The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-18 00:00:00

LLOYD'S SHIPPING.

LONDON, DEC. 17.—Wind this day N.W., light breeze
and hazy.
DEAL,DEc. 16.—WindN.N.W.—Arrd. Thomas and Henry.
Churchward, Calcutta; :Clara,: Crow, Bombay; Isabella,
Gale, Demerata ; Apprentice, New York; Elizabeth, Brown,
Quebec. Arrd. from the River, John Gillham, Canning,
Bombay ; Pharsalia, :Winsor, New Orleans ; American,
Sampson, New York."-Arrd. from the River and sailed,
Gleaner, Smith, Boston.
Cowie, DEC. 16.—S1d. Fatel Basack, Aden and Bombay.
So UTHAMPTON, DEC. 16.—S1d. Recorder, Cape of Good Hope.
LIVERPOOL, DEC. 16.—Arrd. Britannia steamer, Boston,
left 2d instant, and Halifax, on the 4th.
AYR, DEC. 15.—Arrd. Dundonald, St. John's, New
Brunswick.

CLYDE, DEC. 14.—Arrd. Southampton, Montreal. 15th,
Superior, Sierra Leone ; Hamlet, Fergus, St. Thomas.
DEAL, DEC. 16. —The Ann, Phillipps, of and from Sunder.
land to Rouen, was abandoned off Fairlight yesterday, and
soon after foundered; crew saved. The Neriad, Bartlett,
from Middleborough to Exeter, struck on the Bunt Head this
morning, and assisted into deep water by a boat's crew.
PETERHEAD, DEC. 13.—The Imperial, of Spey, in putting
back, 10th instant, struck on the rocks near the entrance,
and received considerable damage.
ORR PORTSMOUTH, DEC. 16.—Plantagenet, Calcutta.
BRISTOL, DEC. 16.—Arrd. Janet, Quebec.
GLOUCESTER, DEC. 15.—Arrd. Mexican, New York.

LIVERPOOL, DEc. 16.—Wind N.W , fresh.—Arrd. Lucinda,
Scollay, Bombay ; Dochfour, Wakeman, New York. Off
port, Laurina, Paragon, and Lima.
The Belle, of Drogheda, for Preston, was driven on the
Ilorsebank, near Southport, yesterday afternoon, and it is
feared will become a total wreck—crew saved.

A large ship was seen on shore on Carysfort Reef, 19th
November, with wreckers along side.
DUNBAR, DEC. 15.—The Princess of Findhorn was dis-
masted, 11th inst., off the Redhead, and subsequently aban-
doned. Crew, except one man, saved by the Kingston, from
London to Findhorn.

SHIELDS, DEC. 16.—The Wilhelmina, Meyer, of and for
Memel, from Hartlepool, foundered, 11th Met.. in the North
Seas.

EAST INDIA HOUSE.
A Quarterly General Court of the Directors and Pro-
prietors of the East India Company was held yesterday
at Leadenhall-street at 12 o'clock, for the purpose of
transacting business.
Mr. PETER GORDON, who, it will be remembered, has
at several times interrupted the proceedings, and on one
occasion has appeared before the Lord Mayor is his ju-
dicial eapacity, attempted to occupy the chair, but
was repulsed by officers of the Court, who, contrary
to custom, were stationed at the doors leading to the
inner circle appropriated to Directors. The Hon. Pro-
_ prietor failing in his first object then got up, and in a
long speech " enlightened " those present on the history
of the Company, and other particular characteristics of
the successive governors. When Sir Henry Willock,
the Governor, Mr. Hogg, M.P., Deputy-Gover-
nor, accompanied by many of the Directors,
entered, Mr. Gordon was ordered to be silent,
but the Hon. Proprietor not paying attention to the
mandate, the question whether he should be turned out
was regularly put to the Court and carried, when an
officer took the Hon. Proprietor in his arms and carried
him out, reading as be went the speech he had intended
to perpetrate upon the audience.
The proceedings were then formally commenced by
the Clerk reading the minutes of last Court.
IDOLATARY IN INDIA.

Mr. POYNDER then rose to give notice of the following
motion--
" That adverting to the change of the Lord Bishop
of Calcutta, on his recent departure from Bengal,
and since reprinted in England, and also to the pointed
statements of the Rev. James Peggs, late a Missionary
in Orissa, it be referred to the Hon. Court of Directors
to consider whether the time is not arrived when such
ri!es and usages as contradict the law of nature, and
overthrow the first principles of our common humanity'
may not be terminated consistently with the ameliora-
tion of the natives, and the security of our Indian empire."
THE RAJA OF SATTARA.
The GOVERNOR then called upon Mr. George Thomp-
son to proceed with his motion.
Mr. THOMPSON, before entering upon the business of
the day, had to complain of the want of accommodation
given to the proprietors. He should, in the course of
his address, require to refer to several voluminous re-
ports—(the Hon. Proprietor pointed to about half-a-
dozen quarto volumes),—and without the aid of a stand
of some kind it would be next to impossible for him to
do so.
The Governor, Sir HENRY WlLLocir, ordered a table
to be brought for the accommodation of the Hon. Pro-
prietor.
Mr. GEonGE THOMPSON said that while the table was
b• ing brought, he would ask a question—one of a most
important character as respected the rights of Proprietors.
He wished to know whether the fifth section of the bye-
laws, which ordered that notices of motion should for
three days previous to the meeting of the Court be
inserted in two or more of the London papers, bad in this
case been complied with?
Sir HENRY WILLOCH said that he was not aware that
the section had not been literally complied with, but at
all events the Proprietors knew the purport of the mo-
tion, and that he considered was sufficient for the pur-
poses of the Hun. Proprietor. The Court had taken the
opinion of the standing counsel upon the notice of motion
irself, snd his advice was decidedly against its being
printed. He should, however, order the opinion to be
read to the Court.

The legal opinion was read by the clerk, and it con-
firmed the Governor's statement as to the libellous cha-
racter of the motion. Instances were cited, and, among
others, that of Stockdale's, to show that the House of
Commons was not exempted from the statute.

Mr. G. 11103IPSON said that, after hearing the opinion
of the Learned Counsel, he should say nothing further
on that point; but he was so unconvinced by that opinion,
that he should perhaps consult higher legal authority.
The Hon. Proprietor then proceeded to review the con-
duct of the East India Company, in relation to the Raja
of Sattara at great lcngth, but there being no seconder
for any of the resolutions but the last, the Chairman
declared the meeting to be adjourned, the resolutions
having been negatived unanimously. The Court then
adjourned.

MONEY MARKET and CITY NEWS
CITY, TUESDAY EVENING.

TIMES.—The opinion that the decrease of bullion in
the Bank of England may in great measure be attri-
buted to a recent absorption by the Scotch and Irish
banks, seems to be considered the true one. This, how-
ever, is totally unconnected with the subject of railway
deposits. The Act affecting the Scotch and Irish
bankers came into operation at the beginning of this
month, and the notes which they have in circulation are
more in number than is allowed by its provisions, unless
the exc ss can be represented by a corresponding
amount of bullion. Under these circumstances they
have, it seems, collected together as much bullion as
possible to keep up their circulation at the existing
amount. As for the notion that gold has flowed out of
the country, that is entirely unfounded. There has, on
the contrary, been an uninterrupted influx for some time.
Some of the companies formed to bid for railway
lines in France have addressed circulars to their sub-
scribers, in which they claim the payment of Is.
on each share, in consequence of the impossibility
of making any profitable employment of the deposits
for the short period during which they have held them.
This proposition seems to have been received with much
indignation by parties who were led in the first instance
to b lievo that, if unsuccessful in obtaining the line
contended for, the sums deposited would be repaid
without any deduction whatever. Though the sum
seems a small one, it is not the less a breach of the
original engagement entered into when those projects
were first announced in London; and it is generally under-
stood that, besides the use of the money, some profit
was made by the rate of exchange at which it was re
mitted. Only the inferior companies, however, it is
probable, will resort to this course; and the parties con-
cerned ought not, it is evident, to consent to any such
deduction. The shares in all the French companies
being very numerous, in consequence of the small amount
of each share, even a charge of ls. would produce a very
considerable sum.

The annexed remarks are from a correspondent whose
direct connexion with railways gives him the best means
of information :

" You have frequently asked where are the 10 per
cwt. deposits on the new railway schemes to come from?
But it appears from a careful analysis of all the new
railway schemes quoted in the Liverpool market, that
out of 135 only 43 have paid the 10 per cent., even ac-
cording to their own statement ; and several of these, it
is notorious, have not got the deposit paid on near all
their shares ; and 48 have only paid 5 per cent., or
thereabouts. The standing orders of the House of Lords
require, without exception, that 10 per cent. shall be paid,
subscribed for, and deposited in the bank on every new
railway, before the Bill is introduced into their
House. The question arises, will this 10 per cent.
ever be paid ? The probability seems to be it will
not ; for, referring to the same list, you will see many
of these new lines are now at a discount, and others at
such a trifling premium that a call of 5 per cent.
would soon send them to a discount ; added to which, it
is not only the payment of the call that is required,
but a subscription deed with 10 per cent. entered by
the party subscribing as paid up, must be obtained.
Now, who will sign such a deed ? The original sub
scribers will mostly have sold their shares, and they
will be too glad to get quit of all further liability, and
refuse to do anything. And the purchasers, who 9 are
mow the holders of th:scrip, will they be willing to pay
down an extra 5 per cent., and enter into a deed to pay
all future calls ? They will see that it is not only the
payment of this extra 5 per cent. now, which they can
most likely ill afford to PRY, but it is also paving the
way for their having heavy calls made upon them after
tthe Act is passed. IVill they not have the prudence at
wee to see that the first loss is the least, and refuse to
pay any more money, or en ter into fresh liabilities, but have
the concern wound up, the expenses paid, andtheba-
lance returned to them, having learnt by experience
that they have risked too much already, and that it will
be better to get a little back, or even lose all they have
paid, sooner than send good money to look after bad ?"
A railway company, which seems to find some diffi-
elltitY in getting in its deposits, has resorted to an ex-
pedit2nt not new in principle, but stronger, according to
appeavance, than any that has been tried yet. A circular
is sent to the applicants for shares, not simply telling
them that they are liable, bat calling on them to pay a
portion of their deposits on a certain fixed day, or to
give the name of a solicitor who will appear for them
in Chancery. This looks formidable, and the threat has
created no little alarm among those who heedlessly be-
came applicants.

a0f...‘446
Otliiiiiii Aliticqqcurred in the office of Landing
tilytir. *torts -at Portsmouth, by the death of Mr.
llins, whci h that *face for a considerable period, and it
is- expected that it will be alled by the promotion of Mr. P.
Bamber, t,`ce senior officef of the Landing Department at that
port, and wf..10, from his haying acted in that capacity during
the lengthen. `4 Mom- pA Mr. Collins, is considered qualified
for the office a 11,140 to.
4v,

S

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, Dec. 17.

IN RE BEESON.
This was a petition on the part of Charles Vere Webb
Bedson, and Thomas Rushton, solicitors, praying to be
at liberty to except to the certificate of the taxation of
costs, made by direction of an order from the Court, of
the,2lst day of February last, having reference to cer-
tain proceedings undertaken in behalf of John M'Arthur
Campbell, and Jane, his wife, to whom they had been
solicitors, and also praying that the said certificate might
be varied as should seem meet to the Court.

His LORDSHIP delivered judgment, stating that he
considered the petitioners were entitled to have the
prayer of their petition granted.

EARL NELSON V. LORD BRIDPORT.

Mr. HoDcsoN resumed his arguments on the part of
the defendant, contending at great legth that the nature
of a feud must be regulated by the terms of the grant'
that Horatio Lord Nelson's power of alienation was li-
mited, and that the law of the civil code applicable to
the case was that of "delegatus non potent delegart."
The arguments of the Learned Counsel occupied the
greater part of the day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 17.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN and a

Common Jury.)
GAMBLING DEBT.-EDWARDS V. MIICKLOW.
This was an action taken by the assignees of a bank-
rupt named Hunt, who at one time kept a billiard-table
and a gaming-house, to recover from the defendant, who
was a man of fortune, given to billiard playing, and much
engaged in horse-racing, the sum of 1601., which he had
lost to Hunt at play. It appeared that the defendant
played with Hunt at billiards, on the 2d of May, 1845,
at his (Hunt's) table, Cork-street, Burlington-gardens.
for six or seven hours, and during that time lost 160/. to
Hunt, which, however, he did not press defendant for,
as he expected to get some information from him (de-
fendant) relative to some matters connected with horse-
racing, in which he (Hunt) was also engaged. Having
become bankrupt, his assignees now sought to recover
the debt.

Mr. Runt was examined, and having deposed as to
the facts, no other witness was called, and the jury found
for the plaintiff 1601, the full amount of the debt.

NORTON V. DOWLING.

In this case it appeared that defendant accepted a bill
for the plaintiff, which he now refused to pay, on the
ground that he was not of age at the time of accepting
the bill.

Two witnesses having been examined to prove the
time of the birth of the defendant, the jury found that
the defendant was not of age.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec.l7.

(Sittings at Nisi Priup, in London, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and Si. Common Jury.)
SMITH V. JOHNSON.

This was an action on the case brought to recover the
value of a quantity of property, to which the defendant
had pleaded denying his liability.
Mr. Martin, with whom was Mr. Pearson, appeared
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Jervis and Mr. Hugh Hill for
the defence.

The plaintiff was a ropemaker at Bermondsey, the de-
fendant the assignee of a person named Sterrey, who
formerly carried on business as a sailmaker at the same
place, and the action was brought to recover the value of
a quantity of property seized by the defendant under the
fiat. In 1838, Sterrey being in want of money, nego-
tiated a loan with the plaintiff for 4381., and gave him a
bill of exchange for the amount. Sterrey paid the
plaintiff interest upon this sum, and continued to
do so down to the spring, when Sterrey's affairs becom-
ing embarrassed, he gave the plaintiff a bill of sale of his
household goods, stock in trade, and furniture, as an
additional security for the loan of 4384 Subsequently
a fiat in bankruptcy was sued out against Sterrey, and
all his household goods and stock in trade were seised
and sold under it.

Evidence was called with the view of substantiating
the case, but it failed to prove that the bill of sale was
given prior to the committal of the act of bankruptcy,
and the plaintiff was nonsuited.