkably
well-built city in a beautiful and fertile country, filled
with merchants of all nations, and with artisans and
manufacturers like those of Flanders."—Elphinstone's
India, vol. 11. p. 240. Ibn Batuta (A.D. 1440 to 1450)
enumerates many large and populous towns and gives
a high impression of the state of that country. The
Emperor Baber, in the beginning of the 16th century,
although he disliked India, declared that it is a rich and
noble country, abounding in gold and silver, and ex-
presses his astonishment at the swarming population,
and the innumerable workmen in every trade and pro-
fession. Abdurizak, Ambassador from the grandson of
Tamerlane, visited the south of India, when under the
Government of the Hindoos), A.D. 1442, and gives his
impression of a prosperous country. Bijayanager, ex-
cited, by the extent and grandeur, and the wealth of the
inhabitants, the admiration of all who visited it. Bartemi
states it at seven miles in circumference, and that it was like
Milan. Madura, at the extremity of the Peninsula of Hin-
doostan, is described by Ibn Batuta as a city like Delhi.
The same authority says, that through the whole of
Weber, for two months' journey, there was not a span
free from cultivation ; everybody had a garden, with his
house placed in the middle of it, and a wooden fence
round the whole. The roads were excellent ; shaded
by trees, with resting-houses and wells at regular inter-
vals along a great part of the coast of Malabar. But,
adds Mr. Elphinstone, " the sea-ports, above all,
seem to have attracted admiration." Those on both
coasts are described as large cities, the resort and habi-
tation of merchants from every part of the world, and
carrying on trade with Africa, Arabia, Persia, and
China. A great home trade was likewise car-
ried on along the coast, and into the interior."
Why was it that such a state of things had entirely
passed away ? He hoped that document would make
some impression on the people of this country, and rouse
in them a desire for justice being done to the people of
-flndia, for we ought to be ashamed of ourselves, as
Christians, to have permitted such spoliation. When
the discussions respecting the Charter were on,
Directors evidently participated in the feelings
of alarm, for they said it was impossible that
they could continue to draw from four to five millions
annually from India, without taking some means for
promoting her trade. Such a course us was now in
operation must undoubtedly prove most injurious to both
countries. He had a most alarming document before him,
to which he would have been afraid to refer had the Deputy
Chairman not said that public discussion was to the
benefit of the good Government of India. By that do-
cument he saw that in September last the Government
in India was on the point of suspending cash payments—
the public works suspended, &c. Why, at the present
moment the expenses of the Government exceeded by
arrme a
se
tint:3r times the revenue of the country. We had
military force in possession of the
Bu
latrrrritories, of course greatly increasing
the expenditure. When was this to cease ?
The people of
this country had of late been often peti-
tioning for free trade with France and other countries,
but they seemed altogether to forget British India—a
place
tet
country which, in
of the Exchequer, taking
millions anything
into out
The motion he
intended omfany
proposeb was as follows:
' That petitions be presented to
Parlia-
ment, in conformity with theothll Houses of
by this Court on the 16thof resolutions adopted.
June, 1839, and with
the petition of the East India Company to the Legis-
lature in February, 1840, praying that Parliament,
in the exercise of justice and sound policy, will
authorise the admission of the produce and manufac-
tures of British India into the ports of the United Kingdom
on reciprocal terms with the produce and 'manufactures of
the United Kingdom, when imported into British India ;
that ships built and registered in British India, and na-
vigated by our East India fellow-subjects, be entitled
to equal rights and privileges with British shipping ;
that the produce and manufactures of the subsidiary
States of India, whose seaports and frontiers are occupied
by the British Government, and who are prohibited
from entering into foreign commercial intercourse, be
admitted as the produce and manufactures of British
India into every part of the British empire ; and that
such other measures may be adopted as will
give perfect freedom of commerce between British
India and every dependency of the Um
led kin d
He was only asking them to follow up what theg y doh ad
already begun. He thought the time most opportune,
and he trusted that the East India Company would ap-
pear as the first petitioners at the bar in the ensuing ses-
sion. They might not be successful ; but every
concession that was made must only be con-
sidered as the herald of another till full jus-
tice was done. First, they asked for the introduction
of a system of low duties on the importation of East
India produce ; secondly, that the ships managed by
natives might b permitted to trade in our ports in the

same manner as others, and that the absurd regulation
of requiring that there must be so many En;fish
sailors in every ship should be done away with. The Lascar
seamen manned the cruisers of the Government in thelndian
eas, yet they were not permitted to come into our ports
as seamen; and our system led other nations to act in the
same manner. It was an absurdity, and acted as a pro-
hibition to the general use of Lascars as seamen.
With respect to the third part, that relating to the sub-
sidary States, there were goods the produce of Mysore
at that moment rotting at the Custom-house, in con-
sequence of the existing state of the law. How could
they expect prosperity to attend these subsidiary States?
If they kept them growing food and nothing else, that
would effectually prevent their ever rising in the
scale of prosperity or civilization but if they
gave an impetus to the productions and manufacture of
other articles that would most essentially contribute to
raise them in the scale of civilization. The last point
was, that such other measures should be adopted as
would tend to increase the commercial interceurse be-
tween India and the United Kingdom. He would not
then go into details' but he would merely
allude to one point of that most extensive and
most important subject. He thought the wheat of
India ought to be permitted to be entered at a
nominal rate of duty.—(Cheers.) There was at the pre-
sent time a loud cry for a free trade in corn, and he
thought that British India certainly had the first claim to
be permitted to supply that article. Its claim was cer•
tainly greater than that of either Poland or Dantzic, to
be permitted to supply wheat to the British market.
Large quantities of wheat flour had been imported from
India into Liverpool, and had been extensively used
in the manufacture of chintzes' for the purpose of
stiffening, for which it was better adapted than
any other sort of flour ; it was also, he believed, capable
of being most advantageously used in the manufacture
of starch. He felt assured that India was capable of
supplying by far the greater portion of the wheat ex-
ported for the consumption of England. He trusted the
Directors would accede to the motion, and would present
a petition to Parliament, couched iu such terms as in
their wisdom they might devise. He thought he
might take upon himself to state that the pre-
sent enlightened Premier, Sir Robert Peel, took
the warmest interest in the welfare of India. That
great man, he had every reason to believe, had long
entertained the opinion that India and England ought to
be united by the closest ties, and he was satisfied that
he would, as a great and enlightened statesman, see the
necessity of adopting measures so essential to the pros-
perity both of England and India.—(Cheers.)
The motion having been seconded, and read by the
Secretary,
The CHAIRMAN said the Court of Directors fully con-
curred with the memorialists in almost all the great
objects they had in view, and therefore he should not
object to the reception of the memorial. He
thought the Directors could not be charged with
want of attention to the subject, inasmuch as they had
last Session presented petitions to both Houses of Par-

liament, from the consideration of which great advan-
tages had already been derived. With regard to the
subsidiary States, the Court had been most anxious to
adopt the views of the Hon. Gentleman, which he consi-
dered to be founded on justice, but the Attorney and
Solicitor-Generals and the law-officers of the Court of the
East India Company had given it as their opinions that
no relaxations could be made in favour of Mysore and
the other subsidiary States, without foreign coun-
tries, with which we had reciprocity treaties,
having a claim to be put on the same footing.
Concurring generally in the views expressed by the
Honourable Gentleman, he put it to him whether
it would not be a more effectual way of carrying out
those views to withdraw his motion for a petition, and leave
the question entirely in the hands of the Court of Di-
rectors at present, more especially as he (Mr. M. Mar-
tin) had expressed his confidence in the desire of the pre-
sent Premier to do justice to India, an expression in which
he (the Chairman) entirely concurred—(Cheers)—while,
at the same time, he felt it was only an act of justice
to Sir John Hobhouse to state that he (the Chairman)
had always found on the part of that Right Hon. Baro-
net every disposition to do ample justice to the claims of
India.—(Cheers.) He trusted the motion would not be
persevered in.
Sir JAMES LAW LUSBINGTON thought it would be
more respectful to wait and see what the Government
would do before again presenting a petition. He, there-
fore, hoped the motion would be withdrawn.
Mr. WEEDING would, if the motion were not with-
drawn, meet it by an amendment that the petition was,
in the present state of affairs, uncalled for and unnecessary.
With every disposition to do justice to India, he could
not concur in what had been proposed relating to the
Lascar seamen. He thought it essentially necessary to
the naval superiority of this country that the nursery for
seamen afforded by the East India trade should be kept up,
Mr. MAnnioTT seconded the amendment, as he thought
the motion was a tacit reflection on the Court of Directors.
Mr. SALOMONS recommended the withdrawal both of
the motion and of the amendment.

Mr._ BROWN said the duty of 50 per cent. on the im

portation of rice into Ceylon was merely a countervail-
ing duty. With regard to tobacco, which in the
province of Malabar was a necessary of life
to the labourer, it should be recollected that
in that province it was a grievous monopoly,
which the Court of Directors could do away
with at any time they chose. The produce of Tanjore
was admitted to England as the produce of a British de-
pendency, and so also was the produce imported
from Singapore. Why then, could not the produce
of the other subsidiary States be put upon the same
footing as the produce of Tanjore ? The 'Hon. Proprie-
tor then related various facts to prove the former prospe-
rity of India, and concluded by vindicating the character
of the Lascar seamen.
Mr. OLIPHANT thought it time to rescue the the native
States from their present anomalous condition. It was
a farce to treat them as independent States.
After a few words from Mr. Twining and Mr. Fielder,

Mr. M. MARTIN consented to withdraw his motion.
which, howe►er, he could assure the Court, he had never
intended as a tacit reflection on the Court of Directors, as
one Honourable Proprietor had thought fit to assume.
The motion was then withdrawn.
SIR HENRY WILCOCK.

Mr. SALOMONS wished, before the Court broke up, to
allude to a certain paper, purporting to be a letter from
Sir H. Wilcock, one of the Court of Directors, to the Earl
of Aberdeen, one of the Secretaries of State, which letter
had been lithographed, and afterwards published in the
newspapers, and made matter of discussion by the Press;
and as the document would doubtless become matter of
discussion in Parliament, he thought it best that it
should previously be discussed in that Court. Before going
into the House of Commons he wished to ask, first, whe-

ther there existed any declaration of opinion of the Court
of Directors on the subject of the war in Affghanistan ?
2d. Whether there existed any protest by any Directors
on the subject? and ,idly, Whether the war had been
made a matter of discussion in the Court of Directors ?

Mr. ST. GEORGE TUCKER had not made any protest,
but he had in a letter, addressed to the Court of Directors,
dated June 29, 1839, given his opinion fully on the subject
Mr. SALOMONS would move for that document. With
regard to the communication of Sir Henry Wilcock, he
thought that every communication from a Di-
rector to a member of her Majesty's Government
ought to be considered in the light of an official
document, and as such he hoped the Hon. Director would
have no objection to laying it before the Court of Pro-
prietors.
The CHAIRMAN, not having been in the Direction at

the time, was unaware of the contents of the letter of
Mr. Tucker, and could not therefore reply to the Hon.
Proprietor until he had seen and considered it.
Sir H. LINDSAY said the Honourable Proprietor
was asking for information which he must be
aware could not be afforded him, as the mouths
of the members of the Committee of Secr.?sy
were hermetically seated by Act of Parliament. He did
not think that members behind that bar were at all justified
in promulgating anything that passed in that Committee.
After a few words from Mr. WEEDING,

Sir H. WILCOCK said that he had thought it right, as
an old servant of the Crown, to act in the manner he had
done. From having long resided in Persia he had had great
opportunities of judging of the policy or impolicy of the
war in Affghanistan, and he thought he should have
been wanting in his duty if he had not
communicated the results of that knowledge to the Go-
vernment. Therefore he thought he was justified in
expressing his opinion to Lord Palmerston as to what
was about to take place. With regard to the letter
being lithographed, that did not make it the less
a private communication. He had no secretary, and
persons as frequently employed a confidential lithogra-
pher as they did a confidential copier. When a
change of administration had taken place, he
thought it was his duty to address Lord Aberdeen
on the subject of the war in Affghanistan as he had be-
fore done Lord Palmerston ; he had done so, and at the
same time had communicated a copy of the letter
to the Chairman of the Court of Directors.

He regretted his object had been defeated by the pro-
mulgation of that letter to the Earl of Aberdeen. He
had never intended it should have been published, Still
less had he ever intended it should have been an imple-
ment for party purposes.
The CHAIRMAN acknowledged having received from
Sir H. Wilcock a copy of the letter alluded to ; which,
however, he had, as yet, had no opportunity of perusing.
—(Cries of " Oh, oh.")
Mr. MONTGOMERY MARTINI was the person who had
given publicity to the letter, and he did not
regTet having done so, because he considered
the document to be a most important one. A
mutual friend of himself and Sir 11. Wilcock
had met him (Mr. Martin) in the Straid, and had put
into his hands four lithographic copies of letters, three
to Lord Palmerston, and one to the Earl of Aberdeen.
He had published that, and he rejoiced that he had
done so.

Sir H. WiLcocK thought that Mr. Martin had no
right to publish the letters ; even if he had picked them
up in the street, without having consulted him (Sir H.
W.) on the subject.
Mr. WEEDING disapproved of the conduct of Sir
Henry Wilcock in communicating with the Government;
he should have written to the Court of Directors.
Mr. SHEPHERD defended Sir H. Wilcock.
Mr. BROWN thought Sir H. Wilcock entitled to the
thanks of the Court for his conduct.
After mutual explanations from Sir H. Wilcock, Sir
H. Lindsay, and Mr. Weeding, the motion was with-
drawn.

Mr. MAnniorr SUTTEE.
gave notice that on the next Court
clay he should bring forward a, motion on the subject ?f
the Suttee which had recently taken place in the terri-
tories of the Nizam.
Mr. WEEDING and Mr. SALOMONS both urged the Direc-
tors to interfere with the native Powers for the abolition
of Suttee.

RAJA OF EATTARA.
Mr. • FIELDER gave notice that next Court day he

should move for the additional documents which had
been transmitted to the Court of Directors by Mr. Wil-
loughby and Col: fjvans relative to the affairs of the late
Raja of Sattara. Those documents he understood fully
exculpated the members of the Sattara Commission from
the charges which :had been so freely brought against
them.—Tho Court then adjourned.

LATEST MANCHESTER BETTING

MANCHESTER, TUESDAY EVENING.—The attendance
for the period of the year was certainly good this fore-
noon.

TIIE CHESTER TRADESMEN'S ;PLATE.—The entry
closes on New Years' day. Offers were made to lay 20
to 1 on the field, or take 8 to 1 Mr. Scott's stable wins.
Several horses were offered against ; but we did not see
any thing backed.
THE DERBY.—The Premier was backed for 501. at
8 to 1 ; three points more, to a little money, was of-
fered against Chatham, 12 to 1 was wanted ; 400 to
100 against the two might easily have been had.
25 to 1, bar the two, was offered. Parties being
open to take 30 to 1 about either the Lord of
Holderness, Balankeele, or Robert de Gorham-200
to 7 was, at the close, laid against the first-named
horse ; 40 to 1 was offered against William de Fortibus;
500 to 15 against either Meteor or the Dirce colt was
freely offered ; 500 to 10 against Moss Trooper was
offered ; 12 to 1 in ponies against Balankeele and the
Lord of Holderness was offered; also 200 to 6 against
Honest John and Lord George. We thought 1,000 to
20 was offered against Master Thomas.
THE OARS.-500 to 100 was offered against Passion;
takers of 200 to 10 on the Duke of Richmond's filly.
THE ST. LEGER.—Offers to take 20 to 1 agst Chatham.

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Manchester Guardian.)
MANCHESTER.—Owing partly to the season, and
partly to other causes, there was almost a suspension
of demand yesterday, and little or no business was
done, except in very small parcels, to supply immediate
wants, or forced sales to meet still more pressing pecu-
niary necessities. In the latter case, of course, low
prices were submitted to. Some excitement has been
caused here by the announcement of the failure of the
house of Taylor, Boggs, and Co., of London (Gardner,
Boggs, and Co., at Liverpool), who were largely engaged
in the trade to the East Indies. We understand that
the engagements of this firm amount to upwards of
150,0001. (reports varying from 160,0001. to 190,0001.),
of which a considerable proportion is owing to parties
in this town: The failure is ascribed to the very unprofit-
able state of the trade with the East, and the great loss
on produce imported, especially East India cotton, of
which the house were holders to the extent of
20,000 bales. The stoppage of this firm has caused
one failure in Manchester, namely, that of Messrs.
James Hobday and Co., muslin manufacturers, who are
creditors of Messrs. Taylor, Boggs, and Co., to the ex-
tent of 6,000/. ; and whose engagements, we learn,
amount to about 24,0001. We are happy to hear, how-
ever, that their assets are considerable, and that there is
not likely to be much eventual loss from their failure.
ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, DEC. 20.—The
demand for flannels still continues steady, and prices are
very much the same as they have been during this last
month. There is no change in the wool market, either
as regards prices or quantity sold. _

HUDDERSFIELD MARKET, DECEMBER 21.—The state
of business remains much the same as for several
weeks past : at any rate it is not worse. As a market,
there was very little done in sales, all parties evidently
looking for the new year, when hopes of a revival are
entertained. In fact, stocks generally are very small in
saleable goods, and are likely to remain so, as long as
the manufacturer pursues the prudent course of making
to order. Prices, consequently, are firm. Warehouse
business is flat ; but this is usual for the reason of taking
stock, and preparing for the spring trade. Bad as things
are, there is no cause for despair in this district.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 22.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAN.)
NONTRIOU V. CARVICK.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case,
which was on Monday heard in his private room, at the
request of Mr. Wakefield, on behalf of the plaintiff
Mon triou, who is an attorney. The Learned Counsel having
stated that the answer of the defendant contained serious
charges against the character of the plaintiff as a soli-
citor, the case came before the Court upon exceptions
to the Master's report, the Master having found that
certain statements in the answer were scandalous.

HisNourt gave judgment in public, observing it
was not necessary he should mention the subject matter
of the supposed scandal, as the parties themselves knew
what the matters were, and he had only to give the rea-
sons upon which he felt compelled to differ from the
Master. The bill was filed by Mr. Montriou,
stating himself to have been the professional ad-
viser of Mr. Carvick, and that he had rendered
him professional services, for which he had received
no remuneration ; that he had advanced to him
large sums of money ; that Mr. Carvick had from time
to time made payments to him ; and the result was, that
there was an account current between the two parties.
The bill prayed an account, alleging that there was a
balance in favour of the plaintiff. The bill then interro-
gated whether Mr. Carvick did not under various, and
some, and what unjust pretences, refuse to comply with
the application or request of the plaintiff. One of the
grounds on which Mr. Carvick stated that he resisted
complying with the demand of the plaintiff, was because
the account was not correct ; and in answer to the ques-
tion under various, and some, and what unjust pretences
he set up two items, one of 3,5001., connected with a
transaction of the Norwich Assurance Company, and an-
other sum of 72/. 15s, Bd. costs, paid by him in respect of
a transaction which he traced home to Mr.Montriou. That
was simply the way in which the case stood. The defendant
had, in very strong language, complained of the conduct
of Mr. Montriou with respect to those two items, and it
was with respect to those two items that the question
whether there was scandal in the answer or not, arose.
The Master bad found tie answer was scandalous in
respect of all the matters objected to, and the exception
taken to the Master's report was, that the answer was
not scandalous in respect of all the matters objected to.
If, therefore, there was anything in the answer not
scandalous, and which was included in those exceptions,
then the Master's report would be erroneous. His
Honour's opinion was, that the whole of the matter was
not scandalous. His Honour, having referred to several
cases, and noticed the points which had been made in
argument, allowed the exceptions.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 22.
IN RE ALEXANDER L. NEWTON.

The adjourned examination of the bankrupt was re-
sumed at two o'clock this day by Mr. Clarkson, who ex-
amined him at great length respecting the alleged debts
which his sister and other relatives sought to prove
against his estate.
Mr. KEANE, who appeared for the bankrupt, cross-
examined him, and then applied to have the case ad-
journed for a short period.
Mr. CLARKSON, on the part of the assignees, said the
low" examination which the bankrupt underwent. justi-
fied'him in saying that his accounts were fabricated for
the purpose of cheating his creditors. He stated that he
sold a diamond brooch for only 801., when he re-
leased it from a pawnbroker's where it had been de-
posited for 1001., a fact which no man in his senses could
credit. He need go no further in the enumeration of
these facts, but as he said before, reiterate that the bank-
rupt, and all those acting for him (with the exception of
Mr. Keane), had manufactured many of those accounts
tbr the purpose of defrauding the creditors of the estate.
Mr. KNIGHT (the bankrupt's solicitor)--I emphatically
pronounce Mr. Clarkson's assertion to be agross falsehood.

Mr. CLARKSON—I don't mind the barking of a dog.
Mr. KNIGHT—You dare not use such language as that
to me outside the door of the Court.
Mr. Commissioner ForameraluE--Such indecent ob-
servations as these must be stopped by some means or
other. I shall adjourn this case sine die, and that there
may be no misapprehension;l shall give my reasons. The
bankrupt endeavours to establish a debt due to his sister
against his estate for 1,7771. This Ido not believe. The
statement about the diamonds is too ridiculous for any
roan of common sense to believe. Throughout the whole
examination I have observed a disposition to deceive the
Court, and suppress the truth until the last moment; and
under such circumstances, I shall adjourn the case sine
die, at the same time allowing the bankrupt the protec-
tion of the Court for two months, and I shall not be dis-
posed Co hear any further examination until the debts al-
leged to be due to his sister shall be proved, and some
more satisfactory explanation rendered of the disposal of
the diamonds.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 22.

IN RE JOHN EDWARD CAREW.

At the sitting of the Court this morning the case of
this insolvent was continued. The first witness called
was Mr. Murray, who stated that he was agent to Messrs.
Rhymer and Murray, solicitors, of Petworth, who were
solicitors to the executors of thei late Lord, Egremont.
The total sum which Mr. Carew admitted in his balance
sheet, since 1833, was 9,760/, and the total sum he ad-
mitted, in answer to the bill in Chancery, was 6,0401.,
received since 1833, and he admitted that he had received
3,718/. since the answer was filed; yet still he stated that
he had a balance owing to him from the executors. In
May, 1833, he received a cheque for one thousand pounds
from Lord Egremont, and on the 16th of the same
month, in 1835, he received another for 6001, and on the
9th of November, 1836, a further cheque for 2501., and
the executors were prepared to prove this on the trial ;
but they had no opportunity of doing so. In May, 1833,
the insolvent admitted that he received 431., and a cheque
for 1,000/..; but he only put in his schedule 1,0001.
The witness was then cross-examined at great length
by Mr. Cook ; but it is only necessary to give the prin-
cipal questions:—
I believe you issued a writ of fieri facias upon the studio
of the defendant, as agent to Rhymer and Murray?—l did."
I believe you got judgment in that action ?—We ob-
tained a verdict, but we did not get judgment.
I believe a motion has since been made that that ver-
dict should be set aside ?—lt has, and the Court has or-
dered a nonsuit to be entered, and we have paid the costs
of the ac/ion.
_ _

Have you received further instructions to issue pro-
ceedings again ?—No; we have received no instructions
at present.
Pray has a fiat of bankruptcy been issued against Mr.
Carew ?—I am not aware of it.
Has the docket been struck ?—I am not aware. _

I think, when Sir Wm, was addressing the
Court at Lewes, he stated that your clients had under•
taken to pay the costs of the action, and I believe Sir
Wm. Follett's speech run thus :—" Mr. Carew said I
have this claim against the estate of Lord Egremont.
You say you will not pay me. You are rich and I am
poor, and the costs will be ruinous to me. They, in an-
swer, said we want a full and fair investigation ; we will
pay your costs and expenses, and permit you to bring-

t'lis action against us." Is that correct ?—Yes ; that is
quite correct.
Did the executors advance any sum to bring the me-
. don ?.L-No.
Have they paid the plaintiff's costs ?—No.
The next part of the speech of Sir William Follett
that I call your attention to, is where he says the de-
fendant furnished the means to bring the action. Is ;hat
correct ?—No ; but we have offered to pay the costs
twenty times.
Upon what condition was that ?—That Mr. Carew
should release the executors from all claims, or submit to
a verdict, or consent to a nonsuit being entered.
I)id Mr. Carew refuse to do that ?—He did.
Did he not say that he would never so far' disgrace
himself as to say that his claim was unfounded ?—He
did not say so to me, because I have never known Mr.
Carew, or spoken to him in my life.
By the proceedings in Chancery, you have obtained,
by the answer of Mr. Carew, certain admissions ?—Yes.
Have the defendants admitted anything ?—No.
You say that the insolvent has claimed between
16,0001. and 17,0001. ; pray, Sir, do you include in that,
or I should rather say, do you not exclude the statue in
Chichester Cathedral ?—Certainly, Mr. Thesiger said
so in his speech.
You also exclude Haskisson's monument ?—Certainly.
Now the charge for the altar-piece was 3,000/., and
for Huskisson's monument 2,0001., which was reduced to
1,7601. by the subscription, and you refused to give him
credit for them, together with 3601. for a statue of Wil-
liam the Fourth ?—We did not refuse to allow anything
that he proved.
When you say that Mr. Carew's claim was a certain
sum, and the payments were a certain sum, do you in
such amount exclude from his claim these three articles
I have mentioned ?—Certainly. But if you give them,
the balance will still be against him.
Mr. CooKE—I will show that the balance will be in
his favour if you will allow me. And Sir, if you allow
me these three items I have spoken of, would not the
total of his claim be 21,872/. ?—From the commence-
ment, certainly, it would be, if we allowed all these
items. It would be more than that if you want the
figures accurately. It would be 22,807/. 18s. Id.
Well ; and, on the other side, you allege payment of
21,331/. 9s. sd. That would leave about 1,5001. due to
him ?—Somewhere thereabouts.
That is exclusive of time and attendance, &c. ?
Certainly, exclusive of the 10,0001. which he claimed for
compensation.
Now, in the course of your inquiries respecting these
other articles, had you any doubt that he bad executed
the altar-piece at Brighton ?—Not the least doubt of that.
Nobody ever attempted to deny it ?—No.
In the course of your inquiries of the Earl of Egre-
mont did you not ascertain, if he did not order it, w
else did ? We know, from papers in our possession, that
he did not order it.
But supposing that he did not, did not you find out
who did ?—No, we did not.
Will you venture to say, after all your anxious in-
quiries, if Mr. Carew ever received one shilling for those
articles from any human being ?—I made no inquiries
about it all.
•
Why did you not make any inquiries ?—I can't say.
But can't you tell me what you did in the matter ?—I
cannot tell you clearly what was said, but by the bill.
But what I want to know is, who ordered this altar-
piece?—l believe it is alleged in the bill that it was ordered
by some Roman Catholics.
You do not know who they were ?,—No, I do not.
Perhaps you thought that as he was a Roman Catholic
he did it for the honour and glory of his religion?—l
never thought about it ?
Now, then, about the Protestant work with respect to
Huskisson's monument in the Cathedral at Chichester;
do you know who the munificent persons were there ?
Certainly ; a Committee formed at Chichester ordered the
work.
Do you not know that that Committee intended the
work to be a tabular monument ?—Yes.
Do you know that that Committee raised by subscrip-
tion the sum of 350/. ?—I know no more than what Mr.
Freeland's evidence said upon the trial.
Do you not know that Sir Richard Westmacott valued
that statue at 2,0004 ?—That will appear by his evidence.
Do you not know that the marble would cost 3001., at
least ?—No, I do not know.
I)id you ever see that statue ?—I have never been in
Chichester since it was erected.
Did you ever learn from any member of this Commit-
tee —?--I never heard anything about it, except from
Mr. Freeland's evidence.
Well, now, with respect to the model of William the
Fourth ; did you refuse to include that simply because Mr.
Carew had no specific order from. Lord Egremont ?
Certainly not. We made inquiries concerning every-
thing
admitting of doubt, and, from those inquiries, we
ascertained that this model was made for a gentleman of
the name of l)'Egville, at Brighton, on speculation, and
we had evidence at the trial to prove this.
Do you reside in London ?—Yes.
Do you know what has become of some papers which
were handed by Lord Egremont to Mr. Carew ten days
before his death ?—I do not know of any such papers
being handed to him.
You never heard of it ?—Certainly not, except what
Mr. Carew has stated.
Did you hear that any papers were destroyed after
the Earl's death ?—I heard that some private documents
were destroyed, but I had better not answer that, as
there are other persons here who were present at the
Earl's death.

Re-examined by Mr. PLATT—You say that you offered
to pay the costs of the action, and you were about to state
the reason; what was it ?—After what has been said on
both sides, I do not see that it would be a breach of con-
fidence to state what Mr. Thesiger said to me, when I
met him in the Queen's Bench, when he asked why the
costs were not paid; he had heard there was some difficulty
about it. I told him the executors were perfectly ready
to pay them, but they did not want any further claim
made by Mr. Carew; if he would be satisfied with a ver-
dict being entered for the executors, that we would pay
the costs, together with the taxation. Mr. Thesiger said
if they consented to a nonsuit, it ought to be final; and
certainly they ought to have one or the other ; and he said
he would communicate the same thing to Mr. Carew's
solicitor.
Upon what ground did the Court direct a nonsuit to
the action of ejectment?—On the ground that the pro-
viso in the lease was insensible, it was a clerical error,
there was no verb in the sentence.—(A laugh.) I should
just say that this was no blunder of Colonel Wyndham's
present advisers.—(Laughter.)
Now, you said that Mr. Freeland gave evidence at the
trial?—He did.
He was produced as a witness for Mr. Carew P—He was.
I believe he said there was a subscription for the pur-
pose of paying for the monument by Mr. Carew ?
He did.
Mr. PLATT then read the following letter from the evi-
dence on the trial, dated March, 1831, and addressed to
Mr. Carew, which was as follows :—" A subscription,
amounting to 3501., having been raised for the purpose of
erecting a monument in the Cathedral to the memory of
the late Right Hon. William Huskisson, the Committee,
anxious to carry the object of the subscription into effect,
are desirous, on the recommendation of Lord Egremont,
to avail themselves of your talents on this occasion, and
lam deputed to communicate the same to you. You
will therefore be so good as to prepare suitable designs
as soon as engagements will permit, and forward the
same to Lord Egremont, it being the intention of the
Committee that the designs whiel shall be adopted shall
hare previously received the unqualified approbation of
his Lordship. I much regret the amount of the subscrip-
tion will not allow all the scope we could desire for the
exercise of those eminent talents which hare secured to
you his Lordship's patronage." This letter was signed
J. B. Freeland.
Mr. PLATT—Was a copy of that letter read at the
trial ?—lt was.
Did Mr. Freeland state that Lord Egremont had
subscribed 50/. ?-a-He did.
Sir C. Burrell was then called into the box, and exa-
mined by Mr. PLATT.
Sir CHARLES—I believe you are subpcenaed on behalf of
the insolvent?—Yes.
You are one of the executors to the late . Lord Egre-
ment ?—I am so appointed.
Do you remember the day his Lordship died ?—Yes.
Were you in the house at the time 2—No; I went over
immediately on hearing he was ill.
Did you arrive in time to see him alive ?—No ; I did
not.

Do you remember what time in the day it was ?—lt
was late. A second message arrived, and we were at
dinner at the time. The distance was about 15 miles.
When you arrived at Petworth did you see Colonel
Wyndham ?—Yes.
Where did you see him when you first arrived ?—I
can't exactly say ; but I remember that Mr. Murray
came to me and said we were appointed his Lordship's
executors.

Do you recollect anything Mr. Murray said to you ?
He said, as amen of business would say, that it was ad-
visable that I should seal up all the papers, &c., till the
will was opened.
Was that suggestion complied with 7—lt was.
Did you do so 7—We did, everything.
Do you know any particular place in which his Lord-
ship kept his papers ?—Yes, in closets in his room.
In the room in which he died ?—Yes, he usually kept
his papers in his bed-room. --
I believe that bed-room was on the ground floor, next
the library ?—lt was.
Now, his papers having been sealed up, when were
they opened ?—Not till the will was read.
How many clay's after the decease of his Lordship was
the will read ?—Mr. Murray will perhaps answer that
question. I do not recollect. It was on the day of the
funeral
Were the papers of his Lordship examined before the
will was read ?—No, after the will was read, when we
proceeded, on the recommendation of Mr. Murray, to
examine all the papers.
Did you find any other testamentary paper besides the
one you proved ?—No, not one ; nothing of the kind.
Did you find any bundle of papers in which Mr. Ca-
rew's name was mentioned ?—Not one.
Were they examined carefully and minutely ?—Yes.
Were any papers destroyed ?—Yes ; after we had ex-
amined the papers, those we thought worthless were
thrown into a basket.
What was the nature of those papers ?—Private cor-
respondence, &c., and letters to his Lordship when he
was Lord Lieutenant of the county, relative to the Ma-
gistracy. There were various private correspondence of
his Lordship, particularly with the late Lord Holland,
Lord William Gordon, Lord John Townshend, and per-
sons of that description.
Were there any destroyed in which the name of Mr.
Carew was mentioned ?—I am perfectly sure my good
will towards Mr. Carew at that time would have led me
to preserve any paper I had found containing his name.
Mr. Carew--I may say I believe so too, Sir Charles ;
I believe that.
Mr. PLATT—You were taken into his Lordship's con-
fidence ?—llwas honoured with his Lordship's confidence, j

Do you know that Mr. Carew was paid by his Lord-
ship ?—I do not think he had any other mode of liveli-
hood..
Do you remember the altar-piece at Brighton being the
subject of public conversation ?—I do.
Do you remember seeing Mr. Carew when the altar-
piece was the subject of conversation ?—I remember
having a conversation with him at his work; and I recol-
lect he told me. I do not know whether it was in an-
swer to a question or not ; but he said he was sorry to
say he was not remunerated as he had reason to expect.
Did he consider himself very ill-used by persons who
had set him on the work ?—He did write to that effect.
I asked him, to the best of my recollection, what steps
he intended to take, and he said he did not intend to take
any steps, as he supposed he should be obliged to
make them a present of it.
Did you learn from him in that conversation to whom
he alluded as having given him the order ?—I under-
stood from some Roman Catholics, who were desirous to
raise a subscription, and wanted Lord Western. to give
the ground, who was not a Roman Catholic, but I am
sure he never mentioned the Earl of Egremont.
You were frequently at Petworth ?—I was.
Did you see Mr. Carew there at work ?—I saw him
occasionally.
Have you seen him at the studio in Brighton ?—I
have seen him there, but never saw him at work.
Do you know of any other work but that of his profes-
sion that he was in the habit of doing for Lord Egre-
ment ?—I do not know. I have understood that he su-
perintended building a lodge at Brighton for his Lordship.

What was the size of that ?—lt was but a small one,
one-floor lodge.
Was there any more than one room in it ?—I should
suppose there was a bed-room and a sitting-room.
Are you at all aware if the services he rendered to
Lord Egremont would entitle him to demand 10,0001. at
his death ?—I am not aware of it.
Cross-examined by Mr. WOODROFFE—I am quite
aware you will not suppose we have originated any sus-
picion about these papers ?—Certainly not.
Perhaps you are aware, that between Colonel Wynd-
ham and his brother an angry quarrel took place in
Brighton. Will you tell us the occasion of that ?
Mr. PLATT objected.
Mr. WOODROF FE —I am not going to put it in evidence.
Sir Charles Burrell—l can answer, for I had nothing
to do with it.
Mr. WOODROFFE —After the death of the Earl of
.Egremont, did Mr. Carew state that papers had been
shown to him ten days before the Earl's death, in which
he had made provision for him ?—He never spoke'to me
of it. I heard it stated that he was to be provided for,
but that was but hearsay.
Did not Mr. Wyndham say it was very indiscreet to
destroy those papers ?—Never. I never had a conversa-
tion with him on the 'subject.
Have you not said that the money paid to Mr. Carew
was not from his Lordship's bounty, but for work that
Mr. Carew had done ?—No. I know that his Lordship's
bounty was unbounded. I recollect going into his library,
where Sir William Beechey was, and he said, with tears
in his eyes, that his Lordship had rendered him one of
the greatest services possible, for he had been in difficul-
ties, and his Lordship had written a cheque for 1,0001.,
and left it on the table for him.
Now with the knowledge of this fact have you not
reason to believe that some of these chequez produced
were given to Mr.Carew, independently of work done ?
I have no reason to think so. I should suppose they were
in payment.
What should you suppose would be a fair remuneration
for the work of Sir Wm. Beechey?—.l should say that
•he would have been satisfied with 2001.
Why do you think then that the Earl should be so
liberal to one gentleman who was not living with him,
and should not be so to one who was ?—For that reason
that Mr. Carew lived with him; that is the only con-
struction I can put upon it ?
I am aware of his Lordship's bounty amounting to
prodigality. Did he not usually on such occasions write
the cheques to bearer?—l have no means of knowing. I
have certainly received cheques from him to pay things
for him in London, but whether they were to bearer or
not I can't say.
Have you not heard that when he has made presents,
instead of putting the name of the party, he usually
wrote to bearer?—l do not know. I know that some
time previous to his death he destroyed a bundle of
papers, consisting of acknowledgments of loans, saying
that they should not be brought against the parties
when he was gone, and by this means he cancelled the debt.
When he made a gift, was he not in the habit of
writing the cheque payable to bearer, without the name ?
—I have no means of knowing that ; though liberal he
was very secret in his acts of charity. He acted on the
principle of never letting his right hand know what his
left hand did.
Now, Sir, when he paid money to Colonel Wyndham,
was he not in the habit of writing" To bearer ?"
I know nothing of Colonel Wyndham's transactions, ex-
cept so far as I tun trustee with him.
You have been kind enough to remark that if you had
found any papers bearing reference to Mr. Carew, your
feelings would have prompted you to their preservation?
—lt would have been my duty.
But independently of your duty ?—I certainly should
have had the inclination.
Now, for many years before the Earl of Egremont's
death, had not Mr. Carew been almost exclusively his
companion ?—I am not aware of it ; I never heard it.
Did he not frequently go out with him in his carriage?
—I cannot speak to that ; but I should think not, as his
Lordship generally went alone.
Don't you know that Mr. Carew was employed in
other ways besides in his profession by Lord Egremont ?
—No ; Ido not. I never heard.
But is it likely 7—lt is very possible.
Now, from 1831, up to Lord Egremont's death, was
any remuneration made to Mr. Carew for any services
that he rendered his Lordship, independently of works in
his possession ?—I know of nothing.
Re-examined by Mr. PLATT—Many persons were pre-
sent at the reading the will, as, his Lordship being rich,
they thought he might have left them something. I
had known his Lordship, previous to his death, for forty
years. He was always most punctual in• the payment of
his demands ; indeed he was desirous of paying money
as fast as he could.
Mr. Murray said, in answer to the question, the cost
of the action was 2,0001. on the part of the insolvent.
Mr. Charles Murray, the solicitor, to the executors,
corroborated the testimony of Sir Charles Burrell. He
had never heard Lord Egremont mention Mr. Carew's
name, nor had he seen any paper containing it.
Mrs.G.H.Greenfield stated that she was formerly in the
service of, the late Earl of Egremont, having been with
him between 31 and 32 years, and was his nurse for 14
years. Remembered seeing Mr. Carew come to his Lord-
ship in tears. ,Remembered a knock coming to the door, and
his Lordship said " Open the door, that's Carew." Witness
replied that Sir Matthew Tierney had ordered that no
one should see his Lordship. He said " Open the door,
for it is Carew." I opened the door, and Mr. Carew
came in. He appeared to be in distress. Witness left
the room, but returned before 'Mr. Carew left. When
he was gone Lord Egremont said, " He has been fool
enough to be bound for some 'one, and unless I give
him some money he will go to gaol." Mr. Carew was in
tears when he came out, and told the witness to get his
Lordship's writing-desk. Witness then described that his
Lordship wrote a cheque and gave it to insolvent, remarking
that if he went on in that way he would come to the
dogs. His Lordship had given witness, in the course of
her life, upwards of 10,0001. at different times. She had
attended him night and day, and never left him. She
was lady's-maid to Lady Munster, afterwards Mrs.
King, his Lordship's daughter.
Cross-examined by Mr. WOODROFFE— lES Lordship
always laid the money out in Stock. He never gave it
to witness. He never laid out for her less than 1,0001.
She never received wages. She was a complete slave to his
Lordship. She was with him night and day. Mr. Carew
could not say that.— (A laugh.) Did not know any other
servant his Lordship had given anything to but herself.
Could not say how it was his Lordship knew it was Mr.
Carew when he knocked at the door. Could not say if
he had sent for him express down from London. His
Lordship could not have written to him, or she should
have seen the letter. He had not been able to write for a
fortnight before. He said, rather hastily, "It is Carew;
let him in." Never heard his Lordship say he v ished
Mr. Carew to sell the house at Brighton, for he intended
to give him New Grove House. Never heard Lord
Egremont say to Mr. Carew, " I have been asking Lord
Munster to buy your house in Brighton for his family."
Recollects Mr. Carew bringing a newspaper to his Lord-
ship, but does not know whether it was relative to selling
his house. She gave it to his Lordship, but he said,
" Don't bring such rubbish to me." Never heard of Mr.
Carew being employed • in anything but his profession.
Does not know of his going with Lord Egremont to give
a certain person twenty-seven 1,0001. notes.
Re-examined by Mr. PLATT—Remembers his Lord-
ship's last directions to her, which were—" Now, Garland,
I have done for every body all I intend to do, and re-
member, Garland, I told you so." His Lordship was not
in a condition to write for several days before Mr. Carew
came. He came about 7 in the evening, and she said to his
Lordship, " My Lord, Mr. Carew has come back," and he
said " What is that to me." The members of the family,
since his Lordship's death, have subscribed, and pre.
sented her with a silver salver.

Mr. George Stephens deposed that he was a clerk in
the house of Messrs. Gosling. In the month of No-
vember, 1836, he had received the sum of 3341. to the
credit of Mr. Stephens.

Mr. Murray identified certain cheques paid to the
defendant, and signed by Lord Egrernont.
Mr. Owen deposed that in the year 1828 the firm in
which he was a clerk hadcashed for Mr. Carew, a cheque
for 1,0001, signed " Egremont."
Three letters from the insolvent were then read, from
which it appeared that he had been served with a writ
on the part of Mr. Stevens, for a debt of 2591., which
he had incurred by an accommodation to Mr. Simpson.
The insolvent had stated in his examination that no pro-
ceedings had been taken against him in consequence of
the debt in question.
A clerk of Mr. Stevens stated that that gentleman
was so ill with, gout that he could not attend the Court
that day.
Two letters were then put in evidence ; the one from
Colonel Wyndham to Mr. Banker, complaining of the
unreasonable nature of the demand made by Mr. Carew,
which rendered any compromise between them impossi-
ble, and the second from Air. Carew to Col. Wyndham, ex-
pressing regret that the Colonel had thought he had
pressed his claims improperly, and containing an assur-
ance of his determination to proceed with the utmost

fairness on the subject.
Other letters were also put in relating to the claims of
Mr. Carew.
Wyndham was then sworn
Major-General Henry
and examined by Mr. COOKE.--1 am the brother of Col.
Wyndham. I have known Mr. Carew for many years.
I have frequently seen him at Petworth. Mr. Carew had
appeared to be on an intimate foot-
been much employed by the late Earl of Egremont, with
whom he
ing. I remember having had Berne conversation