tr 31Ittro3Inlio.

The East India Company held a special Court on Monday, Si- Frede- rick Currie in the chair ; a meeting chiefly remarkable because it is the last of the famous old Company as a ruler of India. The business object of the meeting was to confirm the vote of 2000/. per annum to Sir John Lawrence—a step not taken without more fruitless opposition from Mr. Tones. Then the chairman caused the following document to be read to the meeting. Questions submitted to the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Sir Richard _Bethell, and Mr. Ingram, and their Answers thereto.

"Q. 1. Supposing that the Company, under the 13th section of the act of the 3d and 4th Wm. IV., cap. 86, should give notice for the redemption of its dividend, is Parliament bound to redeem the dividend at the rate therein mentioned out of the Imperial revenues without any reference to the sufficiency of the Indian revenues ?

"A. 1. We are of opinion that the 13th section of the 3d and 4th Wm. IV., cap. 85, constitutes a Parliamentary contract with the East India Com- pany ; and that should the East India Company demand the redemption of its dividend under that section, Parliament would be bound to make pro- vision for its redemption without reference to the sufficiency of the Indian revenues. "Q. 2. Assuming that the Company does not give the notice provided for in section 13 within one year from its being deprived of the possession and government of the British territories in India, does the Company lose all such claim to compel redemption of its dividend by Parliament out of the Imperial revenues, without any reference to the sufficiency of the In- dian revenues? " Q. 3. Assuming further, that the Company does not give the required notice within the year, will the Company entirely forfeit its right to de- mand redemption, whether out of the Imperial revenues or out of the reve- nues of India alone ? "A. 2 and 3. We are of opinion that if the Company does not, under see. 13 of the 3d and 4th Wm. IV., cap. 85, demand redemption of its divi- dend within one year from its being deprived of the possession and govern- meat of the territories of India, it will forfeit its right to demand redemp- tion of the dividend ; and the dividend will become irredeemable until 1874, and then will be redeemable only at the option of Parliament.

"Q. 4. Can the security fund be applied to the payment of dividend or to any other purpose, without the requisition of the Court of Directors of the Company, according to the 3d and. 4th Wm. IV., cap. 85, sec. 15? "A. 4., We are of opinion that under the conjoint effect of the 3a and 4th Wm. IV., cap. 85, sec. 15, and the 21st and 22d Vie. cap. 106, sec. 73, rh° security fund' can, upon requisition by the Court of Directors, be alr

plied to make good any deficiency in remittances for the payment of divi- dend, but that it cannot be applied to the payment of dividend without such

requisition. We also think that upon 'redemption' of the dividend, the, security fund' will be available, and may be applied to the purposes °I such redemption. But while the security fund ' is under twelve millions; there is not, in our opinion, any purpose other than the foregoing to widen any part of the fund can be applied. "Q. 5. Does the see. 4 of 21st and 22d Vie. cap. 106, which enacts that (a?.Air. 5. eeThten142s1 see. of the 21st and 22d Vic. cap. 106, which enacts that alI payments under that act .shall be made out of the revenues of India doe, does not, in our opinion, affect in any manner the question of re- demption. o ZS 6. In case of defalcation or loss of any description arising from the misconduct or mismanagement of the Company's agents in the payment of dividend or otherwise, out of what funds must such defalcation or loss be made god; and in case of lawsuits or other proceedings against the Company arising out of such occurrences, or from any other cause relating to the pay- mennt of the dividend on, or transfer of, the capital stock, would the ex- pe ses thereby incurred fall within the meaning of the words contained in ihe72d see. of the act of the 21st and 22d Vie., cap. 106, viz., 'expenses of and incident to the .payment to the proprietors of the capital stock of the said Company of their respective shares of the dividend on such stock, and

• of keeping the books of the said Company for transfers and otherwise in re- lation to such stock ? '

"A. 6. If the defalcation or loss referred to in this question be a defalca- tion or loss as to the moneys provided out of the revenues of the Indian territories for the payment of the dividend mentioned in sec. 11 of 3d and 4th Wm. 1V., cap. 85, and handed over to the Company for that purpose, we are of opinion that such loss must fall upon, and be borne by, the Com- pany. The sum which, by that section, is charged upon the Indian reve- nues, is discharged by payment to the Company or its authorized agent. If, on the other hand, the question supposes a loss to arise by a servant of the Company permitting or making on irregular or unauthorized transfer of stock, we think that a loss of this kind also must fall upon the Company. The Company are charged with the duty of keeping books and of permitting no transfer except in the manner required by the charter of William III. In the event of liability attaching itself to the Company for the improper act of its servant, as for example, for a transfer of stock under a forged power of attorney, a further question would arise, how is such liability to be made good ? The Attorney-General and Sir Richard Bethell are of opinion that the dividend and redemption money being appropriated by statute there would be no general property of the Company to answer any such liability, which would therefore be only nominal. The Solicitor-General and Mr. Wigram consider that the 10/. 10s. per cent, on six millions, and also the redemption money of twelve millions, would, when paid over to the Com- pany out of the revenues of India, and before division among the members of the Company, be assets of the Company, and be liable to satisfy any de- mands to which the Company may remain subject. With regard to costs of law proceedings in which the Company may be involved, as mentioned in this sixth question, we are of opinion that if the proceedings arise out of acts of misfeasauce or neglect on the part of servants of the Company, the costs must be borne by the Company. On the other hand, if proceedings are taken against the Company as stakeholders merely, in order to deter- mine the devolution of the title to stock, or questions of a similar nature, we think that costs of such proceedings, not otherwise made good to the i Company, would be expenses n relation to the stock, within the meaning of sec. 72 of the new act.

"Q. 7.—With reference to the language of the 17th sec. of the Act 3d and 4th Wm. IV. cap. 85, will the East India Company be entitled to its dividend out of all remittances made by the Government of India to the Secretary of State in Council in preference to all other charges including guaranteed interest on railway shares, pensions, salaries, purchase of stores, and the expenses of all establishments in this country maintained for the government of India ?

"A. 7.—We are of opinion that the East India Company will, under the 17th see of 3d and 4th Wm. IV. cap. 85, continue to be entitled to its dividend out of all revenues of the East Indian territories remitted to Great • Britain, in preference to all other charges payable thereout in Great Bri- tain, including the particular charges specified in question 7, assuming that all of those charges are charges payable in Great Britain. "Q. 8.—Supposing the Company to be repaid its capital stock, either on its own demand or by act of the Government, would it be competent to the Company to use such capital for the purpose of establishing commercial 'enterprise of any sort; and if so, would such enterprise be limited to trade within the lhuits of the Company's charter, or might it include other undertakings ?

,s1 pa ents under that Act shall be made out of the revenues of India ' any manner the question of redemption?

"Q. 9.—Assuming the capital to be repaid, could an individual pro- .prietordemand payment of his share of such capital, without a resolution of the Company granting it to him ? "A. 8 and 9.—Looking to the provisions of the 3d and 4th Wm. IV. .cap. 85, taken in connexion with the former acts on the same subject, and .particularly the 3341 Geo. III. cap. 52, sec. 74, and the 53d Geo. III. cap. 155, sec. 4, we are of opinion that the right of the East India Company to trade was suspended only while the territorial government was confided to them and that upon the termination of their territorial government the

right of Company to trade revives. This right to trade would, how- ever, be confined to enterprises of the nature specified in the charters and statutes of the company ; and, moreover, we are of opinion that from the lapse of time and the change of circumstances, it would not be found that, practically, trade could be carried on with advantage under the pre- sent constitution of the company. With regard to the application of the sum of twelve millions to be provided by Parliament for the redemption of the dividend, the Attorney-General and Sir Richard Bethell are opinion that this sum, when paid, could not be dealt with in any other manner by the Company than by the payment to each proprietor of the amount of his share of the capital stock, and that the question—whether, under the cir- cumstances supposed, the Company should come to any formal resolution as to the appropriation of the money—is immaterial, inasmuch as no resolu- tion of the Company can affect the right of the proprietors of stock to their respective shares of the twelve millions. The Solicitor-General and Mr. Wigram consider that this Rini of twelve millions is to be paid by Parlia- ment to the Company, and not, to the individual proprietors of the Com- Siany, and that when so paid it would represent and would be the capital stock of the Company, and acccrdingly be subject to all liabilities of the Company. They also think that under thew circumstances the utmost right of a proprietor would be to insist that if the trade of the Company was not revived these liabilities (if any) should be ascertained and dis- charged and the surplus capital divided among the proprietors according to their respective interests. With regard to the status of the Company we conceive nothing more can be usefully said than that it continues to exist as a body corporate, governed by the charter of Win. III. and the statutes by winch that charter has been modified. The most important alteration made in that charter is the reduction, by the recent statute, of the number of Di- rectors to six.

" Angust 24, 1858."

On the motion of Mr. Crawshay, this devilment was ordered to be printed. There was some discussion on the future of the Company ; and it was admitted that no scheme of government could be agreed upon. TIle anomaly of the same persons being directors of the Company and members of Council was pointed out and commented on, and the general feeling was that the duties of the two posts arc incompatible. The Com- mittee of Proprietors was reappointed for the purpose of devising mea- sures for the future management of the Company. The remainder of the business consisted in voting thanks to the Chairman, Deputy-Chair- man, and Directors, and finally to all the servants of the Company, European and native. Thus ended the political existence of the greatest corporation of modern days.

The Court of Directors held their last meeting on the let September, and passed a vote of thanks to the members of the home establishment.

A deputation of gentlemen interested in the prosperity of Australia, waited upon Sir Edward Lyttou on Monday to present a memorial pray- ing for a double line of communication with Australia—by Panama and by Suez, with a preference for Panama. Sir Edward said that he agreed with the memorialists "very much so indeed." "A great number of reasons have lately arisen to render that double route necessary, and I shall do what I can to promote it."

Mr. Townsend has resigned his seat for Greenwich, and goes upon the stage for the purpose of raising money to pay his debts. He has pre- viously performed for the benefit of charitable institutions.

The Greenwich Board of Works, at a meeting held on Wednesday, adopted a resolution declaring that any proposition for an outfall at Greenwich, and for deodorizing the sewage of the southern side of the Metropolis in or near the Greenwich marshes, is highly objectionable, and fraught with danger to the health of the inhabitants of this populous district. The Board protests against any such plan or project.

Some singular revelations were made on Saturday anti Monday at the Guildhall Police Court respecting the trade of picture-dealing. William Thomas Barnes the son, and Lucy Barnes, the wife of Mr. Barnes, picture- dealer and auctioneer of St. Paul's Churchyard, were charged with con- spiring to defraud Mr. Robert Herrics Peter, Hyde Park Square, of sums to the amouut of upwards of 2000/. ineluding a bill of exchange for 10001. Pro- ceedings were about to be taken for recovering the 1000/. when these charges were made. Mr. Peter said that in May last he bought two pietures of Mr. Barnes for 70/. Sonic time after Mrs. Barnes called upon him and in the course of conversation stated that a cousin of the Duke of Newcastle had died leaving a collection of pictures, that his widow, being in distressed circumstances, desired to sell them privately, and that AI is. Barnes had been requested to sell them to the best advantage. She did not ask Mr. Peter to buy. About a week afterwards young Barnes arrived with a van load of pictures—" some of the very fine collection belonging to the lady that my mother inentioned." One picture, lie said, was a " Rosa Bonlicur," it cost 500/. ; another a "Turner," a third a " Rubens," and BO on. Peter bought the pictures; Barnes brought him more, and they too were pur- chased; Peter giving cheques. He bought them believing them to be originals. He paid in cheques from 1000/. to 1200/. lie gave a bill of 1000/. for the " Rosa Bonlieur," the "'Junior," and six others. Then the Barnes's sent him presents—a stick, two settees, a cup inscribed "Presented to Robert Herries Peter, Esq., by a dear and beloved friend." Upon the lid was a ducal coronet surmounted by a ram's head. There is also an inscription upon the lid of "Newton Races, 18:5.5—the gift of the Lord of the Manor," showing that this handsome piece of plate, which was engraved expressly for Mr. Peter, was an ordinary race cup. Mr. Peter was sub- jected to a severe cross-examination, but beyond showing that he was not a very clear-headed nian, the examination did not shake his story. Thomas Cooper, porter to the Duke of Newcastle, said that no member of the Duke's family had recently left a widow with a large collection of pic- tures. Mr. Pusey of the Bank of England proved the payment of the cheques. Mr. Manson, of the firm of Christie and 'Manson, proved that he sold the so-called "Rosa 13onheur " to Mr. Barnes for 17/ 6s. 6d. on the 12th June last. "It is not a Rosa Benheue—merely a copy "—another picture described as a " Itubens" was sold for ten guineas. He did not think it was a Rubens. " I never warrant pictures as genuine originals unless they are expressly described as such in the catalogue. The condi- tions of sale are that every purchaser must take the pictures upon his own judgment." The case was adjourned at this stage—the prisoners. entering into recog- nizances to appear on remand.

There was a very extraordinary scene in the Worship Street Police Court on Tuesday. Sarah Macdonald was charged with obtainiug money upon very questionable pretences. Mrs. Gable said that she had gone to the woman "who lays out the cards and is very clever with them," because some one had put a spell upon her. The effects of the spell showed them- selves in cutting and darting pains. She went to a medical man and was the better for his treatment, but becoming worse she went to Macdonald. The woman persuaded her to have ten powders at sixpence each, and burned them then and there. Mr. D'Eyncourt—" Then, she did not give them to you to take home " ? Mrs. Gable—" Oh, no, of course not. She put them into the fire before my face, and they all crackled, blazed, burned, and bounced." Mr. D'Eyncourt—" What object did she say they were intended to effect" ? Mrs. Gable—" Oh, she said they would torment the person who was injuring me." Mr. Safford, the clerk—" And did you feel any better from the powders being administered in that way " ? Mrs. Gable- " Oh, yes, I did feel better, but, mind, I don't believe that it lies so much in the powders as in the words she uses. I think its what she says when she burns them that does you good," Mr. D'Eyncourt—" Indee:d then what were the words she said" ? Mrs. Gable—" Oh, I don't know ; she took care that I should not hear those, or of course I should be as wise as herself. She did not even mutter them." Mr. Safford—" Then there was no incantation " ? Mrs. Gable—" Why, no." She grew worse. " I only felt better the first time I went. The fact is, that I have a relative who is coming into a large property, and she wants to get rid of me ; so she goes So Mrs. Macdonald and has powders the same as I do, and of course they torment me whenever Mrs. Macdonald burns them for her. She know's that's true, too, for when I went another time she told Inc that the knowledge got made her so ill that she had been obliged to leave her husband's side in the middle of the night, and burn a powder to get rid of the torments that she herself suffered from it." Miss Gable told a similar tale. She also suffered from spells. Macdonald said a "dark woman" was doing the Gables an injury ; a dark woman who "corresponded exactly with the relation we suspected." Mr. D'Eyncourt—" Are there many per- sons in Bethnal Green who believe in the prisoner's powers ?" Macdonald —" They believe that I can bewitch the dead, but 1 can't." The powders were only salt. Mr. D'Eyncourt.—" Well, I am truly surprised that a mother and daughter, who are not only respectable, but in other respects

reasonable people, shoe Id be so very foolish." Mrs. Gable—"Yes, I was indeed foolish to part with my money before she made the powders do me any

good. I can't get any sleep." Mr. D'Eyncourt—" How such simple no- tions can be entertained, I cannot possibly conceive. There is no doubt, however, that the prisoner has been reaping a rich harvest from this kind of weakness, which I must put a stop to; and, though I shall now remand her,

if upon inquiry what I strongly suspect should prove to be the fact, I shall seed her to the House of Correction."