Star.
London, England, 1825-10-01 00:00:00

QTA INS of RED PORT WINE, Tea, Fruit, Mildew,
and every Vegetable Mauer, are entirely removed from
'fABLE LINEN, Cottons, Musiin4, T.Aces, and other articles of
Dress, by HUDSON'S CIIENIICA I. BLit:A-CHING LIQUID:
it also removes the-above stains from Ladies'llU I 7 F Dresses, without
injuring the Buff colour, and restores all kind of discoloured Linen
to its original whiteness, without injury to th.• texture of the ckth.
Prepared and Sold by W. B. Hudson, Chemist, 27, HaymArket,
London : Sold also by most Perfumers, Druggists, and Medicine
Venders, throughout the United Kingdom, in bottles at 6s. 3s. and
Its. each.

N.B.—Mr. W. B. Hudson has no concern whatever with the
articles sold under the came of Hudson's Botanic Tooth Powder
and Tincturv.

CASE OF THE ALllloltAii.

The seizure of this vessel at Sydney, New South
Wales, by the Of of his Misjesty's ship., SLANEY,
for an alleged infraction t;f the East India Company's
charter, has become a subject of great interest with
the commercial world generally, who look with much
solicitude *for the decision of this question, which has
been referred to the Prize Courts. of Calcutta. We
have been desired, therefore, to make public the fol-
lowing statement of the occurrence, as the most accu-
rate wbich has yet appeared, and which is taken from
the Sydney Gazelle of the 24th of February :
'l4 Since the arrival of the Alroorah, the public atten•
tion has been seriously arrested. This vessel, with a
considerable quantity of dollars on board, and all her
fine and valuable cargo, has been seized by Captain
Mitchell, of his Majesty's ship Slaney. Some reports
go to estimate the value of the ship atel cargo at be-
tween 50.0004 vend 40,d001..--a tolerable prize in time
of peace, coold the notion for a motnent.be entertained,
'that sae it-seizure k warranted by say Acs of Paha-
.mont at prevent extant. The capturc is tiy,to ha,at
iccutred adder a hreacb of the Navtatiou Law *hi&
is alleged to originate` hi lin Znftingementnri .the East,
India Company's charter. - We do not pretend to be
acrpraieted with mach of the science of law,- bat as far
as common sense.can carry us, perhaps we may be al-
lowed to ezpress on.sratiments in common with the
learned fraterititY. That the East India Company have
the sole and exeltisive right of trading and using the
business of merchandise in, to, and from the dominions
of the Emperor Of China, and the whole, tole, and ex-
clusive right of trading in tea, in, to, and from all
islands, parts, and places between the Cape of Good
Dope and the Straits of Magellan, /cc.' is a fact with
which we are necessarily acquainted; but that the East
India Company,. or even a British man of war, has any
right to interfere in the trade of a foreign port, is quite
novel doctrine. 11 Java is China, or China is Java,
then the East India Company might in truth be said to
have some claim to the exclusive trade in tea; but
till such is proved actually to be the fact, and that Java
is in any way connected with, or subject to, the Com-
pany's territories, we must pronounce the seizure of the
Almorah by the Slaney to be an impolitic, arbitrary,
and illegal act. Whilst the second section of the char-
ter gives the Company the exclusive trade with China,
the eighth section runs as follows :•••4 It shall not be
lawful for any person, save. only the United Company,
or such as shall obtain their special leave and license
in writing, or a special leave and license in writing
under their authority, for that purpose, 'to ship,
carry, or put on board any ship in the East In-
dies; or other parts within the limits aforesaid, or
to import into the said United Kingdom (Great Bri-
tain) from any port or place whatever, any te.:—We
should be glad to find any one that can inform us whe-
ther the Almorah, in this instance, has imported tea
into the United Kingdom ? We are not now descanting
upon the expAiency or inexpediency of the policy that
has manifested itself in the importation of this conglo-
merated cargo front a foreign port, reserving such dis-
cussion to a future paper ; but it is the legality of a
seizure made by a British man-of-war, in a British port,
of a British merchant ship, chartered expressly for the
British Government, by a British Governor, that we are
imperiously called upon to dispute. If the act or the
will of the Captain of a man-of-war is to be tip posed at
any and every opportunity to the act and will of the
Governor of the c ;untry in which his vessel may per-
chance be lying, then it would be equally as reasonable
in the Commander of the King's ship to come on shore,
with:his crew and a file of marines, and become at once
invested with the executive authority. The Governor-in-
Chief of this colony, who is Vice-Admiral of the port,
and whose title, either on shore or afloat, within the
harbour, is far superior to that of the Captain of any
man-of-war, happened to be impelled, from what were
considered motives of necessity, to charter a vessel with
the view of proceeding on to the nearest port, and thus
bring down a timely supply of necessaries. To facili-
tate this object, as well as to render it more efficient, a
Deputy Assistant Commissary-General is directed to
proceed as supercargo. The vessel being thus chartetesl
by the Government, and put in possession of a King's,
officer, must be held by every thinking man to be bona
fide equal to any ship bearing the leave or license' of '
The East India Company ? whom does she receive

7

okm. 4.4i#04166